--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to you all. I trust you had a restful weekend. Today we will be restarting with the applications of the following persons - Mr Johannes Petrus Roodt, Mr Sarel du Plessis Crafford who is late and Mr Daniël Jakobus Kruger. This incident is called the murder of Ernst Ramangu, source 406. The Panel that will sit to hear applications in relation to this incident comprises myself, Judge Sisi Khampepe, on my right, Mr Motata and on my left, Mr Malan. Will the legal representatives appearing on behalf of the applicants kindly place their names for the record?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Madam Chair, Roelof du Plessis. I am acting on instructions of Strydom Brits Attorneys, and I act for Mr Roodt and Mr Crafford. May I just place on record that Mr Crafford is deceased and in respect of his application, I will stand by his written application.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS VAN DER WALT: I am Louisa van der Walt, I am

representing Mr D.J. Kruger.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair, may I start the proceedings by calling Mr Roodt?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

JOHANNES PETRUS ROODT: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Roodt, this incident has been set out in Bundle 1, from page 439 and continues to page 455, is that correct?

MR ROODT: Yes, that is correct. That is correct Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you confirm the contents of those pages as correct?

MR ROODT: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: The incident itself begins at page 450?

MR ROODT: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, and do you also confirm the correctness of what appears on page 450?

MR ROODT: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, then I would just like to ask you during the assault which is referred to in the second paragraph, was Ramangu assaulted?

MR ROODT: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Do you know whether Capt Crafford obtained any information with regard to Ramangu and his status as a double agent?

MR ROODT: Yes, that is correct. Capt Crafford told me that upon enquiry he had established that he was a double agent and a trained MK member.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Capt Crafford had previously told you that he had obtained information about Ramangu from Mandla?

MR ROODT: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say that Ramangu was assaulted, was this assault done during your presence?

MR ROODT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You can answer me in Afrikaans.

MR ROODT: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And how long was he assaulted, do you know, can you estimate?

MR ROODT: Chairperson, for approximately as far as I saw, approximately one and a half hours.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and how was he assaulted?

MR ROODT: His arms were turned or twisted, he was slapped a few times, but furthermore nothing serious.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the late Mr Crafford the only one who assaulted him?

MR ROODT: No Chairperson, I also participated.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the nature and the extent of your participation?

MR ROODT: I slapped him a few times and twisted his arm. That was all.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it not your intention to apply for amnesty for having assaulted Mr Ramangu?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Madam Chair, I am sorry, I was coming to that. I will seek leave to include that in the list of incidents.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You had omitted however Mr du Plessis, to lead this evidence.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I did so, but in any event, the murder, the question of the murder Madam Chair, would have included the assault as well.

CHAIRPERSON: The assault?

MR DU PLESSIS: So it is not really necessary to make the application, but I will do so if you require.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Roodt, you also mentioned that some sleeping pills or a cold drink laced with sleeping pills was given to Mr Ramangu. Were you present when this was done?

MR ROODT: I was present when Capt Crafford gave him or offered him a cold drink which had apparently contained a tranquilliser, and after a while he fell asleep.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Were you told by Mr Crafford that the cold drink had been laced with tranquillisers?

MR ROODT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: This concludes your evidence, Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Malan, do you have any questions to put to Mr Roodt?

MR MALAN: I have no questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: I have none, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roodt, you are excused as a witness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt, are you in a position to proceed with the evidence of Mr Kruger, who is the next applicant in this matter?

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, I am ready.

DANIëL JOHANNES KRUGER: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Kruger, last week you also appeared before the same Honourable Committee and you gave evidence before them. Do you once again confirm that your application from page 355 to 365 within the Bundle, is correct?

MR KRUGER: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the incident for which you are currently applying for amnesty appears on page 360?

MR KRUGER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you confirm the content of the statement which is of relevance for the incident regarding Ernst Ramangu?

MR KRUGER: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know the person as Ernst Ramangu or how was he known to you?

MR KRUGER: No, I only knew him as Source 406.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the name Ernst Ramangu, when did you come to hear of this?

MR KRUGER: When the documents were compiled, I saw that they called Ernst Ramangu, Source 406.

MS VAN DER WALT: And questions were asked by the Amnesty Committee as to whether or not you could assist them in establishing the identity of Source 406, and you could not assist them?

MR KRUGER: No, I could not.

MS VAN DER WALT: During the assault, you were not present?

MR KRUGER: No, I was not present.

MS VAN DER WALT: And also not when the cold drink was given to Ernst Ramangu?

MR KRUGER: No, I was not.

MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing further, thank you Chairperson. May I just put something else, thank you. Therefore you request amnesty from the honourable Committee with regard to any offence which may emanate from the death of Ernst Ramangu, is that correct?

MR KRUGER: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: As well as any delictual accountability?

MR KRUGER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you.

ADV STEENKAMP: I have no questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr du Plessis, do you have any questions to put to Mr Kruger?

MR DU PLESSIS: I have no questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Malan, do you have any questions?

MR MALAN: I have no questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: I have no questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it Ms van der Walt, you don't wish to re-examine?

MS VAN DER WALT: No Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kruger, you are excused as a witness.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it that both counsel are in a position to give us a very short legal argument in relation to the applications

before us?

MR DU PLESSIS IN ARGUMENT: Yes, Madam Chair, may I proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, the facts in respect of this application and the motivation appears clearly from Crafford's application which we will find on page 505. It is clear that Ramangu was a double agent, that it was necessary to eliminate him and it also appears clearly from Crafford's application that he not only had information which came from Mandla, but also confirmation from Ramangu when he was interrogated, that he was a double agent. Under the circumstances, taking into account the evidence which you have heard in lots of other applications pertaining to the necessity to eliminate somebody in that position, especially somebody who is ...

CHAIRPERSON: May I interrupt, I see Mr Kruger is leaving. I am going to request him to take a seat and not to leave the hearing whilst counsel is arguing. You may proceed Mr du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: The necessity to eliminate somebody who is in the position of a double agent, appears clearly from various different applications, Madam Chair. There is no reason to really elaborate on the question of full disclosure as in my submission it is clear that the information that is or was available to both applicants, Kruger and Roodt, coupled with the information in the application of Crafford, is a full disclosure of what happened here. Roodt went further and told you that there were assaults in respect of the interrogation, although he did not participate to a large extent with the interrogation, he said that it did happen. Under those circumstances, I will request you to grant amnesty. In respect of Mr Crafford, you will see that he requested amnesty for murder as well as assault and Mr Roodt as pointed out, did not apply for assault, but I wish to include that as an application, a separate application on page 449 in his application for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: So you want, what (indistinct) do you seek for Mr Roodt?

MR DU PLESSIS: It is for murder and for assault with intent and then obviously it remains, all other offences and all delicts as well, I see it wasn't included there. I request for delicts, but I think it follows in any event from the judgment.

CHAIRPERSON: What specific delicts would you want him to be granted amnesty for?

MR DU PLESSIS: The assault and murder. As it pleases you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt, on behalf of Mr Kruger?

MS VAN DER WALT IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. I am not going to add anything further to what Mr du Plessis has stated. The only point that I wish to indicate to you is that Mr Kruger was the subordinate to Mr Crafford and that it appears to be quite clear that he acted in order of Mr Crafford. He was not present during the assault, however, he was present when the person was killed in Mamelodi. I therefore request that the Honourable Committee grant him amnesty for the murder of Mr Ramangu or any other offence which may emanate from his actions there, as well as any delictual accountability that he may have, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. This Committee is in a position to pronounce its decision immediately without having to break.

F I N D I N G

We have an application made by the following applicants, Mr Sarel D.P. Crafford, the second applicant, Mr Johannes Petrus Roodt, the third applicant, Mr Daniël Johannes Kruger. The applicants apply for amnesty for the killing of Ernst Ramangu an alleged police informer known as Source 405 in or about 1987 or 1988.

The first applicant informed inter alia the second and the third applicant that subsequent to his interrogation of Ramangu, he had become convinced that Ramangu was a double agent and that because of the political conditions prevailing at the time, it had become necessary to eliminate him. The first applicant gave Ramangu a cold drink laced with sleeping pills to drink, after he and the second applicant had assaulted him. As a result of the drinking of that cold drink, Mr Ramangu was rendered unconscious. The first applicant then instructed both applicants to put the unconscious Ramangu into the car. Later that day, the second applicant was instructed to drive the car which had the unconscious Ramangu in it to the direction of Mamelodi. At a certain spot near Mamelodi East the second applicant was instructed to stop the car and the third applicant and other Security Police present thereat, whose identities are no longer, can no longer be remembered by both applicants, were instructed to carry the still unconscious Ramangu out of the car. The first applicant was in possession of explosives which he had brought with him to the scene. He then instructed the third applicant as well as the other Security Police present thereat, to assist him to place the explosives around the body of the late Ramangu. He thereafter detonated the explosives, thereby killing Ramangu and destroying his body. Having considered all the evidence before us, we are satisfied that the second and the third applicant participated in the gruesome killing of Ramangu under instructions of the first applicant, who was in command of their unit, consequently their participation in the killing of the late Ernst Ramangu and in the desecration of his body, are acts associated with a political objective, as defined in the Act.

It is our view that the applicants have complied with the recommendations of Section 20(1) of the Act and amnesty is therefore GRANTED to the second and third applicant for in so far as the third applicant is concerned, the murder of Ernst Ramangu and the desecration of Ramangu's body. In so far as it relates to the second applicant, for the murder of Ernst Ramangu, the assault on Ernst Ramangu and the desecration of Ramangu's body. We reserve our judgment in so far as it relates to the application of the late Sarel Crafford, which we hope will be delivered once we have considered all the incidents in which he is an applicant.

MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you, Madam Chair.

MS VAN DER WALT: As it pleases you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may Ms van der Walt and I be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't think we are involved in the next incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for the assistance you have rendered to the Committee in reaching a just and speedy decision.

MR DU PLESSIS: May we express our thanks for the just and speedy decision, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, all the legal representatives in the next matter, for Oasis Motel, are ready and present, and I would suggest and submit that we are ready to start immediately with the next matter, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, are we in a position to commence with the next matter?

ADV STEENKAMP: We are indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The next application to be considered by the same Panel relates to the applications of the following persons - the application of Mr I. Coetzee, the application of Mr W.H.J. Coetzee, Mr L. de Jager, Mr W.J. Loots, Mr M.A. Olifant, Mr A. Pretorius, Mr ...

ADV STEENKAMP: No, Madam Chair, he is not an applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Those are the applicants who we will sit to consider their application in relation to the matter known as the Oasis Motel incident. The legal representatives who will be appearing in these matters, are requested to kindly state their names for the record.

MR VISSER: May it please you Madam Chairperson and Honourable Members of the Committee, my name is Louis Visser. I am instructed by the Attorneys Wagener Muller to appear for the following persons - Gen I. Coetzee, who is item 5 of the cover sheet of Bundle 2, item 6 is Col W.H.J. Coetzee, 7, Col L. de Jager, 8, Brig W.J. Loots and Col A. Pretorius who is in Bundle 1. We will in due course refer you to the correct pages of the Bundles.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser, we haven't seen you for some time.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We again welcome you and hope that you have now recovered.

MR VISSER: Thank you very much, it is very kind of you Chairperson. May I add that my - how things have changed having observed the procedure here this morning. I just hope that I can adapt quickly enough to the changed circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: I have no doubt you will.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, Lamey of the firm Rooth and Wessels Attorneys, Pretoria. I represent Mr Manuel Olifant in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Visser and Mr Lamey, have you decided who is going to kick-start the process?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, it appears that Mr Visser will start with his clients. May I just enquire, there is a supplementary statement of Mr Olifant which has been given to the Evidence Leader as well as Mr Visser, do you have copies of that available? I do have extra copies.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, a supplementary statement of Mr A. Olifant has been handed up to the Committee.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: I hope the same copy has been given to Mr Visser on behalf of his clients?

MR LAMEY: Yes, it has.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER ADDRESSES: Yes, thank you Madam Chairperson, we have received a copy of that statement. Chairperson, may I then kick off with, if you will allow me a brief introduction. I have had the pleasure of appearing before Commissioner Motata once before, but that was in different circumstances, where I sat on the other side of the table, objecting to the application, and I am afraid that he has not been exposed to matters as we raise them during matters in which we acted for applicants.

I understand from my Attorney, Mr Wagener, however that when he appeared before this Committee last week, he handed up to the Committee the freshest edition of the document, called "General Background to Amnesty Applications". Chairperson, perhaps for the benefit of Commissioner Motata, very briefly on the 5th of February of this year, a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Justice Wilson where Commissioner Malan was also present, where all legal representatives were employed to attempt to think of ways and means to be implemented in order to shorten the process of the amnesty applications. What we did as a result of that, we drafted two documents Chairperson. One is this "General Background" and this general background Chairperson, deals with a wide variety of issues pertaining to the conflict of the past. We are happy to say at this stage that the Amnesty Committees before whom we have appeared, including Committees chaired by you Madam Chairperson, have accepted this document and it is therefore not necessary for applicants as we had to do in the past, to deal with all the background circumstances, apart from merely handing up this document, and it serving as part of the evidence before you. May I in that regard then ask you Chairperson, whether you will consider that document which I have just referred to as Exhibit A also in this case, and to be taken into account when you consider the amnesty applications of the present applicants.

Chairperson, if I may refer you to Bundle 2 before you, at page 187 of Bundle 2, there was supposed to have been a ...

CHAIRPERSON: What page Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Page 187 Chairperson, of Bundle 2, there was supposed to have been an annexure attached. Due to some problem apparently, the annexure which is an affidavit of Wikus Johannes Loots, who is also an applicant before you today, was only attached in part. You will see it starts with page 1, typed page 1 and then goes to page 10 and 11 and then 39. We have arranged Chairperson, for the full annexure to be duplicated and to be made available to you. I am not quite certain what the easy way would be to deal with it. Perhaps it could simply be marked Exhibit B. The importance of this document is that it deals really with the position of Botswana and the position of Botswana vis-a-vis the conflict that was raging within the country. I am not going to deal with it in detail, but it is now placed before you and perhaps Madam Chair, it may be marked Exhibit B, if that is in order with you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that will be in order, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, lastly as far as documents ...

MR MALAN: Sorry, just for the record, Mr Visser, that is a statement as an annexure to the application, it is not an affidavit in itself?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I hear what Commissioner Malan says, I was under the impression that it was an affidavit.

MR MALAN: I don't think it is that important, since it is ...

MR VISSER: Indeed it is not, but he will confirm this in any event. In fact before Madam Chair, before yourself, in the Silent Valley matter, this document has already been dealt with by Brig Loots and confirmed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: But we will just do that again.

CHAIRPERSON: For purposes of completeness in so far as this incident is concerned?

MR VISSER: That is correct Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And having regard to the fact that I was not sitting with the same Panel then as I am now.

MR VISSER: That is correct Chairperson, yes, from that point of view. Chairperson, then the second document to which I referred to earlier, that we drafted in view of the, or as a result of undertakings given on the 5th of February, was a summary of the legal arguments which we presented to the Amnesty Committees before whom we appeared right from the word go. You will recall Chairperson, that in the beginning it was an exasperating about 180 pages, that had been reduced and again, Madam Chair, you have seen the abbreviated version which deals in the main with the background again with the conflict and I must say, is largely based on what you now have in front of you as Exhibit A.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: I don't know whether Commissioner Motata has had insight in that document, but if he hasn't, we can produce, we can produce one and let him have that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Which will circumvent the necessity of having to argue that and of course, if there is any question that Commissioner Motata has regarding either Exhibit A or the written argument to which I have just referred, he could perhaps pass on his concerns or questions to me and I can deal with them at any stage, either today or later, it doesn't matter Chairperson. Chairperson, then lastly if I may, as we usually do, we have prepared a summary of the evidence of each of the applicants for whom we appear and those have been handed to you in the form of statements and there are five of them Chairperson. May I ask you to give them exhibit numbers immediately, so that we don't get confused, and if I may suggest that the statement of Willem Helm Johannes Coetzee be marked Exhibit C.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: The next one being Anton Pretorius, that could be Exhibit D. Then Lodewyk de Jager would be Exhibit E, Ignatius Coetzee, would be Exhibit F, and the last one Wikus Johannes Loots, would be Exhibit G. To explain the order of what we have just placed before you Chairperson, Coetzee as per Exhibit C and Pretorius as per Exhibit D were the lesser ranking officers who had more to do with the gathering of intelligence during this period of time and the passing on of that information. They were under the direct command of Col Lodewyk de Jager, which explains why he is in the third place and all three of them were under the command of Gen Ignatius Coetzee as per Exhibit F. They were all attached to the Soweto Security Branch Chairperson, whilst Brig Loots was attached to Western Transvaal Security Branch. Chairperson, if you will allow me just to by way of one word of explanation, to understand this particular application, one must bear in mind that this was really a Special Forces operation, not a Security Force operation. What happened here and this is the evidence that you will hear or that is set out in the statements, is that acting upon information received, from an informer of Soweto, which is referred to as SWT180, Special Forces, we presume Chairperson, obtained instructions and authorisation from their Commanding Officers in the South African Defence Force to do this operation and what happened was that Brig Loots in his Commanding capacity in the Western Transvaal and Gen Ignatius Coetzee in his capacity as Commander of Soweto, were asked to assist. You will hear that the part played by all the applicants before you here, including that of Mr Olifant, were in a supporting role.

My Attorney just asks me to make it absolutely clear that the Special Forces were of course a Defence Force unit, not a Security Police unit. Chairperson, with those introductions, may I call the first witness, Willem Helm Johannes Coetzee, who is available, has no objection to taking the oath and he would wish to give his evidence in Afrikaans?

CHAIRPERSON: You will be calling your witnesses in the order we have now marked the exhibits?

MR VISSER: Exactly in that order Chairperson. Yes, exactly in that order.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

WILLEM HELM JOHANNES COETZEE: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Coetzee, you are an applicant for amnesty for any offence or delict which was committed before, during or after incidents that took place in Leeuwpark and the Oasis Motel in Gaberone, Botswana during

approximately August or September 1987, during which there was a conspiracy and or an attempt to murder certain persons whom you mention in Exhibit C, those would be one Mark Shope and or one Lambert Maloyi and or one MK Search and or one MK Pule and or one MK Sipho and or MK Jackie, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Your application appears from page 140 to 154 of Bundle 2 of the documents which have been served before the Committee, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And you deal specifically with this incident from page 143 to 150, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Subject to certain explanations and elaborations and possible amendments which you will refer to in your evidence as set out in Exhibit C, do you confirm the content of that application of yours, as I have just referred to it in Bundle 2?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: In Bundle 2, you have answered paragraph 7 with the answer "not applicable", both with 7(a) and 7(b) of your amnesty application on page 140, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: What I mean is page 141?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Where you state "not applicable" and "not applicable" is that pertaining to the question of whether or not you were a supporter or a member of a political organisation and if so, in what capacity, would "not

applicable" be incorrect there?

MR COETZEE: That is so.

MR VISSER: Were you a member or a supporter of any political organisation?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Which organisation?

MR COETZEE: The National party.

MR VISSER: And you were a regular supporter?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Madam Chair, may I move for an amendment? Chairperson, you might recall that on many occasions in the past, we have explained how it came about, it is really a mistaken reading of the questions, which gave rise to a whole hoard of people saying "not applicable" where in fact they were all supporters of the National Party.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we take judicial notice of an in-depth application moved by your Instructing Attorney only last week before us, in respect of a different matter.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But the same reasons I think have already been explained and advanced by Mr Coetzee, in relation to this incident as well. That application is granted, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: As it pleases you, Madam Chairperson. Mr Coetzee, a document has been served before the Committee which is called Exhibit C, do you have that document before you?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Is that document a document which you have compiled after thorough consultation with your legal representatives and is this the evidence that you wish to place before this Committee with regard to your knowledge and share in the relevant application?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: In Exhibit C, you refer to Exhibit A which has also been served before the Committee. Are you capable according to your own knowledge and or reliable knowledge, to confirm the information which is contained in that document?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: You have previously given evidence before other Amnesty Committees, you set that out on page 1(b) of Exhibit C, do you also confirm this?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And furthermore, you rely upon the findings as mentioned by you in (c), (d) and (e) and you request that this also be considered in the evaluation of your amnesty application, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: On page 2, you set out as an introduction what your work and share was in the collection of information in Soweto during 1986 and further, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: In 1986/1987 your rank was that of Captain?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And you were attached to the Intelligence Unit of the Security Branch in Soweto?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You state there that Gen Ignatius Coetzee was then the Divisional Commander?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And the Head of your unit was Col de Jager?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And that Lt-Col Anton Pretorius who was then a Lieutenant, directly served under your command?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, if I may interrupt myself, we have and I hope it is in order for me to mention that, we have been informed that the Committee has reached the state where it does not require evidence regarding the background to any extent any longer, and that it would be in order for the witnesses merely to confirm what they have placed on paper before you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: If my understanding of that is correct Chairperson, I may say that in Exhibit C as in other of the affidavits, a fairly full statement is made as to the involvement of the witnesses and what their particular tasks were in the Security Police at the time, and perhaps Chairperson, with your leave, in order to save time, I could possibly ask the witness just to confirm that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We would appreciate that.

MR VISSER: Yes, in fact my Attorney just points out that in the pre-trial minute, in paragraph 9, that was held on some date or other, the 8th of October it seems. That has also been confirmed. Colonel, you have set out that since the beginning of the 1980's you were involved in tactical and strategical combat of the terrorist onslaught?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And you were involved in all the organisations and sub-organisations of the liberation movements and other political groupings within the country who had entered the struggle against the government and by implication, the National Party which implemented the policy of apartheid in the former era, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And you set them out in paragraph 3 and you continued to say that in order to penetrate these organisations. You established an extensive intelligence network and when I say you, I mean the Intelligence Unit of Soweto and that you had various informers and deep-cover agents which you handled also in your personal capacity?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: In paragraph 5 you state that you usually acted in a court oriented manner and that you carried out the regular policing actions as they were expected of regular policemen?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: But that pressure was exerted on you due to the political violence which reigned all over the country, and then also particularly in Soweto, Tembisa, Daveyton, Wattville and Actonville where you operated?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Sorry Chairperson, I am just reminded that it is already quarter past eleven. If you want to take the tea adjournment, I am quite happy to break at this point.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Visser, unless obviously you want to have a short adjournment, we thought we had made arrangements with our Evidence Leader to convey to you that we will not be taking any short adjournment, unless the witness requires it or the legal representative so requests.

MR VISSER: Yes, I wasn't aware of that. Perhaps Mr Steenkamp just didn't tell me about it.

CHAIRPERSON: But if it becomes necessary for you to have an adjournment, just make us aware and we will give you one..

MR VISSER: No, no, we can go on. Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MR VISSER: We are indebted to you, thank you Madam Chairperson, we would prefer to go on. Then from paragraph 8 onwards, you have summarised what your experience was from 1981 onwards and you refer specifically to the establishment of the advance detachments in terms of the four pillars of the struggle of the ANC/SACP alliance and what it all involved?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Do you then confirm all the information which you have provided for background up to page 5, paragraph 20?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Then with regard to Botswana, have you studied this section in Exhibit A properly?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And do you agree with what is stated in Exhibit A, with regard to Botswana?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Do you also confirm that there was close co-operation between the Western Transvaal Security Branch and the Security Branch of Soweto, due to the fact that many of the infiltrations which you experienced in Soweto, came to you via Botswana through the Western Transvaal?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Now perhaps from paragraph 21 onwards, you could submit the section below the heading "Leading Factors and Circumstances to the Current Incident", because I don't believe the Committee has heard any evidence about this incident previously, this would be page 5, paragraph 21. If you could address this.

MR COETZEE: During 1987 the Soweto Intelligence Unit by means of an informer, SWT180 and various other deep-cover agents and informers, succeeded in successfully infiltrating an underground MK structure in Botswana. I was the handler of SWT180 and Col Pretorius and Const Olifant were his co-handlers.

MR VISSER: Could I just interrupt you, is it correct that on both the local and international level of threat, it struck you to be of great significance regarding what this structure or group of people in Botswana were busy doing?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Is it correct that this structure as far as your information went, in paragraph 23, consisted of these persons who are involved in this amnesty application that you are applying for today?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: They were Lambert Maloyi, Mark Shope, MK Search, MK Sipho, MK Pule and MK Jackie?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In paragraph 24 you have summarised what they were occupied with, that would have been recruitment, assistance...

MR MALAN: Mr Visser, I don't wish to interrupt you unnecessarily, but most of this information is embodied within the primary application. If you could be brief and avoid repetition, I would appreciate it, because all of this has been confirmed already. Rather focus on that which you think might not be in the main application and submit that to us, but for the rest of it, it has been confirmed already.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson, for that indication. Mr Coetzee, as it appears in your main application, there may perhaps be a measure of confusion regarding what exactly the idea was with the operation at the end of the day, because you refer to ICU's in your application and the question which arises is whether or not these Industrial Combat Units were actually the reason why the operation which is of relevance to this application, was ultimately launched. Is it correct that in as far as it regarded your information, this establishment of the ICU's was actually en extension of the activities of Umkhonto weSizwe?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And that this was simply the opening of a further terrain by means of which the commission of violence and political violence could be launched in the RSA from Botswana by means of MK?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Then that deals with paragraphs 25 and further, up to paragraph 35. This information which you collected was conveyed on many occasions at Information Management meetings and it was distributed to persons and Branches of the Security Branch who had a vested interest in it?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Then there was a meeting in Potchefstroom and during this meeting which you have stated in paragraph 36, certain persons were present and what is significant is that Commandant Charl Naude of Special Forces of the South African Defence Force was present there, and it was there that a decision was made to take certain action or at least certain action was discussed?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Against these persons to whom you have previously referred?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Whose operation would it have been?

MR COETZEE: The Defence Force.

MR VISSER: And would the Western Transvaal and Soweto Security Branch fulfil any role in this operation?

MR COETZEE: Yes, a supportive role.

MR VISSER: Very well, a supportive role? Did you then receive such orders from Gen Ig Coetzee via Col de Jager who gave you an instruction to give assistance as and when Special Forces would require it?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: was one of the aspects of that assistance the fact that with the assistance of SWT180 an attempt was made to contact these persons upon two occasions in Botswana?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: There are actually two incidents. The one is the incident at Leeuwpark which was an abortive incident, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: yes.

MR VISSER: And the other was the incident at the Oasis Motel which was also abortive as we are aware?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And in both these cases, did you have any knowledge of the finer detail of the execution of the operation?

MR COETZEE: No Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Then you also deal with the first incident at Leeuwpark, paragraph 39 and 40 on page 9 and then the second attempt at the Oasis Motel at you know the facts from paragraph 41 and further, up to and including 52, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Then in conclusion you have also referred to the position of SWT180 and what happened to him. He was arrested with a vehicle containing weapons which he was transporting to the RSA on behalf of MK?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: He was then exposed by someone in Zambia and he was then taken up in a camp by the ANC?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Was he later released?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: SWT180, where is he today?

MR COETZEE: He has passed away recently.

MR VISSER: Do you know what the circumstances of his death were?

MR COETZEE: No. I have heard that they were medical.

MR VISSER: Is it correct as you have stated it on page 12, how you saw your role and action during the struggle of the past and is it also correct what you have stated in paragraph 61 and further, that this represents your action and the political objectives upon which you acted?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: The reason why you believed that what you did was expected of you as a policeman, in service as a policeman, and that this fell within your express or implied authorisation?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Consequently you request amnesty as we have already set out in the beginning with regard to these persons and this would then include conspiracy and attempt to murder these persons, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Is it also correct that Mr Olifant with your knowledge crossed the RSA border to Botswana with false documentation and also returned?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And for your share in that, you also request amnesty?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Or for any other offence or unlawful deed which may have been committed by you during this operation?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Just to state it clearly, no person was killed or injured during this operation as far as you are aware?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Lamey, do you have

any questions to put to Col Coetzee?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, just shortly Madam Chair. Mr Coetzee, I have only just received this document and I have not studied all aspects of the document, it would appear to me that there isn't actually any dispute between you and my client, Mr Olifant. There is just something that I wish to be certain of. Mr Olifant, as far as you know, was not involved in the first action at Leeuwpark, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Not according to me. Not according to me, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: There at the Security Branch and the Intelligence Unit you also functioned on a strictly need to know principle?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: My instructions from Mr Olifant are that before he received instructions from Pretorius to go to Botswana, he didn't really know what it was all about. He received these instructions to go to Botswana and he had to make hotel room reservations there and so forth and once he had done all of this, and when he returned he first came to this farm between Kopfontein and Zeerust near the border, where he met the other Security Branch members as well. Can you comment on that in any way?

MR COETZEE: It is possible Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Then he does not have any specific knowledge of the persons who were the targets, he only realised later that there was an operation under way, but he did not know which individuals were the targets. It would appear that I am experiencing constant problems with my microphone.

MR COETZEE: I confirm that he was not aware of who the individuals were, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: I wonder if I could make this easier for Mr Lamey. Did you have any opportunity to study Mr Olifant's application?

MR COETZEE: Yes, I do believe so.

MR MALAN: Is there any dispute that you have with Mr Olifant regarding anything that he states in his application?

MR COETZEE: No.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairperson, perhaps I should be of assistance to my learned friend. There is one aspect, Mr Olifant states in his further statement - Chairperson, should this be marked Exhibit H perhaps? As it pleases you. He states that when he, Olifant, was in Botswana, he communicated with Col Pretorius and among others, that he was also instructed at a certain point to dial a certain number in Soweto or in the vicinity of Soweto, he stated another place's name, but it was here on the Rand, Westonaria, and that he spoke to Peter Lingeni, paragraph 7 Chairperson, of Exhibit H and that he received his orders from that point onwards. In Exhibit C, page 10, paragraph 45 you have set out what your share was in the operation with regard to the Oasis Motel namely that you manned a communications point in Soweto where SWT180 would contact you, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And then on your turn, you would contact Pretorius who was in Nietverdiend in Western Transvaal and that he in turn would inform Special Forces and the Security Branch about what the position was?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Now according to your recollection, we know this is a long time ago, but according to your recollection, from whom would Mr Olifant have received his orders if he had contacted Soweto?

MR COETZEE: From me.

MR VISSER: Which telephone did you have at that time?

MR COETZEE: A car phone.

MR VISSER: Were you constantly available on this phone if contact needed to be established with you from Botswana?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: That is the only point which we could pick up which is of any consequence in the evidence of Olifant and Col Coetzee, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, the ball is still in your court. If you feel that there are any issues which are relevant for you to put to Mr Coetzee, which differs with the version that is going to be given by Mr Olifant, you may proceed to put those issues to him.

MR LAMEY: Might I just get some clarity from Mr Coetzee on this paragraph, that the version of Mr Olifant is as stated in the supplementary statement. Did it operate as such that the instructions would indirectly be conveyed to Mr Olifant via Mr Lingeni from Soweto or that vicinity?

MR COETZEE: That may be so, but I cannot recall because the communications point was controlled by me and it was very important to manage the entire operation from a coordinatory perspective in conjunction with the other persons who were already on the farm.

MR LAMEY: But from the communications point, you also had contact with Pretorius?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: But it is possible that the communication with Mr Olifant could have been relayed by means of somebody else?

MR COETZEE: Yes, the possibility exists Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr Steenkamp, do you have any questions to put to Mr Coetzee?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan, do you have any questions to put to Mr Coetzee?

MR MALAN: I have no questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata, do you have any questions to put to Mr Coetzee?

ADV MOTATA: I have no questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetzee, for how long were you handling SWT180?

MR COETZEE: For quite some time Chairperson, approximately three years.

CHAIRPERSON: This incident occurred some time in 1987, would you say that you had already been his handler for a year or so prior to this incident?

MR COETZEE: I would say approximately three years.

CHAIRPERSON: Prior to the incident taking place?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetzee, before excusing you, I don't think, let me not be presumptuous, Mr Visser, do you wish to re-examine?

MR VISSER: You would have been correct to be presumptuous, I have no questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Coetzee, you are excused as a witness.

MR VISSER: Madam Chair, may I call Col Anton Pretorius. His exhibit number is Exhibit D.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Whilst we are busy with the exhibits, maybe we can allocate a number to Mr Olifant's supplementary statement, as Exhibit H, just for convenience sake, so that if you want to refer to it, you can refer to it as an exhibit.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it will be Exhibit H.

MR LAMEY: May I just beg leave to hand up the original which is still with me, to you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We shall now proceed to hear Mr Pretorius, Mr Anton Pretorius.

ANTON PRETORIUS: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Pretorius, you are also an amnesty applicant for the current incident?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Your application can be found in Bundle 1 from pages 271 to 312 and you deal with this particular incident from pages 288 to 296? Do you confirm the content of your amnesty application subject to your evidence which you will deliver today?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VISSER: You also request with request that the Amnesty Committee grant you an amendment with regard to paragraphs 7(a) and 7(b) to read "National Party" and "supporter", is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, may we move for such an application on the same grounds as you have referred to before?

CHAIRPERSON: So granted, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: May it please you Chairperson. In Exhibit D you refer to Exhibit A, have you studied this document and do you confirm the contents thereof as far as you are aware?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Furthermore this morning you also heard the evidence of Col Coetzee, he was your immediate Commander in Soweto during 1986/1987 is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And we are also now aware who was the superior Commanders, de Jager and Ignatius Coetzee, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: With regard to the general background, you refer to the written amnesty application, Exhibit C of Col Coetzee and you mention the paragraphs in your paragraph 4 on page 3, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VISSER: And with regard to the background to the current incidents, do you concur with his evidence as you have set it out in paragraph 5 and you also provide the paragraph references to Exhibit C with regard to that incident, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VISSER: On page 4 you have also referred to the meeting at Potchefstroom during which you were also present. Whose operation was this actually? The operation with regard to Leeuwpark and the Oasis Motel?

MR PRETORIUS: It was Special Forces from the South African Defence Force.

MR VISSER: Did you accept that they had received instructions to do so and what were your instructions?

MR PRETORIUS: To serve as a support to the action.

MR VISSER: Were you a co-handler of SWT180?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And for how long had you known him before 1987?

MR PRETORIUS: Approximately three years from the first day that he was recruited.

MR VISSER: And from the first day that he was recruited, did you also act as his co-handler?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Very well. On page 5 you dealt with the first attempt at Leeuwpark. As I understand you, your contribution and the contribution of the other members with the exception of SWT180 was quite small with regard to the first incident?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And then on page 5 you have also dealt with the second attempt, that would be at the Oasis Motel.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In Exhibit H Mr Olifant who is also an applicant, has set out his recollections regarding what took place on ground-level there in Botswana. You yourself were not in Botswana, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And with regard to your recollections and impressions being different to that of Mr Olifant, are you prepared to concede that he is probably correct and you are probably incorrect because you were not there personally?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Among others for example, you were under the impression that two rooms in the Oasis Motel had been rented, but that only one had been loaded with explosives and according to his recollection, both were loaded with explosives and other aspects of a more inferior significance perhaps, regarding his movements and so forth, and his passports and such types of things. Do you accept that what he says is probably correct and that you recollection may be mistaken in this regard?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I accept this.

MR VISSER: You then set out your own involvement as you can recall, which is then also subject to the concession that you have made with regard to Mr Olifant's evidence from page 5 onwards, and you also deal very briefly with SWT180 where you confirm that shortly after this incident at the Oasis Motel, he was arrested in Bophuthatswana and then transported to Zambia and detained there but later released.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: You then also confirm on page 9 your political motive and what you thought your duties as a policeman were, during the struggle of the past, and then you also request amnesty also for your share in the conspiracy and the attempt with regard to the persons that you have mentioned in Exhibit D, your attempt to murder these persons in Botswana?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And any other offence or delict which may emanate from your involvement in these events?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Lamey, do you have any questions to put to Mr Pretorius?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Just to make sure about one aspect Chairperson. Mr Pretorius, you have studied Exhibit A as you have already testified with regard to the version of Mr Olifant?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: I just wanted to be certain, in paragraph 8 on page 6 of your supplementary application, paragraph (d), I don't know whether or not it is your intention to create this impression, you refer to the planning and the information that you were involved in but that this was not necessarily anything that Olifant knew about. You state there that Olifant would assist Special Forces with regard to planning beforehand. My instructions from Olifant are that he received an instruction from you to depart for Zeerust and then he received instructions with regard to hotel room reservations and so forth, beyond Zeerust, he did not have the broader picture about which everything was about.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct. We ourselves, didn't even know that Const Olifant would be required by Special Forces. On the contrary, they requested assistance from us in the form of a person who could assist them.

MR LAMEY: And after he arrived in Botswana, he understood that there would be someone who would meet him there and he referred to a British person, someone with a British accent by the name of Peter, would that have been the operative who would have met him there?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct. It was only after Olifant was in Botswana that I sent the message through to him via telephone that he would meet someone and that he had to assist this person.

MR LAMEY: Very well, that is in line with my instructions, I have nothing further, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: None, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: None, thank you Chairperson.

MR VISSER: May the witness be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pretorius, you are excused as a witness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MR VISSER: The third witness Chairperson, with your permission is Col Lodewyk de Jager, whose affidavit has been marked Exhibit E, who is available to give evidence and has no objection to taking the oath. He prefers to give his evidence in Afrikaans.

LODEWYK DE JAGER: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you, please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr de Jager, you are an applicant for amnesty in the current application, is that correct?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Your application is found in Bundle 2, pages 156 to 174, is that correct?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you deal with this incident from page 166 to 173?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Subject to certain amendments which we wish to make, do you otherwise confirm the contents of your amnesty application?

MR DE JAGER: Yes.

MR VISSER: Do you also confirm that you have studied Exhibit A and that you are able to confirm the contents thereof in so far as it is applicable to you, during the struggle of the past?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And finally, do you confirm the contents of Exhibit E which was drawn up on your consultation which you had had with your legal representatives?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In Exhibit E on page 2, paragraph 2, you say that you wish to make certain amendments because of the fact that you had erred with regard to certain aspects, because during the drawing up of your application, you did not have access to other documentation or the recollection of other applicants, is that correct?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct, because I was seated in Cape Town.

MR VISSER: And now with the benefit of knowledge that you had gained afterwards, you realised that in certain regards, you had made certain mistakes?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In paragraph 4 you mention that you made a mistake with regard to the date, 1986 and that it had been indeed August of 1987?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: These are small mistakes and that you refer to the Botswana ANC MK Transvaal Machinery and you recall now that there was no Transvaal Machinery in Botswana but indeed in Swaziland, is that correct?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And when you refer to this Machinery, the Transvaal Machinery, you actually meant to refer to a structure to which Col Coetzee and Pretorius had referred to which was an MK structure, but was busy with an elaboration of so-called ICU on the labour terrain in the RSA, is that correct?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And then in paragraph 6 you have also said that you referred in your application to listening apparatus which you recalled was in the room, installed in the room at the Oasis Motel and you are now saying that your recollection there was incorrect, and there was no tapping devices. There was another form of communication?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: With regard to the general background, you have heard the evidence of Col Coetzee and Col Pretorius here this morning and you have also read their affidavits. Do you agree and concur with that as it is your knowledge of that time?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Do you confirm the background to the current incident as from paragraph 9 to paragraph 13?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Is it also your evidence that the operation was a Special Forces', army, operation?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And did you receive instruction to be of assistance? From whom did you receive your instruction?

MR DE JAGER: From Gen Coetzee.

MR VISSER: And did you convey those instructions to your subordinates, Pretorius and Coetzee?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And I accept that they conveyed their instructions to Sgt, or at that stage Const Olifant and to the source, SWT180?

MR DE JAGER: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You were involved or present at the meeting in Potchefstroom, you explained that in paragraph 14 and the fact that there the issue of an action against these persons to whom we have referred, was discussed?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And there was indeed two attempts, this was by means of SWT180 who had to arrange a meeting with some of these persons whom were referred to and the second attempt was the Oasis Motel in Gaberone?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you yourself and the members under you, have any detailed information with regard to exactly how Special Forces will undertake this operation?

MR DE JAGER: No, we only acted in a supportive capacity.

MR VISSER: But you knew that the objective would be to attempt to kill if possible, these people?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And in both cases, these were just attempts and on both occasions, the people did not arrive?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You confirm your further evidence, you have also referred to SWT180 if I may take you to page 8 of your affidavit, Exhibit E, do you confirm your own political objectives and how you regarded the struggle of the past from your position as a Security Police officer?

MR DE JAGER: I do so Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And you consequently request amnesty for any offence or delict including conspiracy to murder or attempt to murder as it is contained in Exhibit E?

MR DE JAGER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: I've got no questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: None, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pretorius, you are excused as a witness, oh, Mr de Jager.

MR VISSER: Well, now they are both excused.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MR VISSER: Chairperson, may I call Gen Ignatius Coetzee?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Exhibit F?

MR VISSER: Exhibit F Chairperson.

IGNATIUS COETZEE: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Coetzee, your are an applicant for amnesty in the conspiracy and the attempt to murder certain persons which you have mentioned in Exhibit F in Botswana, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Your application we find in Bundle 2 on page 127 to 139 where you deal with the incident from page 135 to 136, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Do you confirm the contents of your amnesty application, subject to the evidence you will deliver here today?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In paragraph 7(a) and (b) of your application, you have said on questions with regard to whether you belonged to a political organisation and if so, if what capacity, you replied "not applicable", is that so that that is incorrect and that you were a supporter of the National Party?

MR COETZEE: That is so.

MR VISSER: May I again apply for that amendment, paragraph 7(a) and (b)?

CHAIRPERSON: The amendment is hereby granted.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson. You have referred to Exhibit A, have you studied that document and studied it comprehensively?

MR COETZEE: Yes, I have.

MR VISSER: Do you concur and do you confirm the contents thereof and that you request that it be made applicable to you?

MR COETZEE: Yes, I do.

MR VISSER: And finally do you confirm the contents of Exhibit F which serves before the Committee which is in regard to your evidence, with regard to this incident?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In 1986/1987 is it correct that you were the Divisional Commander of Soweto Security Branch?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And the persons who as we have heard this morning, served under your command in the Intelligence Unit was Louis de Jager, Willem Coetzee ...

MR MALAN: Mr Visser, with great respect, you are leading the witness viva voce, he has already confirmed all of this. We certainly do not have to hear this again. You have confirmed, I cannot see anything here that digresses from the main application, you can just confirm as far as we are concerned.

MR VISSER: Do you confirm Exhibit F in its totality?

MR COETZEE: I do so Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: If you so wish to highlight certain matters, Mr Visser, you are leading him in-chief, you may proceed to do so, however if you feel that what you would have wanted to lead him on, is already contained in his affidavit that is before us ...

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson, the only little aspect that makes me a bit uncomfortable is the fact that he was the Divisional Commander of Soweto and he must have taken a decision fairly near the top in regard to this operation, and I would have thought that I would have, you would have been interested just to know how he saw his position at that time, vis-a-vis the taking of the decision or if at all it was applicable to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Because there was another Divisional Commander, Brig Loots in the Western Transvaal and some decisions had to be taken and orders given and I thought that perhaps I should just lead his evidence briefly on that issue.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. As I listen to you, you seem to think that that is highly relevant. You may proceed to lead his evidence in relation to that particular aspect of his evidence.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Chairperson. Gen Coetzee, we have now heard that according to the insets of the other persons who have testified now, it was actually a Special Force's operation?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Was that also your impression?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Instructions were given according to Col de Jager, by you to him which he conveyed to Olifant, Pretorius and Coetzee below him, to act in a supporting capacity to Special Forces. Did you convey those instructions as such?

MR COETZEE: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: And chiefly, why did you decide to do this? Would you please tell us how it came about that you passed on those instructions?

MR COETZEE: This was primarily from, because of a request from the same unit that they be assisted by our Intelligence Unit.

MR VISSER: And Brig Loots was the Commissioner Commander of the Western Transvaal, was he in the same position as you?

MR COETZEE: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Thank you Mr Visser.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, do you want to put any questions to Gen Coetzee?

MR LAMEY: I've got no questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: None, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You must be smiling Gen Coetzee? I take it Mr Visser, you don't need to re-examine, because there is nothing to re-examine him upon?

MR VISSER: No thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Gen Coetzee, you are hereby excused as a witness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MR VISSER: Madam Chair, may I beg leave then to call the last witness, Brig Wikus Johannes Loots whose evidence has been marked Exhibit G.

WIKUS JOHANNES LOOTS: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Loots, you are also an applicant for amnesty in the present application, as it appears on the front page of Exhibit G, is that correct?

MR LOOTS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Your application is in Bundle 2, page 176 to 202 and where you deal with this particular incident, is on page 180 to 181, is this confirmed by you subject to your evidence which you will deliver now?

MR LOOTS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Do you confirm that you have also studied Exhibit A?

MR LOOTS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Do you confirm the contents thereof in so far as you know?

MR LOOTS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You had a particular knowledge of Botswana, are you able to specifically confirm the section which deals with Botswana?

MR LOOTS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And in that regard, you have also on a previous occasion appeared before the Committee and placed a statement before the Committee, which now serves as Exhibit B in which you gave a setout up to 1988, of activities which had taken place from Botswana with regard to the political violence in the Republic of South Africa.

MR LOOTS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Amongst others weapon smuggling and so forth and so forth?

MR LOOTS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Do you also confirm the contents of Exhibit B as true and correct?

MR LOOTS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You have previously given evidence in amnesty applications with regard to the Nietverdiend 10, the so-called Silent Valley application and Pule and Take 5 and the McKenzie bomb incident, is that correct?

MR LOOTS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you request that that also be incorporated into your evidence? In Exhibit G from page 2, you have referred to what is now Exhibit B with regard to Botswana and what you had done in paragraph 6. You gave a summary of certain aspects of incidents of violence or aspects which was associated with this and there you have given 18 references if I may call them such, to serve as examples, is that correct?

MR LOOTS: I confirm that, yes.

MR VISSER: You confirm that? Do you also confirm with regard to the current incident, that it was an operation of Special Forces?

MR LOOTS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And that you were asked to attend a meeting at Potchefstroom and to render assistance in so far as they needed it?

MR LOOTS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And that Soweto's Commanders were also requested to be of assistance?

MR LOOTS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you know the Source SWT180?

MR LOOTS: On occasion I had an interview with him Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Were you allowed by his handler to speak to him about his intelligence network?

MR LOOTS: Yes.

MR VISSER: Do you confirm the background with regard to the current incident and the meeting in Potchefstroom and whatever accompanies it as well as there were two attempts as far as you know, to kill the persons or some of them in Botswana as you have referred in your application?

MR LOOTS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Do you confirm your political motive and how you regarded and experienced the struggle of the past as you have explained on page 8 of your amnesty application?

MR LOOTS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And consequently you request amnesty for conspiracy to murder and or attempted murder and any other offence of delict which might have been committed by you with regard to the current incident, is that correct?

MR LOOTS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson. I beg your pardon, I have omitted to ask you something, I think I may have touched on it. Yes, I think I have touched on it, you were asked to be of assistance by Special Forces and you made a decision that the assistance will be rendered in so far as required from you or from members under you. That was a standing agreement between Special Forces which had been started from 1985 and the decision was taken, it was a standing ruling that Security Force would in a supportive capacity supply intelligence to Special Forces and indeed in the current incident there was an aspect which you gave assistance with and this was, there was apparently a problem with the entry into Botswana of SWT180, who was accompanied by two Potwa members of Transvaal, is that correct?

MR LOOTS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you gave instruction that they be allowed through at the border post?

MR LOOTS: For the information of the Committee, I would like to mention that with the arrival at the border post, there was an instruction by the Vehicle Branch of which we were not aware, that no Avis vehicle without authorisation could leave the country and for that reason SWT180 who at that stage was driving an Avis vehicle was delayed at the border post, and was assisted in his transport.

MR VISSER: In that you and your subordinates played a very minor role there?

MR LOOTS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Were you familiar with the details of the operation?

MR LOOTS: I was aware that they would use explosives, but not of the detail.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not sure Mr Visser, whether you made him to confirm the contents of Exhibit G as a whole?

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson. Mr Loots, you confirm the contents of Exhibit G, your affidavit, which serves before the Committee?

MR LOOTS: I do Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, do you have any questions to put to Mr Loots?

MR LAMEY: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, any questions to put to Mr Loots?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: None, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loots, you are excused as a witness. Mr Visser, I didn't come back to you to find out if you wanted to re-examine, because you questions emanated from Mr Lamey, Mr Steenkamp, nor from the bench.

MR VISSER: We have no re-examination thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loots, you are excused as a witness.

MR VISSER: That is the evidence of the applicants for whom we appear Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. We now pass the ball over to Mr Lamey, who is appearing on behalf of Mr Olifant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MR MALAN: Mr Olifant, in what language will you be giving your evidence?

MR OLIFANT: English.

M A OLIFANT: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. Just before I proceed, there is in the Bundle 1, on page 146 to 152, an application dated in December, 11 December 1996. To this application, there is an annexure listing incidents. My instructions are that incident number 14 from Mr Olifant relates to this specific incident, on page 152. Then Chairperson, there is then another form, amnesty application form, on page 154, which has also then a typed annexure to it and this specific incident is dealt with at paragraph 18 which runs over from page 165 to 166. And then the supplementary statement has been completed in order just to take it all together. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: For purposes of this incident, we can concentrate on ...

MR LAMEY: Annexure H.

CHAIRPERSON: Annexure H?

MR LAMEY: Yes, may I proceed on that basis Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MR LAMEY: Mr Olifant, you in 1987, you were attached to the Intelligence Unit of the Soweto Security Branch and your superiors were you co-applicants who have appeared also here before the Committee, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You had the rank of Constable, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You were also involved as a co-handler with the agent SWT180, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You have - a supplementary statement has been typed which you have signed this morning, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You have read through it and you confirm the contents thereof here under oath which is to the best of your knowledge true and correct, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, unless there is anything else, there are no further evidence relating to this incident, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr Visser, do you wish to put any questions to Mr Olifant?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Perhaps just for clarity sake Chairperson. Mr Olifant, at the bottom of Exhibit H, page 1, I am fascinated by this question of the false passport. You had a photo with certain information which was false on your passport and apparently SWT180 had the same information, which was also false, but the same false information. What I wanted to know from you is, did he have his own photograph on his passport or did he have your photograph on his passport?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, he had a different photograph.

MR VISSER: His own photograph?

MR OLIFANT: That is right.

MR VISSER: Perhaps on a more serious note, Col Coetzee says that he was the one through which the communication was run from Botswana by both you and SWT180 to Soweto and then from him back to Nietverdiend in the Western Transvaal, because of telephone problems and exchange problems which they had. Could that be correct?

MR OLIFANT: I would say no, that is not correct. What happened is we had a problem with communication, yes, that I believe, but what happened is Col Pretorius requested Peter Lingeni to be at a farm, that was a safehouse in Westonaria so that he could have direct contact with me, because the telephone number which was given by Col Pretorius which it was somewhere in Zeerust, I don't know, it was at a farm, it was a telephone number of a farm, a safehouse in Zeerust, it could not go directly from Botswana so therefore I had to use the telephone number of Westonaria.

MR VISSER: Yes, that is exactly correct. That is why the communication link had to go through ...

MR OLIFANT: Yes, but I had no communication with Col Coetzee.

MR VISSER: I see. Well, when he says that he thinks that he was the one that had communication with you, are you saying it is not possible or are you saying it is possible ...

MR OLIFANT: At no stage I spoke to Col Coetzee in Botswana.

MR VISSER: Pardon?

MR OLIFANT: At no stage I spoke to him when I was in Botswana.

MR VISSER: All right, okay. And the last aspect is that Coetzee and Pretorius seem to recall that only one of the two rooms was charged with demolition explosives. You say in your statement both the rooms were charged with explosives?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, both room, both rooms were ...

MR VISSER: Well, they weren't there, so you obviously have to know better. Thank you very much. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Steenkamp, do you have any questions to put to Mr Olifant?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: I have no questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: I've got none, Madam Chair, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Olifant, you are excused as a witness.

MR OLIFANT: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, what is the position now that we have concluded evidence of all the applicants applying for amnesty in respect of this matter, are we in a position to argue?

MR VISSER: I am certainly prepared to argue immediately Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I think this Committee would appreciate an immediate argument. Mr Lamey is that the position, similar, that you are prepared, ready to argue?

MR LAMEY: I am ready to proceed, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, maybe we should start with Mr Visser. Mr Visser, are you in a position to make your submissions?

MR VISSER IN ARGUMENT: Yes Chairperson. Yes. Yes, I can start Chairperson. Chairperson, I refer again to the shortened, the abbreviated Heads of Argument which have been handed up to Committees previously. We will certainly make sure that we give Commissioner Motata a copy thereof. We again rely on those submissions Chairperson. What I must draw your attention to is that the last issue if I may call it that, that was presented to you, was overtaken by two further events or developments if I may call it that. The one Chairperson, relates to the Stopforth decision by the highest Court of Appeal considering the powers of the Amnesty Committee in granting amnesty for offences committed outside the borders of the Republic of South Africa. That is the one issue.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: The other issue Chairperson, which has been argued very lately by us before Amnesty Committees before whom we have appeared, concerns the issue of precisely what is expected by the legislature and therefore by the TRC Act of the Amnesty Committee in regard to the specifying of offences for which amnesty is granted. Chairperson, in both these respects, we can either fully or very briefly address you. At this stage, we believe with respect, that it is not necessary to take up too much of your time, if we may just make our submission very briefly in regard to both these issues.

Chairperson, on the issue of the Stopforth case, we say with respect that it is clear that the Appellate Division where they deal with the apparent non-empowerment of the Amnesty Committee, deal with amnesty for offences committed in a foreign country, is clearly distinguishable from all the amnesty applications that we know of that have come before you and again is before you today because of the following facts, Chairperson - one is the Appellate Division dealt with offences only, not with delicts, not with anything else. They dealt with offences that were committed wholly and completely from beginning to end in the foreign country, whereas amnesty applications which come before you all commenced and the one here today before you again, commenced in the Republic, where certain acts were taken, certain conduct of criminal nature was conducted by the applicants. It was partly within and partly outside. Now Chairperson, I have the greatest respect for Justice Olivier, him having lectured to Commissioner Malan and myself in the early 1960's and far be it from me to take it upon myself to tell you that he was wrong. I will settle Chairperson by saying that the judgment is clearly distinguishable because in point of fact, what Justice Olivier was not informed by counsel of, clearly, is that even in a case where an offence or an act by a policeman is committed in its entirety in a foreign country, it is deemed to be committed in South Africa for purposes of jurisdiction of our Courts. And that Chairperson, if you wish the reference, is an amendment to the Police Act which was in force at the time when all these acts were committed. It was an amendment to the Police Act brought in by the Police Amendment Act, 68 of 1984 which provided Chairperson, and I read the words of the heading to you "to provide that acts or offences committed outside the Republic by members of the Force, that means the Police Force, shall be deemed to have been committed inside the Republic for purposes of ...".

The simple submission which I make Chairperson is that the Amnesty Committee has full authority in our submission to deal with the evidence concerning not only what happened inside the Republic but also the evidence as to what happened outside. We say Chairperson, that gives meaning to the words of the Act which says that the Amnesty Committee shall consider acts and offences committed both within and outside the Republic.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Because if you don't do that, you just have to ignore those words and we know that you can't, you've got to give consequence to those words.

CHAIRPERSON: And what do you say also to the fact that the definition of what constitutes an act associated with a political objective, includes an act planned, directed, commanded or ordered within or outside the Republic of South Africa during the period under investigation by this process?

MR VISSER: That is precisely the point Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Which will be Section 20(2) of the Act?

MR VISSER: That is precisely the point, yes, Chairperson. It is again repeated in Section 20 which is the section which deals with amnesties Chairperson, within or without.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, as far as the question of specifying is concerned, and again I don't want to present a long argument, but we have grappled Chairperson for a long time with the difference in wording in Section 20 between (1) and (2), where what the Amnesty Committee is supposed to be dealing with, is supposed to be, because (1) speaks of an act, omission or offence in (b) and in (2) it says that an offence must be an offence, if you read it according to the literal meaning of the words. Then (2) goes on to say that that act, omission or offence must be an offence or delict and at the end of the day Chairperson, what occurred to us with great respect is that the answer was there all the time. It means that act or omission in (1), means no more than a delict. Once you realise that, the whole jigsaw puzzle seems to fall together and what that means is this, it is our submission that the legislature did not expect and does not expect in terms of the wording of this Act, for the Amnesty Committee to specify what offences it is giving amnesty for, as long as it specifies that it is any offence or delict committed within the ambit of the incident, properly specified by date and by names, etc, so that an applicant cannot later turn around and say, when he is charged for something else, "I've got amnesty", when it was never intended by the Amnesty Committee. Chairperson, with respect, this point has been taken by Justice Wilson sitting in an Amnesty Committee hearing, we have not had a decision in this regard. We submit with respect that it is correct to say for an applicant, that what I had in mind was murder or assault or whatever the case may be, but at the end of the day Chairperson, it is our submission that if amnesty is granted for any offence or delict committed, within that incident by the applicant, that is sufficient Chairperson, because of the problem that if one starts specifying, we have gone through amnesty decisions handed down by the original Amnesty Committee and we have found to our horror, that by specifying certain acts or offences which have been committed on their own evidence, by applicants, were not specified in the amnesty decision and therefore they might now have, fall prey to being prosecuted on the basis of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius and it is just perhaps to prevent that problem from arising later, to say all acts and offences - may I give you the following example? In the zero-handgrenades, Brig Jack Cronje was given amnesty in regard to the use of explosives and a whole number of Acts and subsections of Acts were mentioned and Chairperson, the problem with that is, he's now got amnesty for those sections, but if you sat down for half an hour, you could think of a whole number of other offences which he had committed, for which he now by necessary implication, does not have amnesty. That problem was solved in the case of Roelf Venter, who was given amnesty in exactly the same incident, but his amnesty reads "for all offences or delicts", so he is covered. The field is covered in his case.

Here you have a situation in the same incident where one man has not got full amnesty, and the other has, on the same evidence. That is to solve or try to avoid that situation from arising, that we say it is important that an amnesty decision must contain the words, if amnesty is to be granted by the Amnesty Committee, "all offences and delicts". Chairperson, if I may return to the matter of Stopforth, I am not sure whether the decision in the London bomb amnesty application has been brought to your attention. We have three copies here, perhaps we could hand it to you. In the London bomb decision Chairperson, the Amnesty Committee under Chairmanship of Justice Wilson has supported or confirmed most of what I have told you here today, submitted here today in regard to extra-territorial offences, and perhaps we could hand that up to you and with the final submission that we rely fully on what is stated here, subject to the additions which I made in regard to the Police Amendment Act and the few submissions which I made to you today.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, apart from that, in the law, as far as the legal position is concerned, it would be presumptuous of me at this stage, to repeat the arguments which you have heard so often in the past and I don't intend to do so. As far as the facts are concerned of the present case, the only discrepancy in the evidence which we were able to pick up, was between Mr Olifant and Coetzee in regard to who actually conveyed the instructions to Olifant from the West Rand while he was in Botswana.

Chairperson, we submit that is not necessary for you to choose between those two versions. The fact of the matter is that there was this laborious method of communications because of the fact that at that time there were no cellphones obviously and they couldn't phone from Botswana to Nietverdiend, but they had to go through Soweto to be able to phone from Soweto to Nietverdiend, there is no argument about that. I submit with great respect Chairperson, that it is not a material dispute and one which you can ignore.

CHAIRPERSON: To what would you ascribe its existence, to faulty recollection?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, we are talking about something which has happened more than 10 years ago, 1987, 12 years ago. It is possible that either Coetzee or Olifant might be mistaken. Coetzee gives the explanation, he says that it was very important that the instructions had to be carried, conveyed correctly to Olifant and that is why he was specifically placed at Soweto and not in the Western Transvaal himself, for that specific reason, to make absolutely certain that the information was conveyed correctly and one has sympathy with that point of view, because remember Chairperson, the idea was that SWT180 had to lure these people as it were, into a room, and he had to go out and then laboriously through this communications channel, inform Coetzee who had to inform Pretorius, who had to inform Special Forces "the people are in the room", and one obviously couldn't wait too long with that kind of information, and you had to be quite certain of your information. So there is some support on the probabilities that Coetzee might be right and Olifant might be wrong, but really it does not take the matter any further, one way or the other Chairperson.

As long as we know what the main moments and features of the operation were, and those were that all these applicants who appeared before you, were there in a supporting capacity. Really one would always be tempted to think that if it hadn't been for SWT180, they wouldn't have been involved at all, but that is just an inference one can draw. The fact of the matter is SWT180 had penetrated this MK structure, he had met these people as set out by Pretorius and by Coetzee in their evidence, in their evidence, written evidence before you, and he was supposed to arrange for a meeting, both at the Lion Park and at the Oasis Motel, both times it was abortive, because these people did not arrive. In the end Chairperson, although no person was injured or killed, we know that in terms of the definition of the TRC Act, a gross violation of human rights, refers to killing, abduction and torture, severe ill-treatment and also to any attempt or conspiracy.

CHAIRPERSON: We are familiar with that, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: So that is the reason why we are before you Chairperson, and we would ask you with respect for you to accept the evidence of these applicants, to accept that they have made full disclosure, to accept that and to be satisfied that these were actions that took place within the conflict of the past, with a political objective Chairperson, and that it was proportional to the end which they wished to achieve, namely an extension of a violent military offensive, as it were, which was to be extended to the labour field. It is interesting just in that sense, what the idea was. The idea was that while there would be marches etc, by people in the labour field, there would be military attacks elsewhere to as it were, divide the forces of the Security Police, in order to be more effective with the marches, etc, which was actually quite a good strategy if one thinks about it. That is just from a point of interest, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: I have nothing to add, apart from asking you then to grant amnesty to the applicants Chairperson in regard to either conspiracy and or the attempt, on both these occasions and both these occasions were in fact set out in the amnesty application, so it is not as if it is now being sought to extend the application. They were both mentioned, the Lion Park as well as - they were really two incidents. One has to say either there were two incidents, or there was an attempt which took place on two occasions, whichever way one wants to approach the matter, and as well as for any other offence or delict committed by the applicants in this incident. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: As a matter of interest Mr Visser, hasn't the identity of SWT180 already been revealed in one of our hearings?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, no, the reason for that is that SWT180 has family members who may be compromised, if his name were to be released. There was mention of a first name of SWT180, somewhere in the papers now before you in fact, but not his surname.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, I am aware of that.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But I just thought that in one of the hearings wherein you were involved, his name might have been revealed?

MR VISSER: No, very pertinently not. The information which we got at the time was that there was some concern about family members of SWT180, yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it is probably a different matter, but it might be the same where the kombi, there was something wrong with the motor vehicle ...

MR VISSER: I wasn't involved in that. If SWT180's identity was revealed there, then I certainly don't know anything about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I was just raising it as a question of interest. Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson. On this aspect of specifying aspects, I had a little while ago the benefit of also hearing the elaborate argument of my learned friend, Mr Visser, before His Lordship, Mr Justice Wilson in Pietermaritzburg if I recall. I must say that considering that argument, I am inclined to agree with Mr Visser. I say that also for the reason that the applicants' legal representatives have been called upon in the past, to provide a list of offences and so forth, and that has placed some, quite an onerous duty on the legal representatives, and one - it might just happen that one could miss something or that the Attorney-General as my learned friend has pointed out, could think out something which have not been specified, and from the applicants' point of view, that might not have legal representation, that could even be a more onerous duty. That coupled with the argument and the reasons which Mr Visser has advanced, I am inclined to agree with him that it was merely the intention of the legislature to grant a pardon which amnesty is actually about, for any offence, act or omission related or inferred from the facts pertaining to a particular incident. It is for that reason also that in this case, I have also in paragraph 16

when I assisted Mr Manual Olifant in drafting his application, worded it in that fashion, that he wishes to apply for any offence or delict which are to be inferred from his participation in the operation. It is very difficult if one also looks at all the elements of a particular offence, mens rea, etc, etc, to determine beforehand whether all those elements are present in order to come to a conclusion that an offence has been committed by a particular applicant or an offence which he could be convicted from. I think I must agree with Mr Visser in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just interrupt. I am now on the same page with your argument, in so far as I also have my own opinion about the matter.

MR VISSER: Which argument, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: The one that you have already presented, with regard to having to specify.

MR VISSER: Oh yes, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Lamey?

MR VISSER: I may add that, as you can well imagine, both Exhibit A as well as the written argument, are both documents which keep on developing as matters turn up. What I will do Chairperson, is, I will present you with an addition to that written argument very briefly setting out my arguments which I presented to you today, so that you have it in paper in front of you.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't need that, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: You don't need that?

CHAIRPERSON: We have already applied our minds in respect of this particular matter, but then it was not pointedly with regard to having to specify the offence or the delict, it was in relation to a matter, but it tangentially, but very fundamentally, touched upon the argument you presented to us today. Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. Then regarding the other argument on the Stopforth decision, I must say I haven't had the opportunity of studying that decision in detail. I do not want to make any, I cannot make any substantiated submissions in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: You are not expected to.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but I want to say this from what I have gathered, I think the intention of the legislature in the Amnesty Act is quite clear, and from what my learned friend has also referred to in the Police Act, one may add in my respectful submission, that the legislature had the Police Act also in mind, when it drafted this particular legislation as I am sure it was foreseen that many policemen would be forthcoming, or would apply for amnesty during the negotiation process which preceded this Act.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is your submission that these applications are properly before this Amnesty Committee?

MR LAMEY: I think in terms of the Act, yes, and that is my submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, then as far as Mr Olifant is concerned, my submission is he was one of the, I think in this whole operation, the lowest ranking person. He did not have the broader picture of the whole political motivation as outlined by the other applicants, but in the same breath, he doesn't dispute it, and I think as far as that is concerned, I think it should also be considered in his favour, the whole political background to the rational for this operation. He acted on orders in this instance, and he also states on the last page, as a member of the unit he also acted against known political liberation movements and he also believed at the time, that the instructions that he received, were given for the purposes of combating activists or insurgents aimed against the South African government at the time.

Chairperson, it is my submission that Mr Olifant's application complies with the requirements of the Act. As far as the difference is concerned, I also wish to submit that it is not important to make any finding as to whether he received his instructions from Coetzee at the time. I think both of them, it is a situation here of bona fide recollection, which could be mistaken one way or the other. If one considers it further, neither of them Coetzee on the one hand, places himself in a position where he gives that instruction towards his detriment, on the other hand, it could have been more advantageous for Olifant to say "I received these instructions from Coetzee", which is a higher ranking officer than Pretorius or Lingeni. I think this is a situation, looked at it from both points of view, which are not intentionally, which shouldn't be really an important aspect and it has no bearing really on the element of full disclosure.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is your submission that Gen Coetzee could have actually underplayed his involvement by simply not saying "I gave instructions to Mr Olifant directly"?

MR LAMEY: Yes, he also conceded that it is possible that it went via Lingeni, that he also conceded. Olifant's recollection is that it went through via Lingeni. He did not have contact with Coetzee. I don't think that any version is really a relevant aspect to the elements of amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the material facts that we have to decide upon?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: I have no argument, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you think this Committee should take the view of granting amnesty or denying amnesty to the applicants?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, there is no opposition to any of the amnesty applications.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: Looking at the matter itself, it is clear that the matter was basically conducted with political motive and objective. It was, there was full disclosure as far as I can see regarding the specific requirements of the Act and specifically Section 20 and maybe I can just mention, regarding Section 19(4) reasonable steps were taken to identify and locate the victims. In this matter specifically, a person was mentioned, Mr Shope, as far as our information, he died recently. We don't have any further information, but in that regard as well, I think the requirements of the Act were also met in the circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, this brings the hearing of the Oasis incident, it has been termed as if it was only one incident, but we do understand the facts involved in these applications, this brings to a close the evidence with regard to the incident referred to in our documents as the Oasis Motel incident. This being the case, we now have to pronounce our decision in respect of the applications before us. We are going to pronounce such a decision before the end of next week. Once we do that, Mr Visser, we will communicate our decision to you through your instructing attorney, Mr Wagener and we will do the same to Mr Lamey and Mr Steenkamp will assist us in that regard, so as to ensure that our decisions in respect of all these applications, can be communicated without any delay to all the applicants in this matter. I thank you for the assistance you rendered to us. We can now go home.

MR VISSER: Good idea, thank you Madam Chair.