MARTINHUS DAVID RAS: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ras had just concluded his evidence in chief, is there anything further Mr Jansen that Mr Ras wishes to say?

MR JANSEN: No Mr Chairman, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, do you have any questions you would like to put to the witness?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Mr Ras, you have heard Mr De Kock's evidence regarding the instruction which he gave you to shoot the woman who fell out of the back of the vehicle, did you hear that, is that correct?

MR RAS: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And he admits that he gave you the instruction, but he denies that he used the wording that you say that he used. Is it possible that you may have made an error regarding that, you may not be recalling it correctly?

MR RAS: Chairperson, that is difficult, that is how I remember it, that is how I wrote it down. I must concede that those were not the usual words that I heard Mr De Kock use under any other circumstances. Under these circumstances, from my recollection of what was said, I must concede that it is possible that somebody else may have used the specific word, but I recalled that he said it to me and that is why I gave the version according to that.

MR HATTINGH: In your statement you said if I recall correctly that this woman had bullet wounds in the chest and I think in the back as well, is that correct?

MR RAS: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, sorry my microphone doesn't seem to be going off. Mr Lamey has indicated that he doesn't have any questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Ras, let's just deal with some general matters first before we go to the specific incident. You were appointed a policeman to among other things, uphold the law and investigate crime?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: But at some stage of your career and the careers of the people with whom you were associated, you actually became a criminal?

MR RAS: Mr Chairperson, in today's perspective yes, but in the perspective of the past I received recommendations for good work which directly involved the elimination and arrest of ANC members as well as PAC members who were infiltrating the country, who entered the country to commit acts of terrorism.

MR MOERANE: Even according to the law that existed at the time, you were a criminal, you committed murders, not so?

MR RAS: Chairperson, I will repeat, it was murder, however it was in the interest of the country.

MR MOERANE: Well, I didn't ask you that, can you please confine yourself at the moment, to my question. You broke the law, you committed murder?

MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson. If we have to approach it like that, that some of us did not commit criminal acts or crimes in order to keep the country in control, if we did not do that, this process which is taking place here today, would not be necessary because this process is there in order to examine the fairness of the criminal acts of that time.

MR MOERANE: You corrupted the criminal justice system, not so?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Firstly by making deliberately false statements, sworn statements?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Secondly by telling lies to the Prosecutor in particular, the Prosecutor and Prosecutors who led evidence at the Piet Retief inquest, the first one?

MR RAS: That is correct, yes.

MR MOERANE: You also committed perjury by giving false evidence at that inquest?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: In fact that was large scale perjury because it involved all of you, members of the Police Force who were involved in that incident and gave evidence?

MR RAS: That is correct, yes.

MR MOERANE: You also covered up the incident?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: In other words you created a situation where the criminal justice system itself, became corrupted?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: You say this was in the interest of the State that you served?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: There were other policemen in the Force who did not do those things, not so?

MR RAS: We were a counter-terrorism group which was established and I think that we were unique as a group which executed operations from the highest level of authority. I don't think that we can be compared to the regular policeman in the Force.

MR MOERANE: Now you are specifically referring to C1?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Yes, but you acted in concert and collusion with the Security Branch in the Eastern Transvaal, Piet Retief in particular, generally Ermelo, not so?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And all of you were involved in this unlawful enterprise?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: But I still say to you that there were other policemen who did not commit those acts, not so?

MR RAS: Yes, there are many policemen who did not do such things.

MR MOERANE: By your former reply are you suggesting to this Honourable Committee that it was expected of members of C1 that they were going to commit crimes in defence of South Africa? Was that the culture and was that the expectation?

MR RAS: Yes, it was part of Vlakplaas that we executed operations which were basically beyond the law.

MR MOERANE: Yes, but that included committing extra-territorial crimes, crimes in Swaziland for instance?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And particularly committing murder in those countries, particularly Swaziland?

MR RAS: Yes, that is correct. Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana.

MR MOERANE: Yes, was it necessary for your purposes to kill women?

MR RAS: Chairperson, I gave evidence at the beginning of the month as well regarding an incident in Botswana where a woman was also killed and it was sometimes also necessary to shoot women.

MR MOERANE: Well, take an example which features in this inquest, was it necessary to kill that woman who had been shot?

MR RAS: Chairperson, the information that we received indicated that these would be armed persons who were entering the country.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Moerane is putting to you Mr Ras, was it necessary to have killed that woman who you were ordered to kill, the one who was laying next to the vehicle, taking into consideration the fact that she was not a threat at that time, she had been incapacitated, is that what you are asking, Mr Moerane, that particular incident, was that killing necessary?

MR RAS: Chairperson, we went out to kill everybody and I believe that at that stage, the person was already if one examines the post mortem reports, she had been wounded or injured to such an extent that she should have been dead already and out of reaction, I simply fired another shot which killed the person.

MR MALAN: But according to your evidence, Mr Ras, whether or not she was shot or wounded, she would have been shot dead ultimately?

MR RAS: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: My question to you was, was it necessary to kill her?

MR RAS: Yes Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Why?

MR RAS: Because in the first instance, Mr De Kock gave me the order to shoot and secondly we went to shoot everybody dead.

MR MOERANE: I see, so that obviously relates to your state of mind, your intention was to kill those people?

MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Whether or not at that stage they posed a threat to you, you just had to eliminate them?

MR RAS: That was the order and that was the intention.

MR MOERANE: And by saying order, you are now talking about all four of them?

MR RAS: That is correct, yes.

MR MOERANE: The instruction came from?

MR RAS: Mr De Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Moerane, who did you regard to be in charge of that operation?

MR RAS: Mr De Kock.

MR MOERANE: You made a statement in the inquest proceedings and you also gave evidence in the first inquest proceedings Piet Retief?

MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: In terms of your evidence and your affidavit, the information that you had received was to the effect that two trained members of the ANC were expected, is that so?

MR RAS: Chairperson, if I recall correctly, there was information that it would be two persons entering the country, but that may be incorrect.

MR MOERANE: Well, I refer you to a statement that you made, it is in Bundle 3(a), page 5. Do you see the second paragraph there -

That was the information that you were given?

MR RAS: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, that is correct, that it would be two persons infiltrating that night.

MR MOERANE: No, no, I agree with you. The only point that I was trying to make is that that is the information that was available to you, to Warrant Officer Pienaar and to the people that were going to take part in this operation?

MR RAS: With the exception that it was also said to us that these persons would be armed.

MR MOERANE: Well, I don't know whether you mention it in your statement, your first statement, I don't see it. In any event, it is common cause and we all know now that they were not armed. I would like to refer you to Bundle 2, page 125. This is a press report dated the 12th of September 1993, the reporters there seem to be one Warrant Gibson, Sharon Chetty and they refer to an interview given by a former South African Police Sergeant, Marthinus Grobler. Do you remember those two, Grobler and Stevens?

MR RAS: Chairperson, yesterday I also made enquiries about it, I don't even know what the persons look like.

MR MOERANE: No, no, do you remember that issue arose at the Piet Retief inquest about these people who had given an interview to the Vrye Weekblad and later on, they went to Lusaka, one of them Stevens came back and made statements, do you remember that?

MR RAS: Yes, I remember it, I know about it.

MR MOERANE: At the time of the incident, they were stationed at Piet Retief? Do you recall that, both of them Grobler and Stevens?

MR RAS: Yes, according to what I read.

MR MOERANE: Yes. You see, in the third column, last paragraph, the following is reported -

Do you have any comment to make about that paragraph?

MR RAS: Chairperson, I want to put one point clearly, I do not deny that it was murder, but I would like to make my share as such known here, the same as what I made known during the post mortem. When the vehicle stopped, I ran around the back of the vehicle on the right, when I arrived at the right back side of the vehicle, shots began going off. At that stage, I believed that we were being shot at. The right back door, went open, I also shot at the door where it was also seen that the woman who sat in the back on the right, had been wounded on her hand. It was only after the shooting, that I realised that no shots were fired at us from within the vehicle and that there were no firearms in the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Moerane is wanting from this passage that he read, Mr Ras, at the bottom of the third column, what is being inferred there from that quotation is that the shooting of the deceased persons were done as such close range, that their clothes had to be burnt to destroy forensic evidence, in other words powder marks on their clothing, etc. What is your comment on that?

MR RAS: Chairperson, none of the persons according to my opinion were shot in such a fashion that the weapon was held right against them, with the exception of the woman that I shot. The rest of them were shot from outside the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: From your knowledge, Mr Ras, how far must a weapon be from a target, in order to leave a powder burn or a powder mark or powder trace?

MR RAS: Chairperson, I will have to answer a question about something which I don't really have expert knowledge about.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that is why I am asking you out of your knowledge, if you haven't got any knowledge, then say so, but if you do, you an answer.

MR RAS: As a result of the vehicle, some of the powder would have been held back, but due to the compact nature of the vehicle, there would have been residue within the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane?

MR MOERANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Let's look at the fourth column, according to Mr Grobler, the Security Policemen involved in the first round of killings returned to the police station around midnight with four bodies in the back of the police van, you don't dispute that?

MR RAS: No Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Yes. They were riddled with bullet holes, you don't dispute that?

MR RAS: No Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: One of the women was wearing a light blue blouse and it was obvious from the powder burns on her clothes, that she had been shot at point blank range. Could that have been the person that you shot at close range?

MR RAS: Chairperson, I cannot recall which person wore what clothing, I cannot recall clothing which had marks on, they were full of blood and the shot that I fired at the woman, was directly at her temple.

MR MOERANE: Was it not in front, in the region of the eye?

MR RAS: Chairperson, if I recall correctly it was approximately three to four centimetres behind the eye in the head.

MR MOERANE: And the eye of that person popped out, not so?

MR RAS: No Chairperson, not as far as I can recall.

MR MOERANE: Do you know anything about the following passage -

Do you know that some people, some policemen were detailed to keep out regular policemen while the ambush was in progress?

MR RAS: Chairperson, all that I can recall is Mr Flores and another person who was with him in the vehicle, who were not on the scene, I cannot recall any other persons who were on the road at that stage.

MR MOERANE: Mr Flores drove in the direction of the border post to find out what the cause of the delay was, not so?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And he met this Toyota Corolla as it was coming towards the ambush zone and he proceeded on and made a U-turn further on?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And returned whilst the shooting was on the go?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Is it correct Mr Ras, that everybody who was involved in this operation, knew that the intention was to kill these people?

MR RAS: Yes Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Let's come to the incident in Swaziland, I think you have told this Honourable Committee that the clear intention there was to kill the people who were ferrying the people who were infiltrating into the country?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: In that incident, you succeeded in killing one and the other one got away?

MR RAS: That is correct, yes.

MR MOERANE: Why was the car and the body of the deceased burnt?

MR RAS: Chairperson, we did not burn the person ourselves, he lay next to the vehicle and one of the reasons why we burnt the vehicle is so that it could never be used again.

MR MOERANE: It was reasonably foreseeable because of the proximity of that person to the motor vehicle, that his body was going to be burnt, not so?

MR RAS: Yes, that could have been foreseen.

MR MOERANE: But nonetheless the motor vehicle was burnt, with that degree of foreseeability, not so?

MR RAS: Yes Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Was it necessary to have the body burnt under those circumstances?

MR RAS: Chairperson, if I recall correctly there was an army camp which was situated not very far from there, and if one would consider the circumstances, that it was in the middle of the night, shots resonated quite a distance and we didn't have much time at the scene. We didn't even open the boot and I definitely did not think about dragging the person's body away from there, I didn't think about it before we burnt the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane, the army camp, Swazi army or South African army camp?

MR RAS: No, it was a Swazi army camp.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MOERANE: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Moerane. Ms Lockhat, oh, sorry?

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Ras, what is the relevance of the Swazi army camp being nearby? Sorry, did you hear that?

MR RAS: The shots that we fired, could probably be heard by the, if I recall correctly there was a camp or it was mentioned that there was a camp there, if we remained long enough, after such a shooting at the scene, they would have come in and investigate it and we had to depart from the scene as quickly as possible.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, but the man was dead and the burning of the car took place after that, I am trying to make a connection between that and the fact that there was an army camp nearby. Is there any relevance at all?

MR RAS: No, except for that everything happened so quickly and that we had to depart from the scene, very quickly, so we just shot a hole in the petrol tank and set the petrol tank alight and left.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Just one question Chairperson. Just regarding the Swaziland incident, how did you know who you were going to go and ambush?

MR RAS: Chairperson, we did not know. We knew where the persons would cross the borders on the RSA side and we went across and waited along the road, and hoped that the vehicle would stop close to us which would accompany the people to the other side, which was indeed the case, and the persons left their vehicle unguarded on the other side, about 150 metres from where we lay awaiting the vehicle.

MS LOCKHAT: So you were not informed as to who you were going to ambush?

MR RAS: Could you please repeat?

MR RAS: Were you not informed as to who you were going to ambush, it was just persons coming to the Swaziland border?

MR RAS: No, we did it without any information and exactly knowing where the vehicle would stop. But it was confirmed that the persons climbed out of the vehicle and the persons that evening cocked firearms clearly, and we knew it was the right vehicle with the right people.

MR MALAN: Mr Ras, the question was you didn't know who the people would be or did you know?

MR RAS: According to my information Chairperson, it was one person would have been Martin, I don't know him, I never worked in Swaziland, but that was the person who arranged the previous time with Mose to pick up some more people.

MS LOCKHAT: So basically it could have been anybody coming to that border post, would you then just have eliminated anybody?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it was a border post, it wasn't a border post, was it? It was a place at the border or near the border?

MS LOCKHAT: If someone strange had arrived there at that point in time, would you have still followed through with the instructions, although you didn't know who the persons were?

MR RAS: Chairperson, as I have said already we knew where the people would come into the country. The person associated himself with, if he accompanied people to the border with the infiltration, and which made sure that it was the right vehicle when they climbed out of the vehicle and when they cocked their weapons.

MS LOCKHAT: Did Mr De Kock inform you of the details to go into Swaziland?

MR RAS: Chairperson, he just gave us instructions to go over and to have a look where the vehicle would stop. We had no direct information that the person would stop there, it was through observation that we identified the correct vehicle and shot the one person there who was indeed armed.

MS LOCKHAT: So was your instructions to go and eliminate these people?

MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Jansen, do you have any re-examination?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe, do you have any questions?

ADV GCABASHE: One thank you, I asked this of somebody yesterday, do you know who the other person sustained the shot in the head? I know the one you shot, was shot in the head, the others?

MR RAS: Chairperson, all the windows were broken as far as I can recall and it is a matter of you would not only shoot through the body of the vehicle, you would go for the person. It is possible that anyone could have been shot in the head. They had bullet wounds even in their legs.

ADV GCABASHE: You didn't observe anybody, anyone of your colleagues shoot anybody at point blank range?

MR RAS: No Chairperson, the only person who did that, was myself.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: No questions. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Sorry, any questions arising out of questions that have been put by Adv Gcabashe?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman, there is just one matter I would like to clear up with this client, thank you. Mr Moerane put to you that you corrupted the criminal justice system, is that correct?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Is it true that - let me ask you in Afrikaans - is it correct that you received ministerial recommendations for the work that you did?

MR RAS: Yes Chairperson, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did it also come to your knowledge that various actions by C1 were commended by the State Security Council?

MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Is it also your knowledge that Min Vlok was personally at Vlakplaas to congratulate you?

MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Is it within your knowledge that for conspiracy to commit acts outside the borders of the country, for example, the bomb in London there were SOE medals given to the persons who participated there?

MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson, I received recommendations for deeds in Botswana where we eliminated people, from the Commissioner of Police.

MR CORNELIUS: And the purpose of these questions ...

CHAIRPERSON: Is this, it is not really arising Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: If it pleases you, I just wanted to claim his subjective line of thought, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: But you didn't receive any recommendation for committing perjury, did you?

MR RAS: No Chairperson, but it was part of what we were doing, if we look at the Cosatu House incidents, it was directly approved from the highest authority.

MR MALAN: Mr Ras, I personally have a problem with this general type questions which Mr Cornelius led you, it is true that the Commissioner of Police and Min Vlok had applied for amnesty for the London bomb, but did you receive any commendations from the Commissioner about the elimination of these people from Swaziland?

MR RAS: No Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Or of any politician?

MR RAS: No Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And you withheld it from them, as far as you know, no knowledge was given to them, that it was reported to them?

MR RAS: Chairperson, I would just like to say that the only, we speak of nine people who were killed.

MR MALAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR RAS: And Min Vlok had a press release about nine people, so somebody should have told him about the ninth person, or somebody wrote a press release for him and the person who wrote the press release, was wrongly informed about the ninth person, but somebody knew about the ninth person and Mr Vlok said there were nine persons.

MR MALAN: On the basis of a contact, not on the basis of shooting unarmed people?

MR RAS: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, any questions arising? Thank you Mr Ras, that concludes your evidence, you may stand down.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, the next amnesty applicant is Mr Johan Tait.

JOHAN HENDRIK TAIT: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tait, are your full names Johan Hendrik Tait?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?

EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Tait, please have a look at Volume 1 and please go to page 226. Is it correct that you have applied for amnesty with regard to this incident on page 226 in Volume 1?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Do you confirm the correctness of what is embodied here as you will elaborate thereon?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: You do not want to add anything as to what appears on page 226, 227, 228, is that correct?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: In this instance you reply in regard with the incident where people were killed in Swaziland?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Before you departed for Swaziland, and with you I mean C1 and other members of C1, you were at Island Rock, is that correct?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Did you there hear from your colleagues that there was an incident at Piet Retief?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: You, yourself were not involved there?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Were any particulars given to you with regard to the operation and we have heard here of weapons that were planted on people who were unarmed, did you receive any detail about that at Island Rock?

MR TAIT: No, I did not have any detail about the operation.

MR BOOYENS: During discussions at Island Rock, was it mentioned that there might be a possibility of a second operation?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Did you then, after you departed from Island Rock, certain of you, was he Major De Kock at that time?

MR TAIT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Major De Kock gave you an instruction to remain at Piet Retief?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And from some of the Vlakplaas contingency, you, Mr Martiens Ras, Mr Botes from the Security Branch at Ermelo and another member from Vlakplaas, we will get to his name soon, were given an instruction that you had to go across the border to Swaziland?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: What did this instruction entail?

MR TAIT: This instruction entailed that people would come into the country from Swaziland and that we had to go across and the people would be helped across and the two people who would go to the car, should be eliminated.

MR BOOYENS: And as you understood your instruction, they had to take the people across the border first, that is now the insurgents and the people who assisted them, who had returned, those had to be eliminated?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: You went across the border into Swaziland?

MR TAIT: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: It was during the night?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You entered the area of a foreign country, did you realise that you, if you were caught, you would encounter problems because you were on foreign soil and you were armed?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Did you know that if you had killed people on the Swaziland side, it could have been heard and you could have been caught, and you would not enjoy the protection of the South African Police because you were on foreign soil?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And you realised that it was a dangerous mission?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: But you did not question Mr De Kock's instructions and tell him that you did not want to do it?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And for which reasons were you prepared to become involved in this operation?

MR TAIT: I felt Chairperson, that we were in a war situation against the ANC trained members. I regarded it as my objective to do what I do, because it was in the interest of my country.

MR BOOYENS: The people who assisted the insurgents to come from Swaziland to South Africa, did you see them, regard them as part of the enemy?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: So were you satisfied that in the circumstances which reigned, although it was wrong and it was a crime, according to you in the war situation, it was morally justifiable to act in such a manner?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: So you then did cross the border and a vehicle approached?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: You have heard the evidence of Mr Ras that the vehicle had stopped about 100 to 150 metres away from you, you heard him say that?

MR TAIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Please tell the Commission what you heard at that stage and or had seen when the vehicle stopped?

MR TAIT: When the vehicle stopped, we heard the boot opening and we heard firearms being cocked Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: What type of weapons did it sound like?

MR TAIT: The deduction that I made Chairperson, was that it was AK47 rifles.

MR BOOYENS: So it was assault type automatic weapons, that sound when it is cocked?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: You say you thought it was AK47, it was the weapon that was usually used by the enemy forces?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Could you hear how many weapons were cocked, how did it sound, or are you not certain?

MR TAIT: Chairperson, it must have been at least four, it was a few weapons.

MR BOOYENS: Very well, did the persons move away from the vehicle?

MR TAIT: They moved away from the vehicle Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And according to Mr Ras, you moved closer to the vehicle?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And you set up an ambush?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: What was the purpose of the ambush?

MR TAIT: The purpose of the ambush was as soon as the two people who would return, would be eliminated, as soon as they returned, they would eliminated.

MR BOOYENS: The other person from Vlakplaas was Mr Paul van Dyk, the name I could not get?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Very well, how far from the vehicle did you wait for the people?

MR TAIT: According to my judgement I would say Chairperson, it could have been 15 to 20 metres away from the vehicle.

MR BOOYENS: Did you hear the persons returning?

MR TAIT: Yes, we did Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And what happened next?

MR TAIT: The instruction was Chairperson, if the persons get into the vehicle, we had to start firing. The persons were however not yet in the vehicle and Mr Van Dyk started firing. It sounded to me as if they were firing on us, and we immediately all started firing at the vehicle.

MR BOOYENS: But the fact whether shots were fired at you or not, would it have made a difference as to what you would have done?

MR TAIT: No Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Was there anything according to you that any attempt would be made to arrest these people, to catch these people?

MR TAIT: Not according to me Chairperson. We would have wiped them all out. I am stumbling over the word.

MR BOOYENS: After you ceased fire, what happened?

MR TAIT: We moved closer Chairperson. I found a Makarov on the scene on one of the persons who were shot. The vehicle was shot through the petrol tank and it was set alight and then we left the scene.

MR BOOYENS: Was it necessary for you to leave Swaziland as quickly as possible?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And you went across the RSA border?

MR TAIT: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Tait, you are aware of the evidence that Mr De Kock had given with the initial stages of the De Kock hearings with regard to the background and the reasons for Vlakplaas and the objectives for Vlakplaas, do you agree that you were in essence a counter-insurgency Unit?

MR TAIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And according to you, you acted against those people whose declared objective it was to usurp the government?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Did you see it as part of your task, as a member of the Security Police, to become involved in such actions?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And did you satisfy yourself that this was the type of war that would be fought?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: It would seem from your statement that you had beforehand been involved in the war in South-West Africa?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Were you in any contacts in South-West?

MR TAIT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Can you give an estimation of how many contacts?

MR TAIT: Over a period of eight years, it must be approximately 200 contacts Chairperson, I am not certain.

MR BOOYENS: And with regard to you personally, was there a difference between the type of war which you fought in South-West and the war that you fought here in South Africa when you returned?

MR TAIT: No Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And the people under whose command you served, did they make it clear to you that it was your task to act against these people and if the circumstances needed it, to shoot these people?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And you, if you were not satisfied with doing this, you would have left, but you thought that it was in the interest of your own country and it was in the interest to maintain the then government?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And with regard to you, people who assisted the insurgents, were they any less important than the insurgents themselves?

MR TAIT: No Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, do you have any questions?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: Mr Chairman, no questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: No questions thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Tait, you have referred to the approximately 200 contacts, that is the word that you used, in South-West Africa, by that you mean incidents where there was shooting between you and Swapo fighters?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Do you know how many of these you killed?

MR TAIT: I cannot say precisely, in one contact for example we killed 38 persons, so it must be a great number, I cannot speculate. I am not certain of the number.

MR MOERANE: You say it could be between 200 and 300 that you killed?

MR TAIT: Yes, as I have said I cannot speculate regarding the number, that may be possible.

MR MOERANE: I see, so killing your political foes was not a new thing for you?

MR TAIT: No Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: But you see, you were a member of the South African Police Force, you are not a member of the South African Defence Force?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And one of your duties was not to kill your political foes, but to protect the public of South Africa, black and white and so-called terrorists or non-terrorists, not so?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Where did you get the authority to kill members of the ANC?

MR TAIT: I regarded this as part of my duties.

MR MOERANE: Who told you that, if anybody?

MR TAIT: In all my duties where I was involved, I received a specific order from somebody, I did not act out of own interest.

MR MOERANE: You know that, you knew that you were not obliged to agree to an unlawful order, not so?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: It is not a question of your believing that you could not say no to a patently unlawful order?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: For how long were you attached to the Vlakplaas Unit?

MR TAIT: Approximately four to five years, I am not certain of the exact period of time.

MR MOERANE: From about what year?

MR TAIT: From the beginning of 1988 up to and including 1993.

MR MOERANE: When you say you saw operations in South West-Africa, were you part of the Koevoet Unit?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Moerane, what was your rank during June 1988?

MR TAIT: I was a Warrant Officer.

MR MOERANE: Am I correct to say that on or about the 12th of June 1988 you were briefed about the operation that was going to take place on the South African side of the border, in other words you were briefed about the ambush that was to take place on the South African side of the border, the one involving Colonel De Kock, Warrant Officer Pienaar, Theron and the others?

MR TAIT: I knew about it, but I did not know exactly who would be involved and exactly what they were going to do. As far as I knew, I received specific information regarding a cross-border operation.

MR MOERANE: Didn't you know that the people who were going to be transported into the country, were to be eliminated?

MR TAIT: I knew about it, but my knowledge about it was that I knew that they would be eliminated on the other side of the border and that was it, who would participate in it and what exactly would take place, was something that I was not informed about.

MR MOERANE: And you had just spent four days at Island Rock at the so-called team building workshop?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Where you were informed that four so-called ANC terrorists had been killed a few days before?

MR TAIT: Chairperson, it came to my attention, I was not specifically informed. I must have heard it from one of my friends, but all that was said was that four terrorists were killed. Furthermore I knew nothing about the matter, and anything else that I heard about it, I heard it here during these proceedings.

MR MOERANE: Do you mean to tell me that at Island Rock, it wasn't said four terrorists were killed and others are expected?

MR TAIT: That is correct Chairperson. As I have already said, I heard about the four and that there would possibly be other infiltrators, but any further detail was not made known to me. That was my knowledge at that stage.

MR MOERANE: What were your instructions with regard to the people who were going to escort the infiltrators?

MR TAIT: The instruction was that they had to be killed.

MR MOERANE: Who gave you those instructions?

MR TAIT: The instruction came from Major De Kock.

MR MOERANE: Yes, now I didn't quite follow your evidence about the events that occurred there, can you please tell this Honourable Court precisely what occurred and what you actually observed?

MR TAIT: Chairperson, we went from Piet Retief to an area close to the border that I don't know very well, we hid our vehicle, we crossed the border and we waited next to a road. A vehicle stopped and as I have already said, a person climbed out of the vehicle, opened the boot, weapons were cocked, the person left the vehicle, we waited for a while, we approached the area closer.

MR MOERANE: Yes, I am particularly interested in that time from then on, just describe the events slowly.

MR TAIT: When the persons moved away from the vehicle, we waited a while and then began to move closer to the vehicle, we took up position next to the road. The road made a slight embankment behind which we took up position and waited until the persons returned to the vehicle.

MR MOERANE: Yes?

MR TAIT: The instruction was that we should wait until the persons had re-entered the vehicle and then we were to shoot them. However, Mr Van Dyk opened fire when the persons were not entirely in the vehicle again and then everybody opened fire on the vehicle.

MR MOERANE: Yes, proceed please.

MR TAIT: After the order was given to cease fire, we moved closer to the vehicle. I cannot recall precisely where the person lay, but a person lay next to the vehicle, there was a Makarov firearm next to him, I took the firearm. I cannot say precisely who shot the petrol tank, after which the vehicle was set alight and we departed from the scene immediately.

MR MOERANE: Who actually set the vehicle on fire?

MR TAIT: I cannot say exactly, I only heard about it here. When I made my statement, I could not recall precisely who the person was who had set the vehicle alight.

MR MOERANE: Well, could it have been you?

MR TAIT: No, not definitely not Chairperson, then I would have known.

MR MOERANE: You must have been aware that the motor vehicle had been set on fire, not so?

MR BOOYENS: No Mr Chairman, I think my learned friend misunderstood something. He does not say that he is unaware that the motor vehicle was set on fire, he said it wasn't him that set the motor vehicle on fire, because then he would have known it, he would have remembered it. In other words, he did not know which of the other three individuals set it on fire, that was the tenure of the answer.

MR MOERANE: Were you aware that the motor vehicle was set on fire?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: You saw it?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Why didn't you mention it in your application? It is on page 230.

MR TAIT: If I did not mention it, at that stage when I made my statement, it must have been that I simply didn't think about it, but it was not my intention to omit something such as the setting alight of the vehicle.

MR MOERANE: Why did you say that these people began to fire on you? That was not true?

MR TAIT: Chairperson, what was not true?

MR MOERANE: That those people fired on you? The one deceased and the one that got away?

MR TAIT: That was my reconstruction of the scene, I believed that I had been shot at, and that is why I reported it as such.

MR MOERANE: Mr Tait, if a person fires on you, there is no way that you are going to forget that, there is no way that you are going to mistake that, not so, particularly with your experience of about 200 contacts? It is either these people fired on you or they did not fire on you, what is the truth?

MR TAIT: The true position is that I believed that those persons shot at me. When the first shots were fired from the person who shot first, I believed that this came from the enemy who were shooting at me, however, I believed that I was shot at and I also reported it as such.

MR MOERANE: I suggest to you that that was a version that was put up at the time that you made your application, but which you know is not true. What is your comment?

MR TAIT: My comment is that when I made this statement, for a very long time, I had had no contact with any of these persons and I also did not have any insight into what these persons had to say, I did not speak to them regarding the incident, I did not read anything about these incidents, what I have written here is my own version of what took place there.

MR MOERANE: It is not clear to me when you made your application for amnesty. On page 233 there is no indication of a date, can you help us please with regard to the date?

MR TAIT: I really cannot tell you at this moment precisely when I submitted my amnesty applications.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, more or less then if you can't do it precisely. Do you remember maybe the year or the month?

MR TAIT: I believe but I must say that I really am not certain, it may have been in 1998. I am not certain, I cannot tell you.

CHAIRPERSON: It couldn't have been in 1998, because your amnesty application number is a 1996 number and in any event, 1998 you would have missed the boat because the final cut-off date was September 1997.

MR TAIT: Then I would accept it as 1996.

MR MOERANE: I have no further questions for this applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Moerane. Ms Lockhat, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Just one question, thank you Chairperson. You said that you found a Makarov pistol at the scene, what did you do with that pistol?

MR TAIT: Chairperson, as far as I know I gave the pistol to Warrant Officer Ras.

MS LOCKHAT: Do you know what he did with it?

MR TAIT: No Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, any re-examination Mr Booyens?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Just one aspect Mr Chairman. Mr Tait, you were asked by my learned friend about the approximate number of persons who had died in contacts during the former South-West Africa and you provided a figure of 200 to 300. Are those persons who were shot by you yourself, or persons who were shot dead during contacts in which you were involved?

MR TAIT: These were deaths in contacts in which I was involved.

MR BOOYENS: Thus you are not alleging that you yourself shot 200 to 300 people dead?

MR TAIT: No Chairperson, that would be the total number for all the contacts.

MR BOOYENS: Perhaps something else Mr Chairperson, which does not necessarily emanate from what has been said here, but just to make things clear, you referred on page 230 to the member of the Piet Retief Security Branch as Botes, what is his actual surname, did you know him as Boats actually?

MR TAIT: Yes, that must be why I referred to Boats, it is actually Botha.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Adv Gcabashe, do you have any questions?

ADV GCABASHE: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: On page 229, the sixth or the seventh line, Colonel De Kock was of the opinion that both these persons who were going to enter the country, it would appear that you also had information that only two persons would be infiltrating the country, is that correct?

MR TAIT: Chairperson, I may have meant to say that those were actually the two persons who were going to bring the people into the country, it may have been an error or my part.

MR MALAN: But you recall that Ras gave evidence and you were present here, and he said that he thought that it would be two persons infiltrating on that night and here you refer to both the persons who were going to infiltrate the country as well as those persons who were going to assist them, and these were the persons who had to be eliminated. It doesn't seem to be very important, but it would appear that ...

MR MOERANE: Chairperson, if I can come to the rescue of the witness, I think this witness was concerned with the second incident, not the first one. Ras was concerned, and I think the both means actually that both the group that were going to come in and the people that were going to escort them in, had to be eliminated. I don't think he means two.

MR MALAN: No, it is just the use of the word both as a reference to the number of people that you were going to eliminate. My next question is that you knew that the persons would return to the car, or did you only know about the one who you shot? Your evidence isn't very clear regarding that?

MR TAIT: It would have been two persons.

MR MALAN: Did you see both of them return?

MR TAIT: Chairperson, it was dark, but the persons were speaking to each other, so I assumed that there had to have been more than one person who was returning to the vehicle.

MR MALAN: But you only knew of the one who you shot dead, the one who returned?

MR TAIT: Yes, I knew about the one that had been shot.

MR MALAN: So you knew that there was another one somewhere in the vicinity?

MR TAIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Despite the fact that you heard them running away with firearms, you walked to the vehicle and took the Makarov pistol, shot a hole in the petrol tank and set the vehicle alight while the second one was somewhere in the vicinity and most probably armed?

MR TAIT: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, I heard him moving away from the scene, because you could clearly hear the sound of stones and gravel. The question of approaching the vehicle and taking the firearm and setting the vehicle alight, that was a matter of seconds. We didn't waste any time and we left the scene virtually immediately.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions arising? Thank you Mr Tait, that then concludes your testimony, you may stand down.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, may I request that the witness be excused from further attendance, he is running an operation as a milk farmer somewhere down in the Eastern Cape and he's got certain problems on his farming operation? If there is a crisis, we can let him come back?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, unless there is any serious objection to that from anybody? Yes, Mr Tait, you may be excused from further attendance, you of course know that it is your statutory right to be here.

MR TAIT: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You of course are entitled to attend if you want to come back, you are very welcome to, but you may be excused from further attendance.

MR TAIT: Thank you Chairperson.

ON RESUMPTION:

MS LOCKHAT: The next amnesty applicant, Mr Chairperson, is Mr Paul van Dyk.

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Van der Walt?

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Van Dyk, your amnesty application appears in Volume 1, from page 235 to 237, that is the official form, is that correct?

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Which you have also signed under oath?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then the incident is contained within Annexure A from page 238 to 239?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the political motivation from page 240 to 248?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you confirm the content of your statement?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I do.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were involved in the incident of the 12th of June 1988?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you have also heard the evidence of Mr Ras and Mr Tait, is that correct?

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you agree with their evidence?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I do.

MS VAN DER WALT: It would appear that you were in command of the instruction which was carried out across the border?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What was your rank at that time, Mr Van Dyk?

MR VAN DYK: I was a Lieutenant.

MS VAN DER WALT: Under whose command were you at that stage when the incident took place?

MR VAN DYK: Colonel De Kock was the Commander, the immediate Commander.

MS VAN DER WALT: And according to the evidence, Mr De Kock also gave the order to cross the border?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: According to your statement on page 238, paragraph 3, you state that you had to assist with arresting the persons who assisted the MK members with infiltrating the country? You have heard the evidence of Mr Ras and Mr Tait that you had to shoot these persons dead, can you explain that?

MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, the idea was to eliminate the persons, but in the event of something happening and if there was the remote opportunity of arresting somebody, we would do so. But arrest was not a priority.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why was it necessary for you if there was an opportunity, to arrest, why would it then be necessary to do so?

MR VAN DYK: We were not certain whether people would leave guards at the vehicle once they moved over the border to take people across and if we had to shoot before the others had crossed the border, we would have to shoot those persons, because we would have to get close to the vehicle, and that would upset the entire operation.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well, was it necessary for your division to undertake personal arrests and if they had been arrested, what would the purpose behind that be?

MR VAN DYK: If we arrested a person, it would provide more information for us. Whether he would be prosecutor or what would happen to him after that, was unknown to me.

MS VAN DER WALT: Furthermore you state in the same paragraph -

Why do you say that?

MR VAN DYK: I fired first Chairperson, but at night if someone shoots in your direction with a firearm, you would clearly see the flames emerging from the weapon. That is why I said that they fired at us as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that you actually saw, you saw that they were shooting at you?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I saw the flames coming out of the barrel, so I assumed that they fired at us.

ADV GCABASHE: No, again I don't understand that. You saw the flames coming out of the barrels, your barrels or you could identity their barrels?

MR VAN DYK: No, I identified that the shots were coming from the other person.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just while we are on this Mr Van Dyk, you were four?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you take up positions or what positions did you take up in relation to the vehicle? Were you all grouped on the one side or was there one person in the front, one at each side and one at the back, what was the position?

MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, the vehicle stood on the opposite side of the road and we stood on the other side of the road, we lay on the back of an embankment in a row.

CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't have any possibility of shooting one of your comrades on the other side of the vehicle for instance?

MR VAN DYK: There was no possibility, all of us lay in a straight line next to one another.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Tait gave evidence that he drew an inference that you had been fired at, and you say that you saw fire emerging from a firearm?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, as I have said I saw a flame, and one could see it clearly.

MS VAN DER WALT: I don't know whether Mr Moerane had a basis for this, but he made a definite statement to Mr Tait that this was not the truth and that this was a fabrication when you made your amnesty applications. Did you have any contact with Mr Tait before you submitted your amnesty applications?

MR VAN DYK: No, we did not have contact at any stage.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you are not being represented by the same group or firm of legal representatives?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you say that you fired first?

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And what happened after that?

MR VAN DYK: After we opened fire and then ceased fire, we approached the vehicle, we found the one person at the vehicle who lay on the other side, or at least our side of the vehicle. He was already dead. We attempted to open the boot of the vehicle, because the other instruction which we were given was among others, if possible to bring out that vehicle if we could, because there may be documents or any other items in the vehicle. But the person who escaped, took the keys. That is why we then decided to set the vehicle alight, if there were any other items inside the vehicle, such as weapons or explosives, that would also be destroyed.

MS VAN DER WALT: You also heard that Mr Tait as well as Mr Ras stated that these events took place very quickly?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is that correct?

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know of any kind of military camp which was situated nearby?

MR VAN DYK: We had information from the local Security Branch and before we entered the area they informed us, Mr Botha was there, he also knew the area very well, we were informed that there was a military camp in the near vicinity but we didn't know exactly where it was situated.

MS VAN DER WALT: But your objective when you went there, was to kill the persons?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, that was the primary objective.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you in any way involved in the arrangements for the shooting which took place on the same night on the Republic side?

MR VAN DYK: I had no share in that, not in the discussions nor in the events which took place there.

MS VAN DER WALT: The first incident which took place at Piet Retief, where the persons were killed?

MR VAN DYK: I was not involved with that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you at Island Rock?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I was.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you hear about the persons who were killed, there?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, during conversation I learnt about it.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were a member of C1, is that correct?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: From when were you stationed there?

MR VAN DYK: From 1981 to 1993 I was stationed at Vlakplaas.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you were consistently under the command of Colonel De Kock?

MR VAN DYK: No, I served under various Commanders, Dirk Coetzee, Jack Cronje.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, did you say 1981 to 1993?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You said you were under whose command?

MR VAN DYK: I was firstly under the command of Dirk Coetzee, after that Captain Jan Coetzee, Colonel Jack Cronje and then Colonel De Kock.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have heard what was put to Mr Ras that he committed criminal acts during that period in time, why did you commit these deeds?

MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, it is correct, they were criminal acts, but it was necessary at that stage. It was the practice, the opportunities were created for us in these incidents during which we could take action and if the information was available, we would act.

MS VAN DER WALT: Against whom did you act?

MR VAN DYK: Against ANC members or trained ANC members who were entering the country or unless there was information indicating where they lived in neighbouring countries, we would also act in those circumstances.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Van Dyk, the trained ANC terrorists who entered the country, they didn't come here to have a tea party, is that correct?

MR VAN DYK: No, the landmine explosions, the bomb explosions, the Wimpy incident, Amanzimtoti incident and the Church Street bombings, all testify to that.

MS VAN DER WALT: They also committed acts of terror?

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Against innocent people?

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you try to maintain the government of the day by combating those acts of terror or acts or murder?

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were also present when Mr De Kock initially gave his evidence with regards to Vlakplaas. Do you agree with his evidence regarding Vlakplaas?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I agree with that, it is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And do you also request that that evidence be considered by this Committee on your behalf?

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you have also studied the evidence given by Gen Van der Merwe and do you also request that his evidence be incorporated with your evidence?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then for this incident you request amnesty for the death of the person who was killed there?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Any other offence which may emanate from your actions as well as any illegalities?

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Van der Walt. Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions you would like to put to the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr De Kock, during this incident, did you regard it as a war which reigned between the then government and the ANC?

MR MALAN: I assume you refer to Mr Van Dyk?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you, during these incidents when you committed these acts, were you aware of previous acts which were committed in the Eastern Transvaal where the ANC had exploded several bombs in Volksrust where a boy was severely injured and people were killed at Davel and Carolina and Breyten?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: There was a high intensity of attacks from Swaziland?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And many people came over to Swaziland from Mozambique and necessarily had to come into South Africa?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, Chairperson, that was common knowledge.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, do you have any questions you would like to put?

MR HATTINGH: No thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Cornelius, I was negligent and missed you.

MR CORNELIUS: I am known for my brevity, I have no questions thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: No questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: No questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: No questions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van Dyk, what is your background before you joined Vlakplaas?

MR VAN DYK: If you refer to my background, do you mean from the time I joined the Police?

MR MOERANE: Yes.

MR VAN DYK: I grew up and joined the Force in the old South-West Africa Police College and from the College I went and did some normal police work at the Uniform Branch and afterwards I was transferred to Oshoek border post and then Nesden and from there I was transferred to the Security Branch and since 1981 at Vlakplaas.

MR MOERANE: I see. So you are one of the longest serving members of Vlakplaas?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I was there for a long time.

MR MOERANE: So, you must be familiar with all the doings of Vlakplaas from about that time?

MR VAN DYK: I am aware of lots of things, but I won't say everything.

MR MOERANE: I mean from 1981, is the murder of Mr Griffiths Mxenge for instance?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I have knowledge of all those things.

MR MOERANE: Right up to the incident with which we are concerned today?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: I see you are one of those that deposed to a statement at Delmas on the 13th of December 1996?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: One of those statements which were produced from the computer that produced the statements of the other people that I have mentioned?

MS VAN DER WALT: What is the relevance thereof Chairperson, because this person, his statement is not the same as the others. Is there a problem with Delmas, I would like to know that. What is the relevance?

MR MOERANE: Mr Chairperson, may I continue with my cross-examination?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't see any objection, anything wrong with the question.

MR MOERANE: I have not made any suggestion or any insinuation, I just identified the statement, that it is from the same computer that produced the statement of Hayes, Theron, Barnard and the others. I am right at the beginning of my cross-examination and I would appreciate Mr Chairman, if I were not to be interrupted.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MR MOERANE: Maybe I should come to the point, I put it to you that you lied in this statement that was produced on the 13th of December 1996.

MR VAN DYK: If you can point out to me where I would have told these lies, I would answer you.

MR MOERANE: Look at paragraph 3, page 238. The very first sentence in that paragraph is a lie and you know it. It says -

That is a lie?

MR VAN DYK: No, I only left out Mr Tait's name, but it was not the intention to tell a lie because I omitted a name.

MR MOERANE: You know what I am referring to and I am referring to the instruction that you were given, the task that you were given, the task was not to arrest those people, but to eliminate them, not so?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Then why do you say that the task you were given, was to arrest them?

MR VAN DYK: To also arrest if possible, but if the persons at the vehicle while it had stopped and there was a guard while the other persons were across the border, we could not fire on those persons or eliminate them because the other operation on the other side, would be jeopardised. It was the only reason why I said "would have to arrest".

MR MOERANE: Why didn't you say in your application that your tasking, your duty was to eliminate these people?

MR VAN DYK: It is supposed to be here but unfortunately it does not say that, I do not deny that, we had to eliminate them. Would there be a remote possibility of arresting them, we would have.

MR MOERANE: You not only told a lie once, but you told it a second time in the very next sentence. You say -

Firstly, you were not in the process of arresting those people, not so?

MR VAN DYK: No, I can see we were not there to arrest them.

MR MOERANE: So why do you say that "whilst in the process of arresting these people", they fired on you, why do you put it like that?

MR VAN DYK: It was just put wrong, I put it now and it reads wrong, it was not so.

MR MOERANE: I will leave this part for the moment, the one that says "the persons fired at us", I will go to the next part of your sentence.

That is another lie?

MR VAN DYK: I see it.

MR MOERANE: Why did you tell that lie also?

MR VAN DYK: I don't understand because I shot first and it is clear from the other people's evidence that that was that, this is a mistake and I am sorry about that.

MR MOERANE: No Lieutenant, I suggest to you that this was just a deliberate attempt to minimise your role?

MR VAN DYK: Well, that is not true.

MR MOERANE: How else can you explain it, you signed the statement, not so?

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MR MOERANE: After reading it?

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MR MOERANE: After confirming that the contents were true?

MR VAN DYK: Correct yes.

MR MOERANE: Why didn't you correct it there and then?

MR VAN DYK: I assume that I did not read the whole thing properly, but it is not correct as it reads there.

CHAIRPERSON: It would also seem Mr Van Dyk, that it is a very, very short description of what occurred?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears in about eight lines?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct Chairperson. As I said, it is not correct, but as it is described there, it is not correct, there was a possibility of arrest, but the main purpose was to eliminate.

MR MOERANE: Is it correct Mr Van Dyk, that throughout your life as a member of C1 at Vlakplaas, you were used to telling lies or making false statements under oath?

MR VAN DYK: Not in all instances. I cannot think of anything else you would refer to, if you can point out these instances to me, I would answer you.

MR MOERANE: I am talking very generally at this stage, I don't want to mention specifics. Was it not the rule that if you could get away with lies which have the effect of saving your skin, you did that?

MR VAN DYK: If you can show the instances to me, I cannot answer to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you ever made a statement following an incident or an operation, which didn't correctly reflect what happened in the operation, in other words some sort of cover up, planting of weapons, etc? We have heard about Mr Ras now, we have heard in evidence here that they went to the inquest and they gave evidence about things that happened, but which wasn't correct.

MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, I would not deny that, but I cannot at this instance think of a specific case. But I know in certain cases, it did happen and it has been said here for example the inquest at Piet Retief, that things had been changed but at this instance, I cannot recall where specifically I did that.

CHAIRPERSON: If you had to put in a report after an operation in which an illegal action took place, and I believe there were many of those, where people were shot at or were ambushed or any sort of operation like that, would you come back and make a written report to the effect that you acted illegally or would you write the report in such a way that it would look as if it was a legitimate police operation?

MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, once you were in an operation and such illegalities took place, one would give information to legalise this thing, not that you acted illegally. That is so, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that is what Mr Moerane was asking you about, whether in fact it was in fact a practice to do that.

MR MOERANE: Yes Mr Chairman. So from your last reply are you saying that such did occur, that in reporting the incident you would try to make it legal?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, that is what I said.

MR MOERANE: You were in the process of your history at Vlakplaas, involved in a lot of illegal activities, not so?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: In respect of those activities, you, I assume, you have applied for amnesty?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I have applied for amnesty as far as my knowledge goes, where I acted illegally, yes.

MR MOERANE: Are you the person that set this motor vehicle on fire?

MR VAN DYK: There were four of us at the vehicle, as far as I know, Mr Botha, he shot at the petrol tank and as far as I know, he also set the vehicle alight. It may have been Mr Ras, as he says.

MR MOERANE: Mr Botha was a junior to you then?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: You were actually the senior person?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Did he perform that act under your instructions?

MR VAN DYK: We all decided together, but I would give the instructions.

MR MOERANE: Did you give such an instruction?

MR VAN DYK: I did give such an instruction, yes, I did.

MR MOERANE: When you gave that instruction, where was the body of the deceased?

MR VAN DYK: The person, as the vehicle was standing, was lying on the right hand side of the vehicle, about more or less two or three paces away from the vehicle.

MR MOERANE: Was he not inside the vehicle?

MR VAN DYK: No, he was not inside the vehicle.

MR MOERANE: You knew that if that vehicle caught fire, he would be burnt?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, yes.

MR MOERANE: You wanted him to be burnt?

MR VAN DYK: No, I would not say that I - we did not do anything to him to burn, the vehicle burnt and because of this heat, he must have, I never visited that place ever again.

MR MOERANE: Well, if you didn't want him to be burnt, you would have removed him from the vehicle, not so?

MR VAN DYK: He was not in the vehicle, no, we did not move him.

MR MOERANE: Yes, what I am saying is that you would have removed him from the immediate vicinity of ...

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I concede if we did not want to injure him any more, but he was already dead.

MR MOERANE: I finally put it to you that you were not fired upon.

MR VAN DYK: Well, I saw, I testified that we were fired upon, if that is your opinion, I differ from you.

MR MOERANE: How many shots were fired?

MR VAN DYK: Many shots. From our side?

MR MOERANE: No, no, from the person at the motor vehicle?

MR VAN DYK: I don't know, I have no idea.

MR MOERANE: Well, how many flashes of light did you see?

MR VAN DYK: I don't know, I could not count, I have no idea.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, was it more than one?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, it was definitely more, it may also have been the other person who was at the vehicle. It could not only have been, it may not only have been the person who was laying on the other side of the vehicle.

MR MOERANE: Do you know in what direction his fire was?

MR VAN DYK: It was in our direction, I would not say directly at us, but I could see the flames.

MR MOERANE: I take it none of you were injured?

MR VAN DYK: No, nobody was injured.

MR MOERANE: Did any of you, any of your party have a search light?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, there was a light. As far as I know, Mr Botha had it.

MR MOERANE: At the time of the shooting, was it on?

MR VAN DYK: At the start of the shooting, no, but only later on.

MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Moerane. Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe?

ADV GCABASHE: Just one aspect relating to the shooting that I don't quite follow. Are you saying that before you shot, the people on the other side, shot at you?

MR VAN DYK: No, I was the person who shot first.

ADV GCABASHE: You were the first. Having shot, you then had fire returned from the other side?

MR VAN DYK: That is how I observed it, yes.

ADV GCABASHE: And this person was close to you, on the passenger side of the motor vehicle?

MR VAN DYK: I wouldn't not say, the vehicle was between six and ten metres, I heard the previous witnesses said between 20 metres and further, but we were maximum, it was just on the opposite side of the road, so the person fired from that side, it seemed as if one was at the back and one was more to the door side. But I cannot say whether it was the one in the front who was shot or the one behind, but they were close to each other at that stage. I imagine that the other person was on the other side, one on this side and one on the other side of the vehicle.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, but you see you imagine, you did not actually see the other chap on the other side of the vehicle?

MR VAN DYK: It was dark, I could just see the movement.

ADV GCABASHE: But you could see the one on the nearest side, on the side that was closer to you?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, it was very dark, there was no moon, so I would not say that I saw the person clearly.

ADV GCABASHE: What you are saying is that it is possible that the other one was not there, he had gone off to pass water or whatever, it is possible?

MR VAN DYK: It is possible, I don't know.

ADV GCABASHE: So we are really looking at what you saw and that is one person who was about to get into the motor vehicle?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I would concede that.

ADV GCABASHE: And this person would have had his back to you because he is getting into the motor vehicle? I am just trying to understand, to picture this?

MR VAN DYK: I would not be able to say whether he was with his back to me, because it was too dark to see whether it was the back of him or the front of him.

ADV GCABASHE: So you wouldn't be able to say he definitely had a firearm in his hand either, it was too dark to see?

MR VAN DYK: Not at that stage, but I accepted that he did have a firearm, because when the vehicle stopped, we heard them cocking their weapons. I don't know what was the reason therefore, whether they were just testing it, but they were armed.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, but my difficulty with that is those were the four who where then found with AK47's on the other side of the border, so I assumed from the evidence, I understood those were the people, from the evidence that has been led, who had the AK47's, not necessarily the escorts who were on the Swaziland side of the border and who didn't know anything was afoot?

MR VAN DYK: We accepted that they were armed because of the arms being taken out there and the weapons being cocked. The people who took those people over the border, were armed, we assumed that they were all armed.

ADV GCABASHE: And as soon as you started firing, your colleagues started firing?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: So with the experience you have, the person who was getting into the car, would have had very little chance of whipping around and shooting back at four people firing at him?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, but that person had not been in the vehicle yet, he was just standing there.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, I understand that, I am just trying to imagine this person trying to get into the car, or not suspecting you were anywhere near there, and yet being able to shoot back at you, not just one shot but quite a few shots, shooting at four people who had been completely obscured from his vision, who had no clue you were anywhere in the vicinity? You understand, I am just trying to get a picture of this in my mind, to understand it.

MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, as I have said it was so dark, one could only see the silhouettes of these people and it was not clear, but weapons we were convinced that they were armed. I could not go and ask them, that is what happened there.

ADV GCABASHE: At the end of the day you found one Makarov pistol, you say?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct. But the other person, we don't know what weapon he had.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, but you see again our difficulty, it is yours and mine, you don't even know if he was there, if he shot back at you at all. You can only speculate, you don't know?

MR VAN DYK: Much later reports that came through, that he was there and that he had run away.

ADV GCABASHE: No, we are talking about the shooting, whether he returned fire, that is what I am trying to understand. You can only speculate on that?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, we can only speculate.

ADV GCABASHE: By the time the shooting started here, the pick up point where the other Lieutenant was picking up the four, was a distance away so they would have left already by that time?

MR VAN DYK: The persons who took the persons away, would have taken them to the vehicle and then they would return, so the vehicle would have been gone already.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Mr Van Dyk, the evidence of Mr Ras and Mr Tait referred to two persons who returned, your evidence is also that with reference to the silhouettes?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Are you certain that two persons returned?

MR VAN DYK: I am very certain. As Mr Tait said, the two people were talking when they returned. As one could see the silhouettes, it was two persons.

MR MALAN: After you had fired the shots, you said that it happened very quickly, how long did you wait after the cease fire before you went to the vehicle?

MR VAN DYK: When we ceased fire, the light was already on and we moved towards the vehicle and we lit it around and we didn't see the other person and that is when we quickly set the vehicle alight and we left.

MR MALAN: Were you not afraid that the person would fire at you?

MR VAN DYK: We discussed it amongst each other but as I say, we had to take the chance because we could not leave the vehicle, whether there were explosions and weapons in the car that could be used at a next opportunity.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Dyk, we have heard from both Mr Ras and Mr Tait that the plan was that you would wait until these people got in the vehicle and then shoot. It is clear that you started shooting before they were in the vehicle, is there any reason for that, why you didn't obey your own order?

MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, that is correct. There was a very important reason for it. I don't however wish to present this as an excuse, I just want to put it clearly that this is what happened at that moment. One of the persons who lay with me in the line, his safety catch of his firearm was not off and as the person approached the vehicle in front of us, I cannot say who the person was, I am not certain, he pulled his safety catch back and this made a rather loud noise and it appeared to me as if the person on the other side of the vehicle stopped and listened in our direction, as if he wasn't certain of what he had heard. That is why I decided to open fire at that point.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions arising from questions put by the panel? Thank you Mr Van Dyk, that then concludes your evidence, you may stand down and I now see it is just passed eleven o'clock and this would then be an appropriate time to take the short tea adjournment.

MS LOCKHAT: All rise.

ON RESUMPTION:

MS LOCKHAT: The next amnesty applicant is Mr Cornelius Botha.

CORNELIUS JOHANNES BOTHA: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: You may be seated.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Van der Walt?

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Botha, you are applying for amnesty and your application can be found in Volume 1, from page 249 to page 251, that would be the official amnesty application form and the content is in page 252, the motivation and political background, from page 256 to 263, do you confirm the content thereof?

MR BOTHA: That is correct, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: During the incident which took place on the 12th of June 1988 in Swaziland, where were you stationed at that time?

MR BOTHA: At Piet Retief Security Branch.

MS VAN DER WALT: How long were you stationed there?

MR BOTHA: From 1981 to 1994.

MS VAN DER WALT: Under whose command were you?

MR BOTHA: Warrant Officer Freek Pienaar.

MS VAN DER WALT: Piet Retief was part of which region?

MR BOTHA: It was in the Eastern Transvaal region, below Ermelo.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were involved in the incident regarding Mr Ras, Tait and Van Dyk gave evidence during which a person was shot dead in Swaziland, is that correct?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: In paragraph 1, on page 252 you state that you received instructions to arrest the persons who were assisting the MK members in infiltrating the RSA?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you explain that please?

MR BOTHA: Chairperson, on that day we were requested or at least we received the instruction from Colonel Van Dyk, and because I worked under Freek Pienaar, to cross the border and to then attempt to arrest those persons who were going to infiltrate the RSA and to eliminate them, to shoot them.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was there a specific reason why they requested you to accompany?

MR BOTHA: Chairperson, I knew the area and I also knew where we would be able to leave the vehicle on the RSA side of the border, at a point where it would be most easy to enter.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you know where these persons were going to cross the border?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct, I knew.

MS VAN DER WALT: How did you know and where would they cross the border?

MR BOTHA: The place was indicated to me by Warrant Officer Pienaar when he indicated to the persons who had to pick up as a result of the information that we received.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was this at a normal border post or where was it?

MR BOTHA: It was an illegal crossing, it was over the border fence.

MS VAN DER WALT: This specific place, was it a singular place where persons had crossed, or was it more frequently used?

MR BOTHA: This was the first time that I recall somebody crossing the border at that point.

MS VAN DER WALT: You state in the second paragraph that you and Captain Paul van Dyk and Martiens Ras entered Swaziland, you do not state anything about Mr Tait, is there any reason for that?

MR BOTHA: Chairperson, I wasn't very familiar with all the members from C1 and during the time when I made the statement, I could not recall what the fourth person's name was.

MS VAN DER WALT: You also state and this is in paragraph 2, that there was an attempt to arrest the persons, do you wish to explain that?

MR BOTHA: Yes Chairperson, there wasn't an actual attempt, I meant it more in the sense that we would have wanted to make an attempt to arrest these persons.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was your instruction when you arrived there at the scene?

MR BOTHA: At the scene it was dark and if I describe the scene, it would be after we took up positions.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes?

MR BOTHA: The instruction there was that we would shoot when they arrived because arrest was completely out of the question. There would be no opportunity for an arrest, that was too dangerous.

MS VAN DER WALT: Under whose instruction did you act there at the scene?

MR BOTHA: Under Warrant Officer Van Dyk.

MS VAN DER WALT: What took place?

MR BOTHA: We took up positions, we lay down and waited for quite a while for these persons and we heard them returning, we could hear them speaking, they moved around the vehicle. I had a light which I had to switch on as soon as the shooting commenced and for a moment, the persons were quiet and then the shooting ensued. I, myself, am not certain whether the shooting originated from our side or from the other side, I just know that the shooting commenced, it began and everybody started shooting.

MS VAN DER WALT: What did you do after that?

MR BOTHA: Shortly after the shooting, I switched on the light, we moved closer, I looked for the other person, whether we could see him. Next to the car was a deceased person who lay there. I shot the petrol tank of the vehicle to pieces and to tell the truth, I heard Mr Ras' evidence now, I thought that I was the one who set the vehicle alight, but it was him. It may be that he had matches and approached the vehicle and set it alight with the matches.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because you state in paragraph 3 that you set the vehicle alight, is that the way you recall it?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is how I recalled it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you hear when the persons arrived there at the scene when you lay there, before the persons were taken over the border, whether any firearms were cocked as the vehicle stopped there?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct. My evidence differs from the others in that regard, but I heard four firearms being cocked, I counted them specifically.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you have a good knowledge of firearms, can you tell the Committee what knowledge of firearms you have and what enabled you to determine this?

MR BOTHA: I cannot say that these were AK's, we just assumed that they were AK47's, but the gun that was being cocked was definitely a gun, I knew that there were five guns. They were successively cocked, not simultaneously.

MS VAN DER WALT: And there is a definite difference between a gun and the usual hand firearm, one could hear the difference when a firearm is being cocked?

MR BOTHA: At that distance I could hear that it was definitely a firearm.

ADV GCABASHE: Could I just get a bit of clarity, the Interpreter said that I knew that there were five firearms and yet, just a few minutes before that, what I heard was that four firearms had been cocked. I am not sure if we are talking of four or five now?

MR BOTHA: Yes Chairperson, I know the others said that they heard four, but when I counted, I counted five. It may be that I may be incorrect, but I recall it as such.

ADV GCABASHE: You have to take me along with you, you heard four being cocked, you counted five. When did you count the five?

MR BOTHA: When they were being cocked.

ADV GCABASHE: You heard five being cocked?

CHAIRPERSON: I had the same note as Adv Gcabashe, that it was first of all mentioned four and then five, but it seems that it was five that you heard?

MR BOTHA: Five that I counted being cocked, yes.

INTERPRETER: I beg your pardon Chairperson, it was actually my mistake, I misheard the applicant, I thought it was four initially.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS VAN DER WALT: And after the incident, you said that you switched on a light, were any firearms found next to the vehicle?

MR BOTHA: Next to the person who had been shot dead, there was a firearm, a Makarov which lay next to him.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did you then depart from the scene?

MR BOTHA: After the vehicle had been set alight, we left the scene.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you in any way involved in the shooting incident which took place on that same night on the South African side of the border?

MR BOTHA: No Chairperson. While it may have been a simultaneous incident, there was separate planning and execution.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you knew that there would be a shooting incident on the other side?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you are then requesting amnesty for the murder of this one person?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And any other judgement emanating from that?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: As well as for any illegal act which may emanate from the incident?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Botha, during your period of service at the Security Branch in Piet Retief, were you involved in investigations during which members of the ANC or MK were involved in various acts of violence?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Before these events?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius. Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR JANSEN: No questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Knight?

MR KNIGHT: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: No questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Mr Chairperson, I have a slight problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it the quality of the photocopying, with that

line across the middle?

MR MOERANE: If somebody can just tell me what is under the, what the words are under that?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, my copy is the same as yours Mr Moerane, it appears it is the same with all three of ours. Ms Van der Walt, is there an unblemished statement?

MS VAN DER WALT: I've just got the one that my client's got, but he has written a sentence at the top, but he testified as to what he ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, all Mr Moerane wants to know, if you take a look at paragraph 2.

MS VAN DER WALT: I can just read it to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph 2, yes, and perhaps if you can just read it slow enough for Mr Moerane and others to write it down, the obliterated part. It says ...

MS VAN DER WALT: I know what it is, I will read it.

have you got that Mr Moerane?

MR MOERANE: Yes, if you can just proceed slowly thereafter.

MR MOERANE: Is that the end of the sentence?

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR MOERANE: Thank you very much.

MS VAN DER WALT: Have you got -

Have you got that?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes, we've got that section.

MR MOERANE: Thank you. Mr Botha, one of the rules that a policeman follows is taking instructions from his superiors, not so?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And those instructions have to be in very clear terms so that you know precisely what is expected of you?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: What were your instructions with regard to this mission?

MR BOTHA: Chairperson, it was to go over and according to my opinion, as I understood it, if there was an opportunity to arrest, we would arrest the person primarily to prevent that we do not endanger the rest of the operation while the persons were still under way to the border. And if the option presented itself on the other side, we would also shoot these persons.

MR MOERANE: It is not quite clear to me what your instructions were, just tell us in very simple language what your instructions were. Were your instructions to kill these people or were your instructions to arrest them because the two differ totally?

MR BOTHA: Yes, there wasn't one single instruction according to my opinion, there were two. We could arrest them if the circumstances allowed, and if the circumstances did not allow it, we would shoot to kill.

MR MOERANE: Is there any reason why you did not mention that part, shoot to kill, in your statement?

MR BOTHA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane, if I could just ask a question, I can't, are you saying Mr Botha and I gather this also from the evidence of Mr Ras and Mr Tait and Mr Van Dyk, that if they had left a guard at the vehicle while the other two went off with the people who were to infiltrate, you would have arrested that guard because you couldn't have shot him because the noise would have alerted the people on their way to the border and that would have affected the whole operation, is that what you are saying?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct, we would try to arrest if it was possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's take the scene, they do leave a guard and they go off and you arrest a person there, what are you going to do with this arrested person?

MR BOTHA: We couldn't arrest him, we would have to abduct him to the RSA for further interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: But you might also have to kill him because he would just have to open his mouth while he is in your control and that would also give away your position when the others came back?

MR BOTHA: Chairperson, we did not discuss this issue under those circumstances there, but I don't believe we would have killed him, that wasn't part of our instruction.

CHAIRPERSON: It would seem unlikely that you would have, you would say to him "keep quiet" and just rely on him keeping quiet while the others returned?

MR BOTHA: We might possibly have to do that if we arrested him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Moerane?

MR MOERANE: Mr Botha, Were your instructions not very clear that you had to eliminate these people?

MR BOTHA: According to my understanding it was very clear, if we could not arrest, we had to take them out. We had to shoot.

MR MOERANE: Just for the record, your statement is one of those that was made at Delmas?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: On the 12th of December?

MR BOTHA: It may have been the 12th Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: On page 251 it says the 12th of December, Delmas.

MR BOTHA: Chairperson, yes, if it is the 12th, I cannot recall whether I signed it on the 12th or whether I made the statement on the 12th. I visited Delmas twice, the first time when I made the statement, to consult with my legal representatives and then two or three days later, I returned to sign the statement.

MR MOERANE: Is it correct that you did not try to arrest any of these people?

MR BOTHA: No, we did not attempt to arrest them.

MR MOERANE: Why did you say that you made an attempt to arrest them?

MR BOTHA: It was presented incorrectly, I remember that I wrote something there because no attempt was made to arrest, it was more to the effect that we would make an attempt if we could, or if we had to.

MR MOERANE: How long have you been a member of the South African Police Force?

MR BOTHA: 26 years.

MR MOERANE: And I take it you have made many statements, many affidavits in the course of your ...

MR BOTHA: Yes, I made many.

MR MOERANE: Yes, and I take it you read them carefully before you sign them or attest them?

MR BOTHA: Usually, yes.

MR MOERANE: And I assume that in this instance, you actually did that because you first consulted and then a statement was taken from you, it was presented to you to confirm its correctness?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I believe that I did study it thoroughly.

MR MOERANE: Just give this Honourable Committee an idea of how the shooting came about, where were you, where was the other person or the other persons?

MR BOTHA: Chairperson, we were in a straight line of four persons. If I recall correctly, I was on the right point above, I cannot recall who was on my left, I don't know whether it was Mr Van Dyk or one of the other persons, I know that there was another person further on to the left. I don't have the correct sequence of the persons.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you laying in touching distance from each other or were you spread out over a far greater distance between, the person on the extreme right ...

MR BOTHA: I would say about two to three metres.

CHAIRPERSON: From the extreme right person to the extreme left, or two to three metres between each person?

MR BOTHA: Between each person.

MR MOERANE: How far was the motor vehicle from you?

MR BOTHA: Approximately as far as the chairs behind you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane, that would be about five paces, would you say? The chairs behind Mr Moerane?

MR BOTHA: I would say 15, that would be my estimation.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, 15?

MR BOTHA: From there to there, yes.

MR MOERANE: Yes, that sounds about right. How was this motor vehicle positioned, what position was it facing in relation to your position?

MR BOTHA: Facing to my side.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it side on or was the headlights pointing towards you or the taillights, side on?

MR BOTHA: No, it was the side, the right side was towards me.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the driver's side?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: Yes, and what did you see?

MR BOTHA: It was dark, I couldn't see much. We heard the persons approaching and the one person walked on the one side of the motor vehicle as I could see, and the other, walked on my side of the vehicle. They were speaking as they arrived, but for a short while, just before they climbed back into the car, there was silence as if they had noticed something. That is when the shots went off, that is when we began shooting.

MR MOERANE: Were you able to see the person on the driver's side of the motor vehicle?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: What about the other person, were you able to see him?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I saw him.

MR MOERANE: Well, you see, my instructions are that the second person who was not near the car, instructed that he had actually gone to attend to a call of nature.

MR BOTHA: That may be so, then I may have seen him where he answered the call of nature.

MR MOERANE: That is why he escaped, because he was not right there where you were shooting?

MR BOTHA: That is possible because he was on the other side of the vehicle. The distance between him and the vehicle, I cannot say how great that distance was.

MR MOERANE: How come is it that you do not know who fired first?

MR BOTHA: Chairperson, I didn't see a flash from the other side and naturally as I was positioned, or where I was positioned the grass was tall and I wasn't watching the people on our side, I simply heard the shots.

MR MOERANE: Was it dark there?

MR BOTHA: It was dark, yes.

MR MOERANE: Is it correct that if you fire a firearm in the dark, you can see the flash of light?

MR BOTHA: Yes, with certain firearms you can see the flash, others have extinguishers which enables you not to see the flame.

MR MOERANE: Well, let's assume that it was a Makarov being fired there, Makarov without a silencer, an ordinary Makarov, would you have been able to see the flash?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I believe I would have seen it then.

MR MOERANE: And you did not see it?

MR BOTHA: No, I didn't see it.

MR MOERANE: That area was quiet and dark, not so?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Would it be reasonable to infer from what you observed therefore that no shot was fired by the person who was on the driver's side?

MR BOTHA: That may be.

MR MOERANE: Why did you set this motor vehicle on fire?

MR BOTHA: Chairperson, it was used by the enemy and we would do everything in our power to disable their logistics.

MR MOERANE: The intention was to disable the ANC as you perceived the situation, by destroying their transport?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Was it necessary to have this person set on fire or to find himself in a position where he would be burnt?

MR BOTHA: It probably wasn't necessary.

MR MOERANE: Why was it done?

MR BOTHA: I don't think that that person was our primary interest at that stage, we did what we had to do, we wanted to finish the job and we wanted to get away.

MR MOERANE: Wasn't the whole intention to burn him so that he could not be identified?

MR BOTHA: No Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: My instructions are that when he was burnt, he was actually in the car?

MR BOTHA: No Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Moerane. Ms Lockhat, do you

have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Just one question, thank you Chairperson. Mr Botha, just the one aspect regarding the issue that you said, the attempt to arrest them on page 252 of your amnesty application form, you said that statement is incorrect?

MR BOTHA: That is correct, no attempt was made to arrest.

MS LOCKHAT: At which stage did you realise that this was an incorrect statement?

MR BOTHA: When I read it here.

MS LOCKHAT: Because none of the other applicants said that there was an attempt to arrest per se, it was that it was an ambush, clearly to them it was an ambush. Is it because theirs is conflicting with yours and therefore you are now changing your version?

MR BOTHA: No Chairperson, I think that we have made different inferences. I work on the supposition that there will be arrests and that there will be information about activities. It may be that we regarded the instruction differently or understood it differently. In my mind the idea was that if we could undertake an arrest, we would do so.

MS LOCKHAT: It just seems strange that all this time from 1997 when you handed in this application to the Commission, this statement of yours was perfectly correct until the stage of this hearing today?

MR BOTHA: I didn't have any copy of the statement at my disposal, I never kept it at my home. From the time that I read it there and the time that I signed it, until today, I have not seen it again.

MS LOCKHAT: Is it correct that you only applied for two incidents, the Nesden and this incident?

MR BOTHA: That is correct, yes.

MS LOCKHAT: So didn't you regard this as an important issue, these two applications that you actually didn't even have a copy with you?

MR BOTHA: No, to tell you the truth, I may have underestimated the Amnesty Committee, I saw myself as a member of a war situation, I did not see any problems. I was always working in the execution of my duties, with no other thoughts than that.

MS LOCKHAT: Who was your Commander at this time, was it Mr Pienaar?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: After this incident, did you report every detail of the incident to your Commander?

MR BOTHA: I don't know whether I reported every detail, but I gave him the overview of what took place and that would be everything, that would be the overview.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you inform him when you did report back to him, that you killed a person?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: And what was his response?

MR BOTHA: I think he congratulated me, we did what we were supposed to do.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Van der Walt, do you have any re-examination?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe, do you have any questions?

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, thank you Chair. On the same point of Commanders, for this particular operation, Mr De Kock was your Commander?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: And he gave you instruction as to what to do

once you got to Swaziland?

MR BOTHA: That is correct, he and Warrant Officer Pienaar assisted with the instructions.

ADV GCABASHE: You were physically there when he gave the instruction?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Did he explain who the persons were who he was expecting you to encounter on the other side, in terms of their status?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: What did he say?

MR BOTHA: He said that these were MK members from Swaziland, who were busy infiltrating other members into the Republic.

ADV GCABASHE: And the impression that you were left with was that they were possibly senior to the people who were coming in?

MR BOTHA: That is possible.

ADV GCABASHE: You see, he says in his evidence, if I have recorded it correctly, that the instruction to you was to eliminate these people, I actually looked for the spot. What I have here is he says "I agreed to send C1 members in to kill Commanders", and he mentioned Ndaba who was one of the more senior people there and "anyone with him, they were to be killed." That was his instruction to you, yes?

MR BOTHA: Chairperson, if I recalled it as clearly as that, I would have said that, but I know that there was a question of arrest because it would make sense. We worked with it, we worked with information.

ADV GCABASHE: You see, the reason it wouldn't make sense was because the more junior people who were killed by the same group where Mr De Kock was, who were killed, deliberately killed, eliminated, that was the plan. So it makes sense for those people to be killed as he says, and their superiors to be killed. So you eliminate and you eliminate, otherwise you arrest and you arrest, or do I not understand how the mindset and the workings of the Security Branch was at the time?

MR BOTHA: With respect, I don't think you understand it completely, the senior members would have been able to convey much more information if we could bring them back, but the idea was to kill them. However, the order was dual in nature, if we could arrest them, we would and if we were going to place the other operation in jeopardy, then we would also arrest, but there wasn't any chance for arrest because it wouldn't have been viable for the operation.

ADV GCABASHE: Of course my understanding is in the context of what Mr De Kock has already told us, that the instruction was to kill?

MR BOTHA: We killed, yes, and we were there to kill. The instruction was to kill, but with me, there was always the idea or that I understood the instruction as such that arrest was a possibility, if it was possible to execute an arrest.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, but this is where my difficulty is, you didn't get that from him. He is the Commander, you do as he tells you to do, because he has a reason for instructing you to do particular things in a particular way? He gives you an instruction and you think otherwise and you do things differently, is that what you say?

MR BOTHA: It may be so.

ADV GCABASHE: Whereas at the end of the day, you did exactly as he had told you, you killed?

MR BOTHA: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: I still don't see where the arrest fits in. It is not the instruction, it is not what happened, where does the arrest fit in?

MR BOTHA: That is how I understood it, I don't know how to answer that. To me the arrest, according to my opinion, the arrest was mentioned if there was a possibility to arrest, then we had to do so, but the information that we had and if it would jeopardise the operation, if it would jeopardise the operation and they were not far enough, then we had to shoot, we would not have shot. We would try and arrest then. I know it sounds complicated, but that is how I understood it.

ADV GCABASHE: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Just for the record, you speak of an arrest, but there was no arrest, executing an arrest in Swaziland? That is an abduction, a kidnapping?

MR BOTHA: That is true it is abduction in the true sense of the word.

MR MALAN: And you would have only done so if the opportunity was there on a platter because there was very little chance of catching or abducting people who came across the border with weapons?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR MALAN: So it could not have been a primary objective or have been an important consideration?

MR BOTHA: No, it was a small point thereof, but it was a point.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You say that you picked up the Makarov and then gave it to Mr Ras?

MR BOTHA: No, I did not pick it up, I don't know who picked it up.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, it must have been Mr Van Dyk.

MR BOTHA: I just know that the Makarov was with the C1 people, but I did not pick it up or deal with it.

CHAIRPERSON: What were you armed with?

MR BOTHA: An R1 rifle.

CHAIRPERSON: And your colleagues?

MR BOTHA: I cannot remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they have automatic rifles or handguns?

MR BOTHA: No, they had automatic rifles if I am correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising out of questions put by members of the panel?

MS VAN DER WALT: Just a single aspect.

MR MOERANE: Maybe I should go first so that my learned friend has a chance of re-examining.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sorry, I did not see.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: This question of obtaining information as a result of arrests, that was in particular Warrant Officer Pienaar's field, not so, he is the person who gathered information, he is the person who ran sources, not so?

MR BOTHA: It was also mine, I was second in command from the establishment of the Branch.

MR MOERANE: I see. You were second in command?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Did you also run sources?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: In Swaziland?

MR BOTHA: Yes, in Swaziland.

MR MOERANE: Mr Theron also ran sources?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Now if your superior Warrant Officer Pienaar says go over and kill the person, he says nothing about arresting, doesn't it imply to you that he does not need that particular person as a source of information?

MR BOTHA: No, you always need all information, all information that is available. We were an Information Branch, that was the primary objective, to obtain information.

MR MOERANE: Well, look at the first incident, we have been told that the intention was to kill those people, not to arrest them.

MR BOTHA: Yes Chairperson, I have heard it, I did not know of the intent there.

MR MOERANE: You see Mr Pienaar and Mr Theron had a very good source, a very well placed source, so they did not need that particular information, do you go along with that?

MR BOTHA: I don't know, however good this source was, would not have had all the information, it would have been limited to her information.

MR MOERANE: You see, that is the normal function of a Security Branch office or any policeman concerned with collection of information or Intelligence.

MR BOTHA: That is correct. That is the primary function, yes.

MR MOERANE: But here you were involved in a different mission, it was not a question of collection of information, it was a specific mission of elimination?

MR BOTHA: Yes Chairperson, sometimes there are instances where one has to act on information.

MR MOERANE: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Just a single issue Mr Botha. You were here when Mr De Kock gave evidence about this incident, is that correct?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And if I recall the words of Mr De Kock as such, I want to know whether you understood it as such. When he gave evidence about this incident, he said there was the idea of to catch these people, he used the word catch. He testified that but the primary purpose was to eliminate them, did you hear that?

MR BOTHA: My Lord, it could be, I cannot recall his evidence to that extent, but that is how I understood his evidence.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, that concludes your evidence Mr Botha, you may now stand down.

MR BOTHA: Thank you Chairperson.

ON RESUMPTION:

MS LOCKHAT: The next amnesty applicant is Mr Theron.

FLIP KOENRAAD THERON: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated. Your full names, is it Flip Koenraad?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Van der Walt?

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Theron, your amnesty application appears in Volume 1, on page 94 to 96 and the application which you bring before this Committee is from page 97 to 101, Annexure A and then the political background and motivation, is Annexure B, on pages 102 to page 109, is that correct?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: We have also heard the evidence of Mr De Kock, Mr Pienaar with regard to the two incidents for which you apply for amnesty?

MR THERON: I have heard, yes Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And do you confirm their evidence where it is concerned to you?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: There was evidence that the information which was obtained with regard to these two shooting incidents, this information came from a source which you handled, is that correct?

MR THERON: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And before we continue any further, you approached me after an application was brought in that the source's name be made known and what was your instruction to me?

MR THERON: I requested you not to make the name known. My feeling was that I did not want to endanger the person's life and that is the only reason.

MS VAN DER WALT: And are you convinced that that would be so that the person's life would be endangered?

MR THERON: Yes, that is my feeling Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: This source who gave you this information, did you have, have you dealt with this source a long time before these two incidents?

MR THERON: Yes, I have Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: For how long?

MR THERON: I speak under correction, but I would say it would be approximately a year, it may have been less, but approximately one year.

MS VAN DER WALT: Before this incident?

MR THERON: Yes Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the information which you received through this source, did you confirm it?

MR THERON: Yes Chairperson, I received several pieces of information from this source with regard to the activities of ANC members and I obtained this information and processed it and I sent it through, through the usual channels to the Regional Head Office and then to Head Office.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then you apply for amnesty for the first event, the event where the Toyota Corolla was involved?

MR THERON: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And in that incident, did you also fire shots?

MR THERON: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And four persons were killed?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know of any weapons which were found on these persons or not?

MR THERON: Chairperson, later I realised that weapons were planted, during the incident there were no weapons.

MS VAN DER WALT: And with regard to the second event, did you also receive information from your source that once again, after the first incident, persons would infiltrate the country?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was the information that you had?

MR THERON: That armed members of the ANC, trained members and who would be armed, would come into the country Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you know that it would take place on this specific day, the 12th of June?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did you convey this information to Mr Pienaar?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you were also involved in this incident?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson, I was there.

MS VAN DER WALT: What were your duties there?

MR THERON: My duty during the second incident was to handle the light during the incident, that I supply the lighting Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: When did you have to switch on the light?

MR THERON: After the vehicle had come to a stop and to switch on the light as quickly as possible.

MS VAN DER WALT: You also did not fire shots during the second incident?

MR THERON: No, I did not shoot Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You knew that in both instances, the people would be lured into an ambush?

MR THERON: That was my deduction Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why do you say that that was a deduction?

MR THERON: During the planning it became clear that it would be an ambush and not a roadblock.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have also made statements for the post mortem inquest?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you also gave evidence there?

MR THERON: Yes. For the first incident I testified, and for the second one, I did not Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: I refer the Honourable Committee to Volume 3(a), that is a statement which you made, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Which page Ms Van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: Page 1 and 2, excuse me Chairperson. It was to Brigadier Van Wyk, is that correct?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: On page 1, paragraph 4, you mention - that is the fourth line Chairperson - you would arrest the persons, is that correct?

MR THERON: That is not correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because you knew they would be shot?

MR THERON: Yes, I knew they would be shot.

MS VAN DER WALT: In the last paragraph you mention that there was a blue flashlight that was switched on, is that correct?

MR THERON: That was not correct Chairperson, there was no other vehicle and no light there at that stage.

MS VAN DER WALT: On page 2 you mentioned that Colonel De Kock had shouted that it was the police, is that correct?

MR THERON: No, that is not correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And in the fourth paragraph from the top Chairperson, you said that you were aware that a Makarov pistol as well as handgrenades were found in the possession of the deceased, that is also not correct?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson, that is not correct, there were no weapons.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did you testify as such during the death inquest?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then in Volume 5 Chairperson, on page 110 and 111 and 112 you also made a statement?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you recall whom you made the statement to?

MR THERON: I cannot see who did this, but I imagine that it was Brigadier Van Wyk.

MS VAN DER WALT: That was Daantjie van Dyk, it looks like a D?

MR THERON: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And this was in regard to the second incident?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And in the second paragraph Chairperson, at page 110 you mention that you received certain instructions from Major Deetlefs and Warrant Officer Pienaar, you didn't mention Mr De Kock there?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was that correct?

MR THERON: Colonel De Kock was there Chairperson, we received the instructions from Colonel De Kock amongst others.

MS VAN DER WALT: On the same page, page 110, paragraph 5...

MR MALAN: Excuse me, what Bundle are we dealing with?

CHAIRPERSON: It is page 47. It is the big number that we are looking at.

MS VAN DER WALT: It is Bundle 5, Mr Malan.

CHAIRPERSON: Volume 5, page 47.

MS VAN DER WALT: I am sorry, it is on page 47.

CHAIRPERSON: If you could go back, Ms Van der Walt, because I was looking at page 110 and it was obviously the wrong statement.

MS VAN DER WALT: I am very sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: If you could just ask Mr Theron again the questions concerning this page please.

MS VAN DER WALT: I see it is page 47 of Volume 5, page 48 and 49 that the statement is on?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then on page 47, the second paragraph, that is where you mention Major Deetlefs and Pienaar and not De Kock, is that correct?

MR THERON: That is correct, Colonel De Kock was also there.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then on page 47, paragraph 5, you mention that "I switched on a blue light as well as my flashlight to draw the driver's attention to stop", is that correct?

MR THERON: That is not correct, there was no blue flickering light as well as no other vehicle.

MS VAN DER WALT: You only had a light, what light did you have?

MR THERON: It was the same light that was earlier discussed, it is a very bright light, a search light that one could handle with your hand Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you say that you did not testify during the second inquest?

MR THERON: I did not testify during the second investigation, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You apply in these two incidents for the murders of these people?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You knew that in both instances that the persons would be killed?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you also apply for any other offence which might emanate from this offence?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: As well as for defeating the ends of justice and perjury?

MR THERON: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And any other deed?

MR THERON: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr

Chairman. Mr Theron, during your involvement with the Piet Retief Security Branch were you tasked with several investigations of terror where MK and ANC were involved?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: There were incidents at Sasol II, are you aware there of?

MR THERON: I am aware of that Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: There were the attacks which I have already put in the Eastern Transvaal, to the previous witness?

MR THERON: Yes, the landmine attacks and the bomb explosions, I am aware of that Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there a high incident of insurgents coming into the country?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson, as far as I can recall from 1985, there was an increase Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: According to your experience, persons who came into the country in this manner, who came through the fence, and did not come through the border post, were they armed?

MR THERON: Yes, they were armed Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And according to your information, members of the ANC were well-trained soldiers?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you in the circumstances which reigned in the country, did you see them as the same as a person who was embroiled in a war, part of the Security Forces against the ANC?

MR THERON: I believe so Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And is it so that usually no conventional methods were used to combat the situation?

MR THERON: That is so Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you see this instruction as the execution of your general duties?

MR THERON: I did Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Theron, were you the handler of the informer or the source?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And had you for several years worked with this source?

MR THERON: Chairperson, approximately a year, I cannot say exactly how, but approximately one year.

MR CORNELIUS: You have tested the quality of the source's information, you were satisfied?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson. Previous information that I received, was also tested with other sources and the source was regarded as a reliable source.

MR CORNELIUS: When you received this information, did you process it and submit it to your immediate superior?

MR THERON: Yes, I did Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And on each turn, was it sent through to Security Head Office in Pretoria?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: The specific information with regard to the Piet Retief incidents, was this promoted to Pretoria?

MR THERON: Chairperson, I cannot really recall whether the specific infiltration was sent through in writing, I doubt it actually.

MR CORNELIUS: You say you had no doubt that the persons would be armed?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And your information that they would be armed, were conveyed to De Kock and C-Section?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius. Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. My Attorney has just been requested, I am referring to page 99 of the Volume 1, paragraph 8 thereon, just to put something to the witness. You make the statement here that Colonel De Kock had given Roelf Venter to place arms in the vehicle, this must be a fault because we have heard that Martiens Ras said that he did it and in any case, according to the Attorneys who represent Mr Roelf, he was not even there? Is that reference to Venter's name a mistake?

MR THERON: Chairperson, yes, after I had heard the evidence, it is quite acceptable to me, the evidence of Mr Ras that it might have been different. Why it was mentioned was because at a stage it was mentioned that Mr Roelf Venter was there, and I assumed, but I accept the evidence of Mr Ras.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, then I have just been asked to place on record that the Attorneys appearing for Mr Venter said that they will consider filing an affidavit just to confirm that their client wasn't present.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Booyens. Mr Knight, do you have any questions?

MR KNIGHT: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, just one or two. With regard to the statement, that is the false statement which you made in Bundle 5, on page 47 to 49, I see it was done on the 26th of May 1989, it was signed on that date. Is it also your recollection that it was during that time?

MR THERON: Chairperson, it seems as if it is the 26th of May 1989.

MR LAMEY: Is it that also your recollection that it was in 1989?

MR THERON: Yes Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: The person before whom you attested to it, do you remember who it was?

MR THERON: It was Brigadier Van Wyk. It seems like that from the statement and as far as I could recall, it was Brigadier Van Wyk.

MR LAMEY: If you page to page 52, we will see with regard to Mr Rorich. His was signed on the 8th of June, it seems as if it was Brigadier Van Wyk?

MR THERON: It seems so Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Can you independently recall, was the statement that you signed here, was it typed and prepared beforehand before you signed it, or do you recall how it happened?

MR THERON: As far as I can recall Chairperson, Brigadier Van Wyk met with us one by one in an office. I cannot recall whether the statement was prepared later and I signed it, but it could be so, but I cannot recall it.

MR LAMEY: You cannot recall whether a typed version was prepared beforehand, you cannot recall?

MR THERON: No, I cannot exactly recall what the course of events was, but I recall that he called us into his office and took the statements from us, but the typed version, I cannot recall how it was signed exactly, whether it was directly thereafter.

MR LAMEY: I also see that your statement was signed in Piet Retief?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Did Brigadier Van Wyk come there?

MR THERON: Yes, he stayed quite a while in Piet Retief during the investigation, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether you saw him once or more than once?

MR THERON: I saw him more than once, he was there for quite some time.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Moerane, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. With regard to what my learned friend has been asking you, is it correct that the reason why further statements had to be obtained from you and others by Brigadier Van Wyk, was that Warrant Officer Pienaar had been removed as Investigating Officer by then, as a result of objections from the representative of the families?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: That objection appears in Bundle 3(b), Chairperson, it was started in April, on the 24th of April 1989.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane, Volume 3(b)?

MR MOERANE: From the first page, yes. The basis is laid in the cross-examination of Warrant Officer Pienaar, which covers a number of pages and his argument and finally a decision that he be removed. Then of course, there were further things that happened, the car was examined by Captain Young, not so?

CHAIRPERSON: Captain, could you just repeat the name? Young?

MR MOERANE: Young, Basil Young.

MR THERON: Yes, I recall Captain Basil Young was there with the ballistic investigation Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And you had to go and reconstruct this scene, do you recall that?

MR THERON: Yes Chairperson, in both instances there was a reconstruction.

MR MOERANE: Yes. Even at that stage, you did not disclose the presence of Colonel De Kock as far as the second incident is concerned?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Let's look at your first statement in Bundle 3(a), page 1. You mention in the second paragraph that you had certain information and you received certain instructions, and the information and the instructions are the following -

Do you see that?

MR THERON: I see that Chairperson, yes.

MR MOERANE: Now was that information that was obtained from your source?

MR THERON: Chairperson, I cannot recall exactly how the information went about the two members, I have thought about this much and it could be that, I am not saying it is so, but it could be that I can recall there was information from the same source which would have said that the previous day or - people would have infiltrated there but it was cancelled later to another day, and it may be so that this confusion caused the two specific trained members, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Theron, you would agree that the information that you received, couldn't have involved many infiltrators coming in because it was decided to send a Toyota Corolla which would have a driver?

MR THERON: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So why should you make a mistake about two and confusing it with other information that might have been given at another time?

MR THERON: I cannot recall exactly during this incident Chairperson, but what I do know is that there was more than one occasion which was reported to me that infiltrations would take place which did not happen and it was cancelled. The issue with regard to the vehicle, it was a bit small, it was on short notice that we had to arrange the transport. We in any case did not foresee that there would be more than four people infiltrating.

MR MOERANE: But you see Mr Theron, that is the information that Mr Pienaar sent to his superiors, remember?

MR THERON: Yes, I see that in the statement. I must just state that the information came from my informer, from me.

MR MOERANE: That is right. So the information which formed the basis of this operation, was that two trained ANC cadres were going to infiltrate that evening?

MR THERON: That is how it appears in the report Chairperson. I have just explained how I view the matter, that it may also be from one of the previous incidents where specific figures were mentioned, but I cannot recall the precise detail.

MR MOERANE: Well, you see everybody who was involved in that operation and who gives a number, for instance Barnard on page 3, he also talks about "two trained ANC terrorists during that night".

MR THERON: I did not see Mr Barnard's statement.

MR MOERANE: No, there it is, you can look at it now if you don't believe you.

MR THERON: Yes, I believe you.

CHAIRPERSON: I can't understand Mr Theron, why you should think that this might be confused information? I mean it is contained in your statement, it is contained in other people's statements, what is the problem with receiving information that two people were coming in, in your mind, what do you see as a problem in this hearing about saying that your information was that two people would infiltrate rather than four?

MR THERON: Chairperson, there were four persons who came. I cannot imagine what came in on that day with the information, whether it was two persons or whether this was something that came through on a previous occasion. It is not really a problem to me, I just want to put it clearly that I obtained information on more than these two occasions that there would be infiltrations from the same source.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane?

MR MOERANE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Ras is to the same effect on page 5 of the same Volume. The statement taken from him on the 4th of July 1989 by Brigadier Van Wyk. But you see the significant thing about all the statements is that there is no mention that these people would be armed, is there?

MR THERON: I see in the statement Chairperson, that there would be two armed ANC terrorists, I didn't have time to read the rest of the statements.

MR MALAN: Mr Moerane, I am sorry, the fourth paragraph the last sentence refers to the usually well-armed terrorists.

MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, could my attention be directed at it.

MR MALAN: It is on this first page of Mr Theron's statement, paragraph 4, the last sentence reads -

not information but indeed the probability of being armed.

MR MOERANE: That is right. At this stage, I was just dealing with information, particular, specific information that had been received. You had not received information that the people, the two people would be armed?

MR THERON: I did not receive information that said that they would be armed specifically.

MR MOERANE: But from your past experience you believed that they might well be armed?

MR THERON: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: I think you have already admitted that you took part in this massive collective perjury?

MR THERON: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: With regard to the further investigation of this matter and the sequel to the first incident, did you receive further information, in other words after the 8th, from your source?

MR THERON: That is correct. Once again, I received information after the 8th, that there would be another infiltration.

MR MOERANE: Wasn't certain information given to you by Lieutenant Mose as to the intentions of the people who sent these people who came on the first occasion?

MR THERON: Yes Chairperson, as far as I can recall Mr Mose informed us that one of these persons who had assisted the insurgents, once again wanted to make use of his services because there would be another infiltration. I cannot recall whether he mentioned a specific date.

MR MOERANE: Did he not say that if the first infiltration was a success, then others would follow on the Sunday?

MR THERON: No Chairperson, I cannot recall anything like that. All that I can recall is that he said that they wanted to make use of him again for further infiltrations. He did not mention any specific dates.

MR MOERANE: It was important to keep information about the events of the 8th, particularly the fact that the infiltration was not a success from the point of view of the ANC, secret from them, they shouldn't have known, they mustn't know that it was not successful?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson, for further infiltrations, it was essential to keep this story quiet, the incident.

MR MOERANE: Not only that, but positive steps should have been taken to put them at risk and assure them that the infiltration had been a success?

MR THERON: Chairperson, it wasn't necessary for the informer to state completely positively that the group had reached its destination, the informer were only responsible for arranging transport, so it wasn't really necessary for the informer to report back, that is how I understood it.

MR MOERANE: But you know that he did report?

MR THERON: Yes, I believe so.

MR MOERANE: And she misled the ANC, which caused them to send another four people to their death?

MR THERON: That is correct, it wasn't the full truth.

MR MALAN: Excuse me Mr Moerane, on what grounds do you know that she reported back to the ANC that the first infiltration had been successful?

MR THERON: Chairperson, I did not say that I knew, but ...

MR MALAN: No, but it was put to you that you knew that she reported back to the ANC that the first operation was a success and you answered to that positively.

MR THERON: Let me just state Chairperson what the informer's function was, I believe that she reported it back, because all indications were there that if she had not done so, they would not have made use of the informer's services for the second time.

MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Moerane, but I think we need to, in the absence of this implicated person, ask a few questions about this and in her interest I think, or his interest. This informer was an informer within Swaziland?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Whom from time to time came across the border and provided information to you?

MR THERON: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: At the stage when the first infiltration took place, would this informer certainly have been in Swaziland or do you have any knowledge that she was in the Republic? We are speaking this in female form.

MR THERON: Could you repeat please.

MR MALAN: Do you have any knowledge whether during the first infiltration on the 8th, where the informer found herself?

MR THERON: During the day of the 8th, she was in the Republic, or he was in the Republic to convey certain information to me Chairperson.

MR MALAN: That was the information regarding the infiltration?

MR THERON: That is correct.

MR MALAN: In other words the same person would have had to report that transport had been arranged?

MR THERON: That is correct.

MR MALAN: You don't know whether this person returned to Swaziland or not?

MR THERON: This person did return to Swaziland.

MR MALAN: In order to make those arrangements, to confirm them?

MR THERON: Yes, to make the arrangements, I believe so.

MR MALAN: Did you at any stage tell this source of yours that these persons had come through, that you had picked them up and eliminated them?

MR THERON: No Chairperson. At a later stage, I informed the informer after the first incident that we had found the people, but I did not sketch the circumstances surrounding the incident and where it took place.

MR MALAN: What story or what version did you want to leave with this informer, what was the informer supposed to think regarding what had taken place if you did not tell her, that you had arrested the persons in a roadblock and that you had them in detention?

MR THERON: I did not say anything about this incident to the informer, I simply said that the information which the informer had given to me, was positive and that we had also obtained positive results. I also requested the informer to try again, that if there were going to be more infiltrations, to give me the information so that we could have a greater level of success. I didn't say anything else.

MR MALAN: I am just going to take up your time for a short while longer, but with regard to the background, this informer is referred to constantly, but it has never been explained as to how this informer became an informer. I want to ask you was any pressure put on the informer to be an informer, did she have a choice or was it under some form of coercion? Did she provide voluntary information to you?

MR THERON: Yes.

MR MALAN: Did you initially approach the informer to assist you, how did the informer arrive at you, were you the first contact?

MR THERON: Yes, I was the first contact.

MR MALAN: You approached the informer?

MR THERON: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you pay for information?

MR THERON: Yes, money was handed over for services rendered.

MR MALAN: And this source was appropriately registered as an informer?

MR THERON: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane?

MR MOERANE: Thank you. Haven't you read a statement from the source?

MR THERON: Repeat that please.

MR MOERANE: Haven't you read a statement from the source?

MR THERON: Chairperson, I don't understand the question.

CHAIRPERSON: We said, Mr Moerane, that we don't want the source identified, I don't want to stop you, but as long as we don't identify it until we have had the opportunity to receive representations from ...

MR MOERANE: No, I don't intend mentioning the source's name. May I proceed? Thank you. You knew that the source was intimately involved with the people who sent the infiltrators into the country from Swaziland?

MR THERON: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: She knew of the arrangements?

MR THERON: Repeat please.

MR MOERANE: She knew of the arrangements and took part in the arrangements, the identification of routes for instance?

MR THERON: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: You know that she was arrested by the ANC?

MR THERON: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Do you know how long after the second incident?

MR THERON: I was aware of it shortly after she was arrested, if the members of the ANC could arrest her in Swaziland, a short while after that, approximately two weeks later, she was abducted.

MR MOERANE: Yes, that is right, because somebody survived? Because somebody survived the second incident, the people who were shot at on the Swaziland side, of the two, one survived and lived to tell the tale?

MR THERON: No, I don't believe that had any influence on the matter Mr Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: But you have heard the evidence?

MR THERON: Yes Chairperson, but I don't believe that the person who survived, would have exerted any influences under these circumstances.

MR MOERANE: In any event, between the two incidents, you must have had contact with the source?

MR THERON: That is correct, yes.

MR MOERANE: To arrange the second infiltration?

MR THERON: Correct.

MR MOERANE: When did you meet her?

MR THERON: Chairperson, I cannot really recall any precise dates, but what I do recall is that the informer contacted me telephonically on the 12th, I think it was a Sunday and conveyed certain information to me, on the same day of the second incident.

MR MOERANE: Did you report back to her about the first incident?

MR THERON: Chairperson, I have already stated here that I mentioned to her that the information that she had conveyed to me, had resulted in a successful infiltration, in the sense of the word that it was successful for our side. But I did not tell her the circumstances surrounding the infiltration, or that the persons had been killed, or where the incident had taken place.

MR MOERANE: You see, you reported back to her either that the people were arrested or they escaped or they were eliminated, now which of the three did you report back to her?

MR THERON: Chairperson, once again I simply mentioned that it had been successful, I did not say anything else.

MR MOERANE: What was she to understand by that?

MR THERON: I don't know Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: What did you intend her to understand?

MR THERON: I had no intentions for her to understand anything.

MR MOERANE: You had an intention, you must have understood what you are conveying to her in a particular sense. What did you intend her to understand?

MR THERON: Chairperson, I must just state I worked with an informer, I would not have conveyed any unnecessary information to this informer, unless it was absolutely necessary.

MR MOERANE: Yes, but you have still not answered my question, you have not told this Honourable Committee what you intended her to understand by those words.

MR THERON: Chairperson, I have already stated it clearly, I told my informer that the information that she had conveyed to me, had resulted in a successful plan. I also requested the informer to communicate the next infiltration as speedily as possible to me, because it was important to me and the rest of our members, nothing else.

MR MOERANE: Is it possible that she understood that to mean that the people had been killed?

MR THERON: Chairperson, to speculate about the thoughts of the informer, is something that I will not make any statements about, I really don't know.

MR MALAN: Really I don't think that that is acceptable, you had contact over a long period of time with this person, you recruited her for a certain action during which trained and probably armed persons would be entering the country. This informer co-operated with you and gave you full information. This informer would have had some idea and you would have known what that idea was, regarding your planning, whether you wanted to capture these persons, charge them and detain them or whether you wanted to kill them. I think that it is important in particular for the informer, what your opinion is about her expectations because if she was under the impression or may have been under the impression that these persons were lured or going to be lured by you into an ambush and that they were going to be killed, and if she knew that she was going to continue with this pattern, she would be sending people to their death, otherwise she would knowingly be sending people into a situation of detention and possible torture and prosecution, you must have some idea regarding what you thought the informer was doing when she was co-operating with you? You had known the informer for almost a year, do you have an answer for us or do you stand by your statement that you have no idea what may have been going through her mind?

MR THERON: Really Mr Chairperson with all respect, I cannot speculate about what she was thinking. I gave as little as possible information to her. This informer really did not know what was going to happen to the persons, she may have drawn inferences but I will stand by that.

MR MOERANE: Well, I will argue at the end of these proceedings that you are not making a full disclosure, I just want to be fair to you.

MR THERON: Chairperson, I am telling the absolute truth, I can give you the fullest assurance of that.

MR MOERANE: In other words you are telling this Honourable Committee that you conveyed information to her and you do not know what you intended to convey to her, in effect that is what you are saying?

MR THERON: No Chairperson.

MR MALAN: May I ask another question and follow up on this? Why didn't you tell her thank you very much for your information, we have killed all these persons?

MR THERON: Chairperson, it may have occurred to me that this person would not be willing to assist again, I conveyed as little as possible information to her.

MR MALAN: Are you not saying by that that you didn't think that the informer would have co-operated if she knew that you were shooting people dead?

MR THERON: That possibility existed.

MR MALAN: But you had no impression regarding what you thought the informer thought you were busy with?

MR THERON: The informer knew what we were busy with.

MR MALAN: She knew that she was sending people to their death and that you were going to shoot them?

MR THERON: At that stage I doubt whether he or she had that information.

MR MALAN: I cannot understand sir that you would say "thank you very much for your information, it was successful", but you have no idea in your mind as to what you wanted the informer to make of that information that you had communicated to her.

MR THERON: Please repeat that.

MR MALAN: I find it tremendously strange that you would tell anybody thank you very much for the information that you gave me, it was successful. You know if you tell somebody something like that, then you would understand that that person knew where the success lay or at the very least, had some notion of what you were saying about where the success lay.

MR THERON: Chairperson, I can only say that when one worked with informers, one had to be very careful, it also operated on a need to know basis. From our side in the police or Security Branch, we needed to obtain as much information as possible to combat the ANC in their activities and we had to obtain as much information from an informer as possible.

MR MALAN: Was this informer responsible for the transport arrangements with the insurgents?

MR THERON: Yes, that is correct, on the South African side.

MR MALAN: And both infiltrations took place at the same place, the transport was taken to the same place?

MR THERON: That is correct, yes.

MR MALAN: Thank you Mr Moerane.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, would this be a convenient time Mr Moerane, to take the lunch adjournment?

MR MOERANE: It would.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we will now take the lunch adjournment until quarter to two.

MS LOCKHAT: Please stand.

ON RESUMPTION:

FLIP KOENRAAD THERON: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Moerane?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: (continued) Thank you Mr Chairperson. I was still asking you Mr Theron about the period between the 8th and the 12th of June 1988, about the contact you had with your source. You have told the Honourable Committee that you reported to the source about the success of the mission.

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Did you discuss a further infiltration, the one that was to take place on the 12th?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: What was the nature of the discussion, what did you say to her and what did she say to you?

MR THERON: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, she only conveyed certain information to me, to the extent that there would be another infiltration and the date on which the infiltration would take place, that members will once again infiltrate and that was what the discussion was about.

MR MOERANE: Is it correct that she was involved, at least she was to be involved as far as the ANC knew, with the transportation of these people?

MR THERON: Yes Chairperson, the arrangements of the transport on the South African side.

MR MOERANE: Yes, and they relied on her for transport?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: That is in both incidents, the first one and the second?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And the contact was supposed to be a person by the name of Amos?

MR THERON: With the first incident, yes Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: The Amos whom we know was Lieutenant Mose?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And on the second occasion she reported to the ANC that the person who had transported these people, was Amos' brother, Johannes?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson, I can recall that.

MR MOERANE: And we all know that in fact that was a lie, it was Sergeant Manzini?

MR THERON: It was Manzini, yes Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: After the second incident, did you speak to your source?

MR THERON: Yes Chairperson, we had contact again. I cannot recall exactly at which stage, but after the second incident it became general knowledge that there were shooting incidents. I imagine that during that time, I had contacted her again Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: What report did you give to her after the second infiltration, attempted infiltration?

MR THERON: Chairperson, I cannot specifically what I mentioned to the source, but it was clear, everybody knew what had happened.

MR MOERANE: No Mr Theron, you must remember that very clearly for several reasons, firstly, she must have been told by the person who survived that there was a shooting incident, secondly, it had been reported in the press particularly in Swaziland, that nine people had been killed, not so?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Yes, so please tell this Honourable Committee the nature of your conversation and what you reported to her, and what her attitude was?

MR THERON: Chairperson, I really cannot recall what was discussed there, but I understand the informer must have heard what the circumstances with regard to the infiltration was, but I can really not specifically recall what I mentioned to the source. Maybe I should just mention that a handler who handles a source, wants information, not conveying information. It has to be kept in mind the handling of sources has to be handled very sensitively. A handler does not always know whether the source might be a double agent and as little as possible information would be conveyed to the informer, except in the case where certain information has to be obtained by the source.

MR MOERANE: Are you telling us that you also do not know how she responded, how she reacted to these events?

MR THERON: Chairperson, I cannot really recall what the source's feeling was with regard to that.

MR MOERANE: Well ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Moerane, did you get the feeling that everything was all right with her, or did you get the feeling that she was nervous or worried or didn't you get any sense of feeling at all as to how she was thinking?

MR THERON: Chairperson, as far as I can recall there was a stage when some of the members of the ANC had approached her and requested her to go to another destination, it was outside Swaziland, I suspect it must be Zambia or Mozambique and that she refused to go, so I believe that she must have been nervous.

MR MOERANE: Didn't she tell you that she was now suspected of being an agent or an informer?

MR THERON: The source did mention that Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Didn't she ask for protection from you?

MR THERON: No Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: She just asked for her money?

MR THERON: That is probably so Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: She was paid, not so?

MR THERON: Yes, she was paid.

MR MOERANE: On what basis, was she paid a regular salary or was she paid on the basis of the information, on the basis of the number of scalps she delivered?

MR THERON: Chairperson, usually our sources were paid their travelling costs and then claims were laid for services rendered. An active source would get more money than an inactive source.

MR MOERANE: How much was she paid for these two incidents?

MR THERON: Chairperson, I cannot remember specific amounts.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you give us a ball park figure?

MR THERON: Chairperson, I imagine there was a claim for something like R10 000 or R11 000 at some stage and then another amount was claimed at another stage, at a later stage but I cannot recall the exact amounts, I cannot recall all of it. There was much - payment was made for travelling costs and other expenses.

MR MOERANE: Well, you were the handler so you knew about particulars of her payment, not so?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: I am instructed that she was removed from Swaziland towards the end of July 1988 or thereabouts? Do you confirm that?

MR THERON: Yes Chairperson. I received information that during that time period, at approximately that time, she was abducted by members of the ANC and taken to a camp in Zambia.

MR MOERANE: Yes, I think it is common cause that that was one called Sun City?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Did you have contact with her after her release?

MR THERON: Yes Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Did you give her any further compensation?

MR THERON: Yes Chairperson, she returned and reported what had happened to her. She mentioned to me that she had lost everything and I once again applied that she be compensated.

MR MOERANE: Was she compensated?

MR THERON: Yes.

MR MOERANE: How much?

MR THERON: I cannot recall the exact amount, but it was much money Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Well, give the learned Committee some idea what you mean by that?

MR THERON: R50 000, R60 000 somewhere roundabout there Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And for purposes of that further interview or contact with you, did she have to give the impression that she was being detained by the Piet Retief police?

MR THERON: No Chairperson, there was no mention of detentions.

MR MOERANE: And to your knowledge she was not detained by the Piet Retief police?

MR THERON: No Chairperson, not at all.

MR MOERANE: If that had happened, you would have known about that?

MR THERON: Definitely Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: You were a member of the Security Branch station at Piet Retief?

MR THERON: I was a member of that Branch Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And you fell under the command of Warrant Officer Pienaar?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: For how many years were you so stationed?

MR THERON: Chairperson, I imagine that in 1985 or 1986 I arrived there up to approximately 1991 whereafter I was transferred to Ermelo.

MR MOERANE: Are you still a member of the South African Police Services?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: What is your present rank?

MR THERON: I am Superintendent Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Stationed at?

MR THERON: Provincial Head Office Middelburg.

MR MOERANE: Yes, can you explain to this Honourable Committee why you decided to involve yourself in, let's take the first incident, in murder?

MR THERON: Chairperson, it was in the nature of our work, the combating of terrorism and that is how I became involved.

MR MOERANE: Yes, but the prevention of terrorism is done by ordinary police methods, not so?

MR THERON: Chairperson, it was our primary function.

MR MOERANE: It is done by arresting the so-called terrorists, not so?

MR THERON: Arrests are part, form part of that.

MR MOERANE: Yes?

MR THERON: And shooting incidents, interrogation and then the gathering of information and putting it to use.

MR MOERANE: Yes, but not murder?

MR THERON: No, not murder.

MR MOERANE: Why did you do it?

MR THERON: That was, if we look at these two incidents Chairperson, if one has a look at the circumstances, it was part of our work basically.

MR MOERANE: No, but you could have planned an arrest, not so? You could have planned an arrest, not so?

MR THERON: In these specific instances?

MR MOERANE: Yes.

MR THERON: I believe that one could have arranged the circumstances so that we could make an arrest.

MR MOERANE: Yes, but instead you planned an ambush?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And of course that started a whole train of illegal and unlawful deeds?

MR THERON: That is correct so.

MR MOERANE: Including as I have put to one of your predecessors, the corruption of the criminal justice system?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Yes. I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Moerane. Ms Lockhat?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have just one question. Mr Theron, you said in your, in cross-examination by Adv Moerane you said that the

source contacted you on the 12th of June, that very same day when the second incident was planned, is that correct?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: I just want to refer you to Bundle 6, on page 6, that is the evidence of Mr Manzini in a Section 29 hearing in Johannesburg, Bundle 6, page 6, just the last paragraph there where Mr Manzini states, he says -

Is that correct, did you point out places to him?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson. I cannot specifically recall who did what, but I imagine that I went and identified the places with Warrant Officer Pienaar.

MS LOCKHAT: Then he goes further and he says -

My impression, it leaves with me that this happened over two days and it couldn't have been on the 12th?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson. There was an occasion where there would have been an infiltration where the people did not arrive.

MS LOCKHAT: But wasn't Mr Manzini used in this very same operation, is he referring to another operation or is he referring to the operation on the 12?

MR THERON: He refers to an evening or two before the second incident took place, I received information that there would be an infiltration. We made the necessary arrangements and Mr Manzini drove to the border, but he did not find anybody there, nobody was in the vehicle with him.

MS LOCKHAT: And then just one last question. You received all this information from your source, you took it to Mr Pienaar who then took it to Mr De Kock, was it your intention, or did you foresee that they were going to be eliminated because of the information that you had given to your Commander?

MR THERON: At that stage I did not foresee what would exactly happen, I could have foreseen that there may have been a shooting incident, but I could not foresee exactly how the planning would go about.

MS LOCKHAT: But you do realise that after receiving this information from you, these people were killed?

MR THERON: Yes, there was a strong possibility that it would happen, I did foresee it.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Van der Walt, do you have any re-examination?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe, do you have any questions? Sorry, I heard somebody?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Sorry Mr Chairman, during cross-examination by Mr Moerane, Mr Theron testified about the information that they had surrounding the infiltration of the MK soldiers, when he gave evidence in chief, I did not understand his evidence to be, he talked of armed MK soldiers, during cross-examination of Mr Moerane he said something to the effect of MK soldiers and they assumed that they would be armed. Could I be permitted Mr Chairperson, just to ask questions on this line?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.

MR LAMEY: Mr Theron, I speak of the second incident and the information that you had with regard to the second incident, can you specifically recall what the information was from the source? Would they be armed, the insurgents?

MR THERON: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, there was no specific mention made of weapons, but I assumed that there would be weapons. It was not specifically mentioned to me that the persons would have weapons and what type of weapons they would have.

MR LAMEY: Could it have been mentioned and that you could have forgotten it by now?

MR THERON: It could be, but as I say, I don't know.

MR LAMEY: You see the reason why I ask you, there must have been a good reason why Vlakplaas was involved, because if the people were not armed, or if you never thought that the people would be armed, you could have done it yourself, is that not so?

MR THERON: Chairperson, with regard to infiltrations at the border fence, other than a border post, all the members' experience with regard to that would be that the people come in armed, that was the general feeling that the people would be armed. There was no specific information with regard to the arming of the people.

MR LAMEY: Very well, but could that have been communicated to the Vlakplaas members that the people would be armed?

MR THERON: I did not do the reporting myself, Mr Pienaar did that and I don't know what he said.

MR LAMEY: The reason why I ask you is because Mr De Kock says in his application that -

So in other words there had to be that communication?

MR THERON: That is the inference that I draw Chairperson

MR LAMEY: And then Mr Pienaar says in his evidence with regard to the second incident, that Manzini would pick up armed MK members.

CHAIRPERSON: But where is this getting us Mr Lamey, because it is all supposition, there was no, he said there is no direct, he cannot remember any specific mention of arms, there was also the arrangement that if they were armed, he would put on the indicator now, I mean why make that arrangement if you were so hundred percent sure that they were going to be armed? That arrangement is there obviously because there is some doubt that there may or may not be armed and they all believed that there was a strong chance of them being armed. I mean the witness has said he cannot recall any specific mention of arms, it is all just a question for argument really, I think, it is not taking us any further, this line of cross-examination.

MR LAMEY: Yes Chairperson, but I just want to place on record then, just to put this to the witness that Mr Nortje whom I represent here, understood that from the information that the information was that the persons would be armed.

MR THERON: Chairperson, I stand by it that it was not specifically mentioned that there would be arms and what type of arms there would be.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Adv Gcabashe, do you have any questions?

ADV GCABASHE: No, no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Yes, my attention was now drawn to the Section 29 hearing where Sergeant Manzini gave evidence, once again I am addressing you in English, the evidence that he gave was that there was a previous attempt where the people did not arrive?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And he refers to the second incident?

MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MALAN: In other words if the people had arrived the first time, according to the evidence of De Kock and the others, the Vlakplaas people would not have been there and Mr Deetlefs would not have been there? Was preparations made to involve any of them?

MR THERON: Yes Chairperson, there were some of the people, I do not recall specifically Vlakplaas but Mr Deetlefs was there, there were other members of the Ermelo Branch, but I cannot recall specifically whether there were any of the Vlakplaas members, but arrangements were made that if these people would come in, that the incident that took place the second time, would have happened earlier.

MR MALAN: But we have not heard from any of the other witnesses evidence to that effect, we heard that Deetlefs had come earlier and left, and it was not said or any of the other Ermelo members?

MR THERON: That is so Chairperson.

MR MALAN: They had not given evidence with regard to the first aborted incident.

MR THERON: That is correct.

MR MALAN: But you say some of the Ermelo people were there?

MR THERON: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And some of the Vlakplaas people?

MR THERON: I cannot recall specifically Chairperson, I cannot recall whether some of them were there.

MR MALAN: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions arising out of questions that had been put?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Yes

Mr Chairman, thank you. You see my instructions are that there was an earlier attempt to infiltrate two persons on the 5th of June 1988, what is your comment?

MR THERON: Chairperson, I cannot specifically recall but there were instances where there was a possible infiltration which never took place, but I cannot recall whether it was definitely that case. I don't know whether the arrangements were made. I have forgotten whether that had taken place, I cannot recall, but there was more than one occasion where there were possible infiltrations and that the persons had not arrived.

MR MOERANE: And one of the persons that were supposed to be infiltrated on that first occasion, was a deceased, Mr Lanny Naidoo, any comment?

MR THERON: It could be so Chairperson. The information that I obtained was not with regard to names, I did not have any names.

MR MOERANE: And that is probably the occasion to which Mr Manzini is referring?

MR THERON: No Chairperson. Mr Manzini would not have been used, it would have been Captain Mose, so in this instance which Mr Manzini refers to, was before the second incident, after the first incident.

MR MOERANE: Well, I suggest to you that Vlakplaas was not involved in that one, the one of the 5th of June, that is why it would have involved Mr Manzini and not Lieutenant Mose?

MR THERON: No Chairperson, definitely not. It could be that there was some planning for the 5th, that you mention but I don't have dates, and I imagine that there we did make some arrangements and as far as I can recall the Vlakplaas members were there. I cannot say specifically.

MR MOERANE: Well, I put it to you that between the 8th and the 12th, there was no aborted infiltration?

MR THERON: I think there was.

MR MOERANE: When, the 9th, 10th, 11th, when?

MR THERON: Between the 8th and the 12th, I don't remember exactly.

MR MOERANE: Well, I suggest to you that after the 8th you received information from Lieutenant Mose that if that infiltration was successful, the one of the 8th, then people would be sent through on Sunday, the 12th?

MR THERON: As I have said earlier Chairperson, the information that I received from Mr Manzini or from Captain Mose rather, was that they told him that they would use him again, but I cannot recall a date. The information from the 12th, the infiltration, I received from the source.

MR MOERANE: Mr Theron, aren't you giving this evidence now in an attempt to protect Mr Manzini who has not made an application for amnesty?

MR THERON: Not at all Chairperson, I am only speaking the truth.

MR MOERANE: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Theron, that concludes your evidence, you may stand down.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, the next amnesty applicant is Mr Christiaan Rorich.

CHRISTIAAN SIEBERT RORICH: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: You may be seated.

MR RORICH: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Van der Walt?

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Rorich, your application is in Volume 1, page 207 to 209, that is the official form which was signed and attested to by you?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the incident for which you currently appear before this Committee, is Annexure A on page 215 to 217?

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then there is Annexure B, which is your political motivation, 218 to 225?

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you confirm the content of your application?

MR RORICH: Yes, I confirm it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Rorich, you were present when Mr De Kock as well as Mr Deetlefs and Pienaar gave evidence regarding the second incident, which is the incident taking place on the 12th of June 1988?

MR RORICH: Yes, I was present.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have applied for that incident and you confirm their evidence where it is of application to you?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well, mention was made that you were contacted with regard to the mini-bus which was used, is that correct?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is entirely correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you explain the circumstances to the Honourable Committee?

MR RORICH: Chairperson, on the 12th of June, I was contacted twice by Warrant Officer Pienaar from the Security Branch in Piet Retief. On the first occasion he asked me whether it was possible for me to have a mini-bus available from my staff at Witbank, who were on the older side and who could be used, and I confirmed this. Later he contacted me again and told me that he had obtained permission from Middelburg Regional Office, for our mini-bus to be used and that Colonel De Kock from Vlakplaas would be in command of this operation. Seeing as I was at that stage the Commander of Witbank Security Branch, I took the decision to drive the bus to Piet Retief myself.

MS VAN DER WALT: Might I just interrupt you there, you have mentioned something about Witbank, was that under the Middelburg region?

MR RORICH: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Piet Retief was also in that very same region?

MR RORICH: Yes, in the same region.

MR MALAN: Witbank is also a sub-Branch like Piet Retief?

MR RORICH: No, Witbank was a Branch in its own right, but Piet Retief was a sub-Branch to Ermelo where I had been previously stationed.

MR MALAN: Witbank was on the same level as Ermelo?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is entirely correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you then went through to Piet Retief. Did you receive any instructions there?

MR RORICH: I was not involved in the planning, I was not informed about it, I was simply informed what the purpose was behind the operation, namely that the mini-bus was to be used in order to pick up MK members who were going to cross the border into the RSA and that one of the black Detectives from Piet Retief, Manzini, who was also known to me, would drive the vehicle. Furthermore that certain signals would be given, namely once he had picked up the people, he would approach where we would have taken up position alongside the road. I cannot describe it in any other way, other than an acre of death. This was something that was set up with the result that if the vehicle approached and the lights dimmed, we would know that this was the correct vehicle in the first instance and in the second instance, he would give us a signal indicating that these persons were armed, by switching on the left indicator light and then the vehicle would have to stop where we were and we would then eliminate the persons, if it was the case that they were armed - but only after Mr Manzini had run back, passed the front side of the bus in our direction, in order to get out of the line of fire.

MS VAN DER WALT: And as the evidence has been put to the Committee previously, this did indeed take place?

MR RORICH: Yes, it took place as such with the exception of the fact that Manzini did not stop at the place where he was supposed to stop. It was quite a distance where we lay in a line. The way he drove from the Swazi side to Piet Retief, we were on the left side of the road, we took up position there and on both sides of the road, there were plantations. The vehicle only came to a standstill quite a way after our position, with the result that we had to run forward to the vehicle.

MS VAN DER WALT: What did you see as you were running to the vehicle after it had come to a standstill?

MR RORICH: What I can recall is that when the vehicle stopped, I saw Manzini run passed the lights of the kombi. At that stage, I was on the tar road. On my left side I can recall there was one of the former witnesses, Mr Van Zweel, then a person was climbing out of the left front door of the kombi and the next moment, I saw the flame of a gun which had been fired and the noise of the firearm sounded to me like that of an AK. On the tar road, between me and Van Zweel there was also the sound of a bullet. Immediately within that moment, the shooting ensued and all of us fired and at a stage, lights went on. This was the light which the former witness, Theron, was holding. My position at that stage was right at the back of that mini-bus and then Colonel De Kock called for cease fire, upon which everybody ceased fire.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can I just find out from you, the left front door went open and you saw a flame. From where did you see this flame emerge?

MR RORICH: From the left front door which went open, from which somebody emerged.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you have anything further to do at the scene of the incident, you simply shot, you didn't have anything to do with the bodies?

MR RORICH: No, my task was completed.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you see whether any firearms were in the vehicle which had stopped there?

MR RORICH: Certainly yes. There was an AK47 gun, an AKM at everyone of the bodies. The order was given to Warrant Officer Pienaar who discharged the weapons and there were two carry bags within which there was a Russian F1 type Eastern Block handgrenade.

MS VAN DER WALT: There is a statement from you in Volume 5, page 50 to 52 Chairperson, you have studied this statement, is that correct?

MR RORICH: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you signed the statement which was also affirmed under oath?

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Who took the statement?

MR RORICH: It was Brigadier Van Wyk.

MS VAN DER WALT: And do you recall the statement that you made?

MR RORICH: Yes. The statement that I can recall, if my memory serves me correctly, this statement was already typed and I went to sign it at Middelburg. I must tell you this now that I was not present with the autopsies which were held after the shooting incident, I also didn't give evidence about it at all.

MS VAN DER WALT: Would that be with the post mortem inquest?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is what I am referring to. And I accept as I recall it correctly, I accepted that certain sentences or aspects were included in this statement regarding the post mortem inquest which had already been completed.

MS VAN DER WALT: May I just take you to the statement, you have studied it, is that correct?

MR RORICH: Yes, I have just read it thank you.

MS VAN DER WALT: On page 50, paragraph 3, it is stated -

MR RORICH: Yes, that is entirely incorrect because Colonel De Kock was the Commander, however, I was told that this had to be adjusted for the purposes of the statements for the post mortem inquest.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you told that by Brigadier Van Wyk?

MR RORICH: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: The same paragraph, section 5 -

MR RORICH: That is entirely incorrect and upon my arrival at Piet Retief that evening with the mini-bus, I was told and I cannot recall whether it was Colonel De Kock or Freek Pienaar, but I was told that these persons who were going to be infiltrating, would be armed persons and that we were going to be luring these persons into an ambush in order to shoot them.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then in sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 3 you mention that the former witness -

MR RORICH: Yes, that is also another one of the adjustments that I had to add in order for this to fit in with the post mortem inquest, that is entirely untrue.

MS VAN DER WALT: Would that be the same position then on page 51, paragraph 6, sub-paragraph (1)?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is totally incorrect.

MS VAN DER WALT: There was no pull-over vehicle?

MR RORICH: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then the same paragraph 6.7 the mention of Deetlefs is incorrect, that was supposed to be De Kock?

MR RORICH: That is correct, it was not Deetlefs who called for the cease fire, it was De Kock.

MS VAN DER WALT: The same page 52, paragraph 9.4, it should also be Mr De Kock instead of Mr Deetlefs?

MR RORICH: It was not Deetlefs, it was De Kock who gave Pienaar the order to transport the bodies.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Rorich, did you obtain any financial or personal reward from this action?

MR RORICH: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you launch this action through any malice towards the persons who were killed?

MR RORICH: No, not at all, I had no idea who these persons were.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you do it, Mr Rorich?

MR RORICH: I did it because I was a Security Policeman who at that stage, was fighting for my country in a war that we were involved in against the ANC and the PAC and the other parties, who wanted to take over our country by means of violence.

MS VAN DER WALT: You are also aware of acts of terror which were committed at that stage in the Republic of South Africa by the terrorists?

MR RORICH: Yes, I am thoroughly aware of that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you personally attend such scenes?

MR RORICH: Yes, I attended such scenes personally.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were a Demolitions' Expert, is that correct?

MR RORICH: Yes, I was a Bomb Disposal Operative, that is correct and by nature of that, it was part of my task as a Security Policeman to investigate every scene of terror or explosion scene thoroughly and as such, I was involved in the investigation of such incidents.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you also involved in incidents during which persons were killed?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: By the ANC terrorists?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You are then requesting from this Amnesty Committee to grant you amnesty for the murder of those persons on the 12th of June, is that correct?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: The persons in the kombi?

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: As well as for any other offence which may emanate from that action?

MR RORICH: Correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: As well as for defeating the ends of justice and perjury?

MR RORICH: Correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because when you signed the statement, you attested to it under oath even though you had not compiled the statement?

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And also for any other illegal deed which may emanate from that?

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Rorich, before you were stationed to Witbank, you were stationed at Ermelo?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you were involved in infiltrations which were taking place from Swaziland to the Republic, specifically the Eastern Transvaal as it was then known, as well as Natal?

MR RORICH: Yes, correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you have already given evidence about the intensity of acts of terror which took place in the Eastern Transvaal, were you also aware at that stage when this incident took place, that there was a high intensity of infiltration?

MR RORICH: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And you also heard the evidence that there was a plan to infiltrate 36 trained MK operatives who would commit acts of terrorism in the country?

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: According to your opinion, with the manpower at your disposal, would you have been able to use the normal channels in which it was expected of the police to operate, like for example arrest, could this be used to combat the situation?

MR RORICH: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Would it have assisted in any way if people were arrested and others were informed that these persons had been arrested, would they just have continued with the infiltrations?

MR RORICH: Yes, it would have happened like that.

MR PRINSLOO: According to your judgement, at the time of this action, you believed that you were acting legitimately by killing these persons?

MR RORICH: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Due the atmosphere that reigned at that stage?

MR RORICH: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Cornelius?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: I don't have any questions, thank you Mr

Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: No questions, thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Knight?

MR KNIGHT: No questions, thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Just one question Mr Chair. Mr Rorich, was the reason for the arrangement for a kombi that more insurgents were expected than just the four that were ultimately in the mini-bus?

MR RORICH: Chairperson, I had no idea of what the correct information was, or what the information was which was conveyed to the Branch at Piet Retief, I had no idea. I believed it within myself and simply drew an inference of my own, that if one wanted to use a mini-bus for such a purpose, there would be more than two people infiltrating, that it would have to accommodate enough people.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Rorich, what is your present rank?

MR RORICH: At the moment I am a retired policeman.

MR MOERANE: When did you leave the Police Service?

MR RORICH: On the 30th of June 1997.

MR MOERANE: What rank had you risen to then?

MR RORICH: I was a Colonel.

MR MOERANE: Stationed where? Stationed where at the time?

MR RORICH: Middelburg, at the Regional Office.

MR MOERANE: Yes, and at the time of the incident in 1988, what was your rank?

MR RORICH: On the 12th of June 1988, I was a Lieutenant.

MR MOERANE: I see, so you were an Officer?

MR RORICH: That is right, a Commissioned Officer.

MR MOERANE: Commissioned Officer? Did you discuss the statement that you deposed to, the one on the 8th of June 1989, with Brigadier Van Wyk?

MR RORICH: I believe that that would be the case Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Yes, because you say that certain things were included in that statement to fit into the version that was going to be placed before the inquest?

MR RORICH: Yes, I accepted it as such.

MR MOERANE: Well, what gave you that impression?

MR RORICH: Because those were not the facts as I recalled them regarding that which took place on the night of the 12th of June.

MR MOERANE: What I am trying to ascertain from you, Mr Rorich is whether you raised this with Brigadier Van Wyk and said "this is not as I remember it?"

MR RORICH: Yes, I believe that we discussed this with each other.

MR MOERANE: And well, he told you that it has to fit with the version?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is why I signed this document.

MR MOERANE: Yes. Were you aware that Brigadier Van Wyk had succeeded Warrant Officer Pienaar as the Investigating Officer of the two incidents, the one of the 8th and the one of the 12th?

MR RORICH: I understood that later when he took the statement.

MR MOERANE: You see the first inquest, the one into the death of the people who were killed on the 8th of June 1988, had received quite wide publicity, not so?

MR RORICH: That is correct yes.

MR MOERANE: You must have realised that it was somehow linked to the second event, in the sense that the second inquest was pending at the time?

MR RORICH: That is correct, because I was not involved with the matter regarding the first incident or the inquest for the first incident because I was already at Witbank.

MR MOERANE: What I am trying to get at Mr Rorich is that it must have been known to the police in the Eastern Transvaal that one inquest is proceeding and as soon as that one is disposed of, the other one relating to the 12th of June, will start?

MR RORICH: Well Mr Chairperson, I feel that my personal opinion of that which has been put to me, is the fact that every incident would be registered for a post mortem inquest and it would be investigated separately from every other incident so I don't really understand what you say when you say that the one had to be finished and the next would follow.

MR MOERANE: Well, were you not aware of the arrangement that it was intended that the first inquest be disposed of first, particularly because to a large extent it involved more or less the same people as in the second one?

MR RORICH: No, I wasn't aware of that. That actually had nothing to do with my office. My entire involvement was with regard to the second incident, where I provided the bus and where I performed my share and from there I went back, and that was the end of the story.

MR MOERANE: Did you attend a scene whereby the events of the 12th were reconstructed?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is correct, I was present.

MR MOERANE: Yes, and that occurred on the 24th of May 1989, about two weeks before you signed your statement, can I refer to your statement, page 52, paragraph 7.

CHAIRPERSON: It is paragraph, yes, 7.

MR RORICH: Yes, as I have written it here, correct.

MR MOERANE: And there you must have met the people who were involved in the first incident?

MR RORICH: I am not certain who the persons were until I got to these proceedings, I was not aware of who the persons were that were involved in the first incident because I wasn't present during the first incident. The reconstruction in which I was involved, was the reconstruction of the kombi and not of the Toyota or the Corolla or whatever the vehicle was which was used during the first incident.

CHAIRPERSON: When you went to this reconstruction at the scene, were there people there besides those who were conducting the reconstruction, were there people showing out spots, etc, who weren't involved in the second incident, the one involving your kombi?

MR RORICH: The second incident, Chairperson, was the incident of the kombi during which I was present, and our people were there, not all of them.

CHAIRPERSON: Were there people there that were not involved in that incident, who may have been involved in the first incident?

MR RORICH: No, that I won't be able to say but what I can say is that C1, Colonel De Kock's people were not present during that reconstruction. There were other policemen who were placed there, simply to sort out aerial photo's and so forth at the scene, more or less the way we could remember who stood next to who.

MR MALAN: And you do not know about any reconstruction of the first incident, you were not present?

MR RORICH: No, I was not present at all.

MR MOERANE: But is it correct that at the reconstruction that you attended the following people were there, Mr Hayes?

MR RORICH: Mr Hayes? Yes, he was there. If I can recall it correctly.

MR MOERANE: Yes, Mr Barnard?

MR RORICH: Yes, I think so, yes.

MR MOERANE: Mr Theron?

MR RORICH: Theron was there, yes.

MR MOERANE: Mr Pienaar?

MR RORICH: Pienaar was there, Van Zweel was there.

MR MOERANE: And Van Zweel?

MR RORICH: Yes, and Deetlefs.

MR MOERANE: And Deetlefs.

MR RORICH: If I recall correctly Chairperson, then that is so.

MR MOERANE: Yes, and as you correctly say the people from Vlakplaas were not there?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: On that occasion, was there any discussion about the first incident?

MR RORICH: No Chairperson, it had nothing to do with that construction. I cannot recall that anything about that was said.

MR MOERANE: But you knew that the first incident had occurred at the very same place?

MR RORICH: No Chairperson, I only came to hear of that during these proceedings.

MR MOERANE: You mean for the passed nine years you didn't know that the incident in which you were involved happened at exactly the same place where the incident of four days before that had occurred?

MR RORICH: Chairperson, let us just get something straight here. I think what Mr Moerane is asking me is whether I didn't know exactly where the previous incident had taken place, I knew that it was on the same road, but I didn't know that it was the same place, I only came to know of that during Mr De Kock's evidence here.

MR MOERANE: In other words the issue didn't arise at all at that reconstruction on the 24th of May?

MR RORICH: No, not as far as I can recall.

MR MOERANE: When this incident occurred on the 12th of June, for how long had you been a member of the South African Police Force?

MR RORICH: My police career began on the 24th of February 1964. My career in the Security Branch began at Ermelo on the 9th of January 1973.

MR MOERANE: 1973?

MR RORICH: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And from 1973 u p to about 1984, you were involved in arrests of people who were infiltrating into the country, not so?

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And those that were arrested, were charged?

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And most of them were convicted?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Now what gave you the impression that the criminal justice system couldn't cope with those people who were coming into the country after say 1984?

MR RORICH: We were completely involved in a struggle of war, conditions had deteriorated in the sense that attacks involving acts of terrorism, had just multiplied and it was clear at that stage, that they did not respect the laws of our country at all. There was only one way, according to my own experience at that stage, and that was that we also had to take unorthodox actions, just as they did in an attempt to bring stability to the country and to prevent that innocent people be killed by means of explosive devices and other acts of terrorism. We went out to take out trained persons, to arrest them or the eliminate them if need be, not innocent persons.

MR MOERANE: How would you know that persons coming through, would be firstly trained people?

MR RORICH: Chairperson, we as a Security Branch made our determinations based upon the information that we received from outside sources regarding places from where persons would be infiltrating our country.

MR MOERANE: Reliable sources?

MR RORICH: That is what I meant, yes.

MR MOERANE: You must have been aware in your long experience as a member of the Security Branch of the South African Police that some of the people who infiltrated the country, did so unarmed, not so?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is entirely correct. Those were cases which were also successful, during which these persons would use false names and false documents in order to gain entry through a border post, normally such persons would not have firearms on them, that was a completely different story. When they cross the border fence at another place than a control point or post, then one could be sure that such persons would definitely not be entering the country unarmed, because they would be determined to execute a specific order and they would not want to be unsuccessful in the execution of their orders, they wanted to succeed, in other words nothing would stop them.

MR MOERANE: Well, we have evidence before this hearings, that the people that came into the country, that infiltrated, that didn't go through the normal border channels, were not armed?

MR RORICH: I heard that during this hearing, and that was reference to the first incident in which I was not involved at all, and I was also not involved in the informer network.

MR MOERANE: And it must have come to your attention that some trained people came into the country for political reasons and purposes, rather than military purposes?

MR RORICH: These persons were still trained persons.

MR MOERANE: I see, so the idea was to eliminate trained people of the ANC?

MR RORICH: If he could not be apprehended and if circumstances dictated it, certainly.

MR MOERANE: Is it correct that by adopting this attitude, you were now arrogating to yourself the position of executioner?

MR RORICH: Under those circumstances which we experienced during that time, Chairperson, I had no problem with that. Today it is another situation.

MR MOERANE: So you had absolutely no problem with judging, convicting and executing an ANC person without a hearing?

MR RORICH: Chairperson, I don't think it is only myself, I think that came from both sides. It was not only from the Security Forces' side, for sure an armed person will not wait if I show him my police appointment certificates and explain his rights to him, he will not wait until he shoots me.

MR MOERANE: I am just trying to establish what your state of mind is when you decided to be Judge, Jury and Executioner.

MR RORICH: That is correct, I believed it and that is how I did it.

MR MOERANE: And you knew it was murder and it was regarded as murder by the South African law, not so?

MR RORICH: Chairperson, it is as the Bible says, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and that is it.

MR MOERANE: Yes, but as a policeman, as a policeman, you knew it was murder, not so?

MR RORICH: Yes.

MR MOERANE: And if you had committed it, you knew that if you confessed to it being murder, you would be prosecuted?

MR RORICH: That is correct Chairperson, that is why I am participating in these proceedings today. And I believe that the Honourable Committee will consider my amnesty application, thank you very much.

MR MOERANE: So it was necessary, in fact it went with the territory, that you would cover up unlawful needs, as you did for instance in the statement with the help of Brigadier Van Wyk?

MR RORICH: For sure, yes.

MR MOERANE: With regard to your statement in connection with the events of the 12th, I am suggesting to you that in certain respects you are still following the same procedure, let me explain to you what I mean. Your statement is identical to that of six others.

MR RORICH: It that was the case Chairperson, up to now, I have not read the other people's statements. I separately consulted with my legal representatives and I am certain that they used modern technology, a computer, to draw up these statements and I do not have a problem with that. If there is something that might have changed, that came to the fore now, it just indicates my honesty before the Honourable Committee that we rectify it today, because it is my last chance to put it right here.

MR MOERANE: Is it correct that you deposed to your statement in Delmas on the 13th of December, the same as some of the others, with the same Commissioner of Oaths, Mr Prinsloo, page 209?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: You have also stated the position in the six paragraphs in precisely the same words as the others?

CHAIRPERSON: He said he hasn't seen the other statements, but he didn't dispute it when you put it earlier Mr Moerane.

MR MOERANE: Tell the Honourable Committee about the first shooting incident, how the person from the kombi shot.

MR RORICH: Chairperson, I have already mentioned that when we ran towards the vehicle, after Manzini had jumped out and ran around the front of the kombi, I saw the left front door opening after which I saw a flash. I also mentioned in my evidence in chief, that between Van Zweel and I, he was on my left, I hard a bullet ricocheting from the tarred surface and afterwards, we started shooting. Everything happened very quickly. Colonel De Kock has a loud voice, he shouted properly cease fire, and everybody stopped shooting, and that was the end of it.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, sorry Mr Moerane, so you say that that shot that ricocheted off the road, probably came from that flash that you saw at the left front door?

MR RORICH: That is correct Chairperson, that is the assumption that I made.

CHAIRPERSON: So that shot would have then been directed to the back of the vehicle because you were running you said from the behind of the vehicle?

MR RORICH: That is right Chairperson, but in my evidence in chief I said that the kombi stopped diagonally, it did not stop parallel in the road, it stopped diagonally but the shot was fired in our direction. With the day of the reconstruction of the scene, we also saw that specific mark on the tar road, that is a tar road that is very quiet, it is not used very often and the time period from the incident, it was not tarred again up to the time that we made the reconstruction, otherwise we would not have found that mark. It assisted us in determining our position.

MR MOERANE: Mr Rorich, did you wait that night until the following morning to identify this mark, I am talking about now the 12th and the 13th of December?

MR RORICH: No.

MR MOERANE: So when did you see this mark for the first time?

MR RORICH: At the reconstruction for the first time.

MR MOERANE: At the reconstruction?

MR RORICH: Yes.

MR MOERANE: A year later?

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: How did you know what had caused that mark?

MR RORICH: We drew the inference that it must have been that bullet that came in between the two of us, Van Zweel and I agreed upon it.

MR MOERANE: You see there had been shooting in that area a year before that on the 8th of June.

CHAIRPERSON: And on the 12th of June.

MR MOERANE: And on the 12th of June, for the life of me I cannot understand how you can go to that spot a year later and say that spot, that mark must have been caused by a bullet from the flash that I saw from the left door. I don't see how you could have come to that conclusion.

MR RORICH: Chairperson, at the reconstruction the kombi was placed not only according to my memory, but according to the other people who were present there that evening, or those who could be present with the exception of Colonel De Kock's people which means that if one of us had done it, then somebody must have been behind us and there was nobody behind us. Or that if it had been one of our own people, they could have killed us, that does not make sense.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Moerane is getting at is well, Mr Rorich is, how can you be sure that that mark was made by a bullet, why not from an exhaust pipe falling off an old motor car or something falling off the back of a truck or something like that?

MR RORICH: Chairperson, with respect, it was just an inference that I drew, I mentioned it in my evidence in chief, I drew the inference.

MR MOERANE: In what direction does that road run, is it north/south or east/west?

MR RORICH: It is more or less in the vicinity of south to north.

MR MOERANE: And north would be Piet Retief?

MR RORICH: Yes.

MR MOERANE: So this vehicle was slightly to an angle and the person who was, if it was somebody firing, he must have been firing in a southerly direction for that bullet to hit the tarred road, not so?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is how I have it Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Yes. But you see, Manzini according to your evidence, had run out of this vehicle into a westerly direction, not so?

MR RORICH: Yes, if we look at east to west, run passed the kombi.

MR MOERANE: That is right, so the person who would have been firing, was not firing, assuming that it was a passenger in that vehicle, he was not firing in a westerly direction, he was firing in a southerly direction?

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Well, I put it to you that this story about a person firing from this vehicle is just a fabrication, by all of you who have made this identical statement, seven of you.

MR RORICH: Chairperson, with respect towards the learned person, it may be his version but he was not there that evening. What I have submitted to you, to this Honourable Committee, is what I experienced not what Mr Moerane tries to put to you, for sure not.

MR MOERANE: It is also consistent, what I am putting to you is consistent with Colonel De Kock's version, you heard him, he was right in front there, about a metre or two from this person, and he didn't see the person firing? You heard that, didn't you?

MR RORICH: Chairperson, I have listened to Mr De Kock's evidence and as my memory serves me today as I sit here, I stand by what I say.

MR MOERANE: Did you see a person fire?

MR RORICH: I saw the flash.

MR MOERANE: Did you see what that person had in his hand?

MR RORICH: No.

CHAIRPERSON: That flash, some doors when you open a door of a vehicle, it has a red light on it, could it have been that, it all happened very quickly, the door swung open, you might have just seen that red light that some doors have?

MR RORICH: Chairperson, that kombi of mine did not have a red light in the door.

MR MALAN: Could it not have been Mr De Kock's shot that you saw the flash from?

MR RORICH: No, Mr De Kock is a very good shot, if it was his weapon, then I would not have been here today, that is as certain as the sun shines.

MR MALAN: But we speak of the flash, you cannot surmise from a flash whether you were hit.

MR RORICH: I am talking about the flash that came in my direction, not from his firearm.

MR MALAN: This flash that you saw, could you see where the bullet was going to?

MR RORICH: It was in our direction.

CHAIRPERSON: What is a flash, when you say you saw the bullet coming in your direction, was it a long flash or was it just a spurt of light at the edge of the barrel of the gun?

MR RORICH: When a weapon is fired at night, one could see the flash which comes out of the barrel of the gun, that is what I am referring to. One cannot see the bullet, that is impossible.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is just an instant flash?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: Did you see the person who shot, did you see him?

MR RORICH: I saw a person climbing out of the kombi, I could not determine what exactly because when the shot was fired, we started shooting, and afterwards, the man was laying outside.

MR MOERANE: Did you see what that person had in his hand?

MR RORICH: No, not at all.

MR MOERANE: Then why do you say in your statement -

MR RORICH: Chairperson, as I said in my evidence in chief, the inference that I drew with regard to the flash that I saw, it sounded like an AK47 and that is how I wrote it. After the shooting had ceased, the man lay down with the AK in his hands.

MR MOERANE: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Moerane. Ms Lockhat?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Mr Chairperson. You were the Commander of Witbank Security Branch?

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: Who was your Commander, who was in charge of you?

MR RORICH: Brigadier Visser at Middelburg's Regional Office.

MS LOCKHAT: Was he the Commander of Middelburg, that whole area?

MR RORICH: No, he was the Commander of Eastern Transvaal.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you inform him of this incident?

MR RORICH: No, it was not my duty.

MS LOCKHAT: Why do you say it was not your duty if he was your Head, that he should be aware of your actions in what you were doing?

MR RORICH: Chairperson, maybe I should just mention to you that because of the fact that this incident had taken place in Piet Retief's area which resorts under Colonel Deetlefs it would be normal practice that the Commander of that area, draw up the reports and inform the necessary people who had to be informed. I was only part of the team, that was all.

MR MALAN: Mr Rorich, did you not even report the write-off of the mini-bus that you brought there, did Mr Deetlefs report about the assets which were under your control?

MR RORICH: No, the mini-bus was my problem because it was my vehicle.

MR MALAN: Did you not report about the vehicle to Visser?

MR RORICH: Yes, I did.

MR MALAN: What did you tell him about that?

MR RORICH: That the bus was used in the incident and that it was written off and my mini-bus was replaced.

MR MALAN: In which incident did you tell him that bus was used?

MR RORICH: In the incident of the 12th.

MR MALAN: So then you did report to him about the incident of the 12th?

MR RORICH: But that was after the 12th. I cannot recall how long after, but it was afterwards. The bus was towed in to Piet Retief where it was stored and the investigation had to go on.

MS LOCKHAT: So basically you were not acting under the authority and authorisation of your Commander at that specific time?

MR RORICH: No, I was under the command of Colonel De Kock.

MS LOCKHAT: I thought you were under the command of Deetlefs as well, just clarify that?

MR RORICH: Colonel De Kock was the senior Officer at the scene and he was the Commander of Vlakplaas at that stage.

MS LOCKHAT: But Mr De Kock was now in Piet Retief area, that wasn't his jurisdiction?

MR RORICH: It still remains, the fact still remains that he is an Officer from Vlakplaas and that he had the right to operate in any part of the country.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Van der Walt, do you have any re-examination?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe, do you have any questions?

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, just one aspect, this firing of the shot from the man who came out of the kombi, I am just looking at my notes because I recall and correct me if I am wrong, that I think it was Mr Deetlefs according to my notes, said that that shot was fired in Manzini's direction and you were coming as I understand your evidence, from the opposite direction or are we talking about different shots here, a volley of shots?

MR RORICH: I cannot answer you there exactly, the fact of the matter is I can only answer as to what my memory tells me, I don't have the memory of Mr Deetlefs or anybody else, I can only tell you what I experienced.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Adv Gcabashe, let me just ask a question while on this point, these AK47’s or AKM's, did they shoot one shot at a time or would it come out in spurts, a whole string of bullets?

MR RORICH: It is an automatic assault weapon Chairperson, one could set it on single shots, but usually it was practice to set it on automatic.

CHAIRPERSON: But you saw a single shot?

MR RORICH: I saw one flash.

CHAIRPERSON: And if it was on automatic, it would have been something different to what you saw?

MR RORICH: Then it would still have flashed for as long as the person drew the trigger.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: But you will agree that Manzini was in I would think a more westerly, running in a more westerly direction whereas you were opposite on the other side, in a more northerly - southerly, direction?

MR RORICH: Yes, southerly.

ADV GCABASHE: You were in opposite directions essentially, either the man was shooting one way or the other way?

MR RORICH: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: You couldn't have been anywhere near Manzini and he could not have been anywhere near you?

MR RORICH: No.

ADV GCABASHE: And one flash went off as far as you are concerned?

MR RORICH: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: I just want to clarify this, my understanding is not that you would have been, in other words that the person shooting would have been between yourself and Manzini, it would have been sort of at a 45 or 60 degree angle?

MR RORICH: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MALAN: You were behind the kombi, you arrived on the left hand side of the road?

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And the kombi stood at a slant and Manzini ran around the front and ran to the left?

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MR MALAN: So it is the degree angle which could be anything from 60 or 90 that is the difference, but it is not right opposite each other, it is not the matter that he would have shot in one direction and the other direction?

MR RORICH: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you take part in the ambush? I am asking you because you went there to deliver a vehicle essentially, how did it come about that you became an active participant in the ambush?

MR RORICH: Chairperson, I made the vehicle available and Colonel De Kock also asked me to be part of his team. It was an instruction which I executed.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising out of questions put by

the panel? Thank you Mr Rorich, that concludes your evidence, you may stand down.

MR RORICH: Thank you very much.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, the next amnesty applicant is Mr Gerrie Barnard.

GERRIE JOHAN BARNARD: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: You may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Barnard, your amnesty application is embodied in Volume 1, page 78 to 80, that is the formal document?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the incidents for which you apply for amnesty, appear on page 81 to 85, Annexure A, is that correct?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And your political motivation appears in Annexure B, page 86 to 93?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you confirm the contents of this application?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: During 1988, where were you stationed?

MR BARNARD: I was stationed at the Security Branch Piet Retief.

MS VAN DER WALT: And under whose command did you resort?

MR BARNARD: Warrant Officer Pienaar, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: If it is possible Mr Barnard, could you speak up, I cannot hear you?

MR BARNARD: I am sorry.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was your rank?

MR BARNARD: I was a Sergeant Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were one of the persons who participated there, you were one of the lowest ranks, is that correct?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: At that stage, this is now June 1988, how long were you attached to the Security Branch at Piet Retief?

MR BARNARD: Approximately a year.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you were also involved in the first instance where the Toyota Corolla was involved, wherein persons were killed?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have heard the evidence of Mr De Kock and Mr Pienaar, is that correct?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you are aware that four persons were killed in that incident?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know of any weapons and explosives which were planted on the deceased, or did you not know of it?

MR BARNARD: I knew about it at a later stage.

MS VAN DER WALT: Only at a later stage? What was your instruction in that event, what did you have to do?

MR BARNARD: We received instructions that an infiltration would take place on the Houtkop/Piet Retief road and I went along with a group of Colonel De Kock, of which Colonel De Kock was the Commander to a point on the Houtkop/Piet Retief road where we took up position and where this incident according to our instruction, would take place and what we had also done was that we went there as it is known to the Commission, and that is where it happened.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you know that the persons would be led into an ambush?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you fire shots yourself?

MR BARNARD: Yes, I did Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: What type of weapon did you have?

MR BARNARD: I had an Uzzi, a hand carbine.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you in any way involved in the planning and the negotiations before the time, before this incident?

MR BARNARD: No Chairperson, only partially, it was Warrant Officer Pienaar and Colonel De Kock did the planning and afterwards we were informed as to what would happen.

MS VAN DER WALT: Who gave you instructions to accompany them?

MR BARNARD: We were under instructions of Warrant Officer Pienaar and Colonel De Kock.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the second incident on the 12th of June 1988, were you also involved there?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And were you also aware that the persons would be lured into an ambush?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you also fire shots during this incident?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: With the same weapon?

MR BARNARD: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you see whether these persons had any weapons with them after the incident?

MR BARNARD: After the incident, as I could see my actions there, I did not become involved with the vehicle, I remained back from the vehicle and if I recall correctly, Warrant Officer Pienaar searched through the vehicles and AK47 rifles and handgrenades were found in the vehicles.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is it correct that because you were a junior Officer, you kept a low profile, you only had an instruction to be present at the ambush and fire shots and furthermore you had nothing else to do?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You then - just a moment - you have also made a statement, it was also to Brigadier Van Wyk, is that correct?

MR BARNARD: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: That was on the 21st of June 1989, it is embodied in Bundle 3(a) Chairperson, pages 3 and 4. Do you recall that you made such a statement?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And that is the only statement?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And in this statement, there are certain untruths?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You mention that the occupants of the vehicle, that is on page 4 Chairperson, paragraph 3, that the persons would be arrested, is that correct?

MR BARNARD: That is correct. That was not the intention.

MS VAN DER WALT: So what is in this statement is incorrect?

MR BARNARD: That is right Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: As well as the second last paragraph on page 2, that there would have been a pulling off vehicle with a blue flash light, was that correct?

MR BARNARD: It is correct in the statement, but that was not there, that is not how it happened.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the fact that Major De Kock had shouted that they were the police, did that happen?

MR BARNARD: No, that is also a lie.

MS VAN DER WALT: How did it come about that you made a statement that was not correct?

MR BARNARD: This was to fit in with the post mortem inquest which at that stage was being handled by Brigadier Van Wyk.

MS VAN DER WALT: Who proposed to you that you put these untruths in your statement?

MR BARNARD: It was Brigadier Van Wyk.

MS VAN DER WALT: When you made the statement you were still a Sergeant?

MR BARNARD: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And still stationed at Piet Retief?

MR BARNARD: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You apply for amnesty for both of these instances for murder as well as any other offence which might flow therefrom?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: As well as the crime of perjury and defeating the ends of justice?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And any other unlawful act which might flow from this?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Van der Walt. Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Barnard, Piet Retief Branch and the great area that it had to investigate, had a relatively small staff which had the responsibility of combating this large degree of insurgency?

MR BARNARD: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: According to the evidence, there was a high number of insurgencies during which Piet Retief was used in Eastern Transvaal and Natal?

MR BARNARD: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And at the time of this action, you regarded it as a general action in the execution of your duties, in protecting your country and combat terrorism so that the government of the day, could remain in power?

MR BARNARD: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to clear up something, on page 82 you say that three passengers were killed, you probably mean four?

MR BARNARD: Yes, there we made an error, it is not that we wanted to hide anything, there were four persons.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: No questions thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: Thank you, no questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: No questions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Thank you Mr Chair. Relating to your last answer, why did you say there were three occupants?

MR BARNARD: I would concede that we made a mistake, these were well known facts and we definitely made a mistake in that regard, it was supposed to be four persons.

MR MOERANE: Who is "we", yourself and? All the people who made statements from the same computer, same words, not so?

MR BARNARD: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Didn't you read this before you signed it?

MR BARNARD: Yes, I read it and I must have not noticed the mistake.

MR MOERANE: Do you know a person by the surname of Rajbansi?

MR BARNARD: Yes, I have heard a lot about him.

MR MOERANE: What do you know about Mr Rajbansi?

MR BARNARD: Well, there are many jokes that have been made about him, he was a respected person in the community in Durban and surrounding areas, but I don't know him personally.

MR MOERANE: Is that all you know about him?

MR BARNARD: There may be something else which I may recall later, but not at this stage.

MR MOERANE: Was there any reason to mention him in your statement?

MR BARNARD: I will have to study that first and then I can give you an answer to that question.

MR MOERANE: Look at paragraph 6.

MR BARNARD: Yes, I know about that. About the incident of an explosion in Durban, I knew about it, at a stage it came to my attention, it was also in the news.

MR MOERANE: Tell me about that incident, what do you know about it?

MR BARNARD: This took place quite a long time ago, I cannot recall precisely what everything was about.

MR MOERANE: Why do you decide to mention it in 1996? What relevance did it have?

MR BARNARD: I don't know, I cannot really recall what the precise reason is for the fact that I mentioned it at that stage, it escapes me now as to why I might have mentioned it at that stage.

MR MOERANE: Did Rajbansi have anything to do with the incident in respect of which you were making your application for amnesty?

MR BARNARD: No, I don't believe that he had anything to do with the amnesty application for Piet Retief and these incidents.

MR MOERANE: Isn't the correct position Mr Barnard, that all these statements which were in identical words, had Mr Rajbansi's name, so you just decided to sign it?

MR BARNARD: I cannot really respond to that, at that stage the facts were more clear to me and I recalled them better, and that is what I made my statement according to.

MR MOERANE: You see, what I am suggesting to you is that you have put your heads together, not necessarily that you were at the same place, but you put your heads together and decided on a version that you must give for your amnesty application?

MR BARNARD: I wasn't with any person who was involved in this incident, when I made the statement.

MR MOERANE: Yes, well you deposed to your statement in Knysna on the 11th of December.

MR BARNARD: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Do you know how to spell Rajbansi?

MR BARNARD: Well, I am not a linguistic expert.

MR MOERANE: On this occasion, this was the first occasion now, you shot at this motor vehicle, the Toyota Corolla?

MR BARNARD: I don't really understand.

MR MOERANE: You fired at the motor vehicle?

MR BARNARD: Yes, I fired at the Toyota Corolla.

MR MOERANE: And you discovered later that the occupants were not armed?

MR BARNARD: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: Then you involved yourself again four days later, in another ambush?

MR BARNARD: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: What did you feel about having shot unarmed people?

MR BARNARD: At that stage, before the incidents, I did not know that these persons would be unarmed. I was very clearly under the impression that they would be armed. We said that it would be an ambush and I associated myself with that.

MR MOERANE: The question I am asking you, after the event, after you realised that you had shot unarmed people, three of whom were women, how did you feel?

MR BARNARD: Chairperson, at that stage, our country was involved in a struggle against terrorism and many acts of terrorism were committed throughout the country, especially in the Eastern Transvaal, there were many cases where landmines were detected, there were many explosions that we heard of in previous cases as the evidence has been here and I don't know whether those acts were committed by a man or a woman, I think that both a man and a woman can be responsible for the same acts of terrorism. If a trigger is pulled, no one will ask if it is a man or a woman, they can be held responsible for exactly the same deeds.

MR MOERANE: Is that your complete answer to my question which I put to you twice?

MR BARNARD: I don't know precisely what you want me to say. I would try to understand the question better in Afrikaans.

MR MOERANE: Well, let me put it to you for the third time. How did you feel after realising that you had shot four unarmed persons, three of whom were women?

MS VAN DER WALT: I am not trying to interrupt matters here, I am sure that everybody would like to finish off this application, but I really do believe that Mr Barnard has answered the question, he said that when they were shot, he did not know that they were unarmed. He said that the country was involved in a war.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was how did he feel after the killing, we take it that he felt nothing or what?

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, but I would just want to say that he elaborated regarding the women, because that question was also put to him that if one pulled the trigger, he said a man and a woman enjoy equal status.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh no, we heard that, but I don't think that was the question, how he felt about shooting, it was how did he, himself, feel after the shooting, not whether there is any difference between men or women enemies.

MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, I was actually trying to be very fair to the witness, because I thought he might have misunderstood the question, that is why I am asking him the third time, and it is being interpreted to him in Afrikaans. If his legal representative doesn't want him to answer, I think it can only be to his prejudice. I was just trying to assist him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think it was a fair question. What Mr Moerane wants to know Mr Barnard is, after the shooting and four people were dead and it came to light that they weren't armed, how did you feel, you yourself personally, what did you feel, what were your feelings at that time after the shooting?

MR BARNARD: Yes, I was involved in the Security Branch and many a time I saw people that had died, I am sorry the audience has disrupted me somewhat, I have often seen how people had been killed, whether it be in an accident or any other situation, I didn't have much sympathy towards it otherwise I wouldn't have participated in the second incident. In the second incident I still reconciled myself with the action and participated in it.

MR MALAN: If I can just have some clarity, the fact that you realised that the persons who you expected to be armed, were unarmed, and that some of them were women, it did not upset you, it did not bring any remorse to you, they were still members of the enemy, you were not shocked or uncomfortable?

MR BARNARD: At that stage, that was the case.

MR MALAN: Very well, thank you.

MR MOERANE: Thank you Mr Chairman, thank you. I think he has been given sufficient opportunity to deal with the question and his attitude has come out very clearly. You went for the second round on the 12th of June?

MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: As far as you were concerned, you were fighting your enemy and you had to eliminate your enemy?

MR BARNARD: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: You forgot that you were a policeman whose first duty is to uphold the law?

MR BARNARD: Yes Chairperson, as I have said I was with the Security Branch and for me, it was also very political. I just want to express myself adequately - I am sorry, I have forgotten the last section of the question.

CHAIRPERSON: It was put to you, it is a rhetorical question really and it was that after saying that you felt that you were fighting your enemy and you had to kill them, then it was put to you that you forgot that you were a policeman with a duty to uphold the law.

MR BARNARD: Yes, at that stage I was a member of the Security Branch and our primary duties were to combat terrorism, to collect information and our primary duty according to my experience was also to combat the ANC who were involved in the ANC at that stage, even if we had to bend some of the rules.

MR MOERANE: Wasn't your prime duty, Sergeant Barnard, to uphold the law, protect life and property?

MR BARNARD: Yes, that is correct, but as I have said at that stage I was a member of the Security Branch and we handled with terrorism and insurgents as it would be in this case and the way I felt was that any possible method had to be used to prevent the results of insurgency and then possible further acts of terrorism.

MR MOERANE: Yes, you regarded the ANC in particular as a terrorist organisation?

MR BARNARD: Yes, that was so that the government which we served at that stage, regarded it as an unlawful organisation and I accepted this organisation as a terrorist organisation.

MR MOERANE: And you regarded members of the ANC who came into the country illegally, in other words, not through proper channels like border posts, as fair game, in other words that you could kill them at will? Was that your state of mind?

MR BARNARD: No, I am not saying that we could kill any ANC person on a random basis, we were involved in a different situation than the ANC persons who walked the streets. Great protest marches were held by the ANC and I don't think that we would have gone there and simply killed off everybody.

MR MOERANE: Why didn't you proceed with your normal duties as a policeman, investigate crime, arrest suspects, uphold the law?

MR BARNARD: I was with the Uniform Branch first and in time I ended up at Colel at the border post and from there, I became involved in small scale informer management and later I was taken up at the Security Branch at Piet Retief, through that channel.

MR MOERANE: Is the impression that some people had at the time that the Security Branch, particularly in the Eastern Transvaal was particularly vicious to the ANC, was that a legitimate perception?

MR BARNARD: Well, I cannot speak for what everybody thinks, it is a very broad perspective that you have sketched there.

MR MOERANE: Well, the perception that if you got caught by the Eastern Transvaal members of the Security Branch, chances are that you would be killed or at least tortured.

MR BARNARD: Yes, I cannot respond to that, as I said at that stage I had only spent a year at Piet Retief and I didn't have much experience with the occurrence of such deeds or whether such deeds were occurring, as I have said I didn't know the protracted history of the Eastern Transvaal. I worked in Natal and then I went to the border post after which I was taken up at Piet Retief Security Branch, so I didn't have a lengthy knowledge of the events in the Eastern Transvaal and the deeds to which you have referred.

MR MOERANE: Are you still a member of the Police Force?

MR BARNARD: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Or Police Service as it is now called. What is your rank now?

MR BARNARD: I am a Captain.

MR MOERANE: Stationed at?

MR BARNARD: At Knysna.

MR MOERANE: Knysna? I see. In which particular branch of the Police Service?

MR BARNARD: The Detective Branch at Knysna.

MR MOERANE: Let's deal with the second incident, I want to concentrate on the alleged shooting. Please tell the Honourable Committee what happened after this vehicle had come to a stop, the kombi.

MR BARNARD: After the vehicle stopped, we had formed a line on the side of the road and when the vehicle came to a standstill, I think Mr De Kock was in the front and the members jumped up and ran in the direction of the vehicle. I cannot say exactly where I was, I was somewhere in the middle of the group and when we approached the vehicle, I was approximately in the middle of the left side of the vehicle, that is where I positioned myself, and then I saw that the left front door was going open and as it opened, a person jumped out or climbed out and shots were fired. I was very strongly under the impression that these shots came from the person who was climbing out of the vehicle, however, I couldn't see any flashes or anything like that. As I said, people were in front of me. I assumed that the first shots came from the person who was climbing out of the vehicle, however, that was my own sentiment or my own opinion, I didn't see him specifically fire a shot or see a flash come out of the gun that he had because there were people who were in front of me and obstructing my view.

MR MOERANE: Yes, the truth of the matter is that you did not see that person fire?

MR BARNARD: No, I didn't see the flash that would indicate that a shot had been fired. As I have said, I wasn't right at the front of the line, in order to see exactly what was going on and to see the barrel and the flame emerging from the barrel.

MR MOERANE: Then is there any reason why you said in paragraph 5 on page 84, that -

MR BARNARD: That is what I have just said, when the person climbed out of the vehicle, shots went off and I assumed that these shots came from the person who had climbed out of the vehicle on the left front side. It may also have been some of the members who were in the front of the line, who fired the shots but in my mind I accepted that it sounded as if it could have been that person.

MR MOERANE: Well, isn't the truth of the matter that that is the version which is supposed to fit in with your amnesty applications, all six or seven of you whose applications were typed from a particular computer and are identical on this aspect?

MR BARNARD: I cannot speak on behalf of them, I haven't read any one of their applications and I have not had the opportunity to study it. This is my own version and this is my sentiment and I cannot change anything about it, because that is a reflection of my experience at that time.

MR MOERANE: Colonel De Kock was in a much better position than you to see what actually happened, not so because he was right in front?

MR BARNARD: Yes, I believe so.

MR MOERANE: And if he says that there was no firing, he did not see any firing, you are prepared to accept that by this person coming out of the door? You would accept that?

MR BARNARD: I would concede to that, as I have said, I could not really see, it was at night and there would have been flames emerging from the firearm, but as I have said, Colonel De Kock and some of the other members were in front of me, and it would be speculative of me to say that there were flames coming from the firearm. I simply believed that the shots which had been fired, were fired by the person who climbed out of the kombi.

MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Moerane. Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: No questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, any re-examination Ms Van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe, do you have any questions?

ADV GCABASHE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Yes, something about your evidence here, you have been examined in general regarding the maintenance of the law and arrests and the combating of crime, have I summarised it correctly if I heard you say that you understand the work of the Uniform Branch and that of the Security Branch as two totally different worlds, the Uniform Branch was involved in combating crime, but the Security Branch was involved in waging a war?

MR BARNARD: Yes Chairperson, there is a difference. I feel that there is a difference between the Security Branch and the Uniform Branch. The Uniform Branch operated mostly on ground level and dealt with one could almost say less serious matters. They were not always involved on the infiltration level or the levels upon which we moved, when it came to gathering intelligence and dealing directly with the infiltration process.

MR MALAN: Yes, you see because I just want to be certain, it sounds to me as if this is not only your perception, but you felt that the Uniform Branch was the police and that the Security Branch was waging war against terrorists and as you said, it could bend the rules, but it sounded to me as if you could operate under your own rules?

MR BARNARD: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: So according to your evidence, it is my impression that you didn't really regard the Uniform Branch and the Security Branch as one Unit, or as two wings of one major purpose which would be the combating of crime and the security of the public?

MR BARNARD: The Security Branch moved on a different level. We received a lot of information from the Uniform Branch and so forth, but we did not operate on the same level.

MR MALAN: Security Branch only had to do with catching terrorists, is that how you understood it?

MR BARNARD: Regarding my short period at the Security Branch, that is how I understood it.

MR MALAN: It wasn't about protecting other people in general or combating crime or obtaining sensitive information which could lead to regular crime, to put it blatantly you were basically soldiers under the banner of the police?

MR BARNARD: I would accept that.

MR MALAN: And you weren't even restricted by the Geneva Convention or any other institutions? You simply acted according to the orders of your superiors and you accepted it as such?

MR BARNARD: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: You didn't simply act under orders, you believed that that is why you were there?

MR BARNARD: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

ADV GCABASHE: All the answers you have just given, yes, yes, yes, to Mr Malan's questions, where did you get the idea that that was your task, it is not what you were tasked to do in terms of the rules of who you were and what you were supposed to do? Where did you get the idea that you were a little army of your own, separate to the military and not doing what ordinary policemen did?

MR BARNARD: No, I don't think that we could do what we wanted, we still had our Commanders who drew a line. I worked under a Commander and I couldn't just do what I wanted to. What we did, he knew of. If there were problems, I think that he would have corrected us, that we shouldn't do things like that, but I couldn't just go on my own and do what I wanted to.

ADV GCABASHE: No, you see those were general propositions that included all of the people in the Security Branch, that included your Commanders, so you were saying that as you understood your tasks, and the tasks of all your seniors and juniors, you could essentially bend the rules whenever it suited your particular purposes?

MR BARNARD: Chairperson, I never had to do with such cases, this was the first time with these two incidents, that I became involved with such acts of terrorism, including insurgency and an action against insurgency. Previously I had nothing to do with this and what took place here and that is where my ideas were formulated which led to the affirmative answers that I have just given.

ADV GCABASHE: Tell me, what drew you to the Security Branch as opposed to the Detective Branch after doing your original stint in the Uniform Branch? Did you volunteer, I mean what made you move to Security matters rather than just ordinary policing matters, you the individual?

MR BARNARD: I was connected to the Railway Police in Durban and not the Police Services as it is known today, I was with the Railway Police and I had many friends in the Security Branch. In the beginning I had small tasks such as the collection of information from Trade Unions which as I regarded it, was a less serious job to do at the Security Branch. As time went by, one didn't want to stay in one place all the time, such as with the Uniform Branch, one wouldn't want to stay on the street all the time, one wanted to move up and that is how I became friends with my friends at the Security Branch and ultimately I saw that this was a direction that I wanted to follow and that is when I began at the Security Branch in Durban where we undertook security clearances and so forth and with time, I ended up at the Piet Retief Security Branch.

ADV GCABASHE: You are still in the Police Service, the Detective Branch, right now?

MR BARNARD: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: All those habits that you practised as members of the Security Branch, you in particular at the time, have you carried those over to the Detective Branch now?

MR BARNARD: No, I think after these incidents, my eyes have gone open and as I sit here today, I think that it was worth it. I am now with the Detective Branch and I am doing the work of a Detective, there are no more infiltrations or anything like that, and I am now at the level where I have and I feel that I have very good relations with the community.

ADV GCABASHE: And you actually are doing things differently as opposed to the way you did them in the past, there is a change in the manner in which you are doing things? There are no cover-ups, there are no lies, there are no - I am just trying to understand you, the individual, applying for amnesty now for acts in the past fair enough, but how those could possibly be translated to the future where you are now?

MR BARNARD: Yes, I am now in a position where I am second in command in the Detective Branch in Knysna and I have members who serve under me and there I cannot pursue the methods that we used at the Security Branch, I have to educate them so that they can become better police officers. I think of it as the start of my police career.

ADV GCABASHE: Okay, fair enough, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising? Thank you Mr Barnard, that then concludes your testimony, you may stand down.

CHAIRPERSON: I see that it is now past four o'clock, this would then be a convenient time to adjourn and will nine o'clock be convenient again? Thank you, we have come to the end of today's hearing and we will adjourn until tomorrow, the same venue, at nine o'clock in the morning, thank you.

MS LOCKHAT: All rise.