--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Today we will hear the testimony of Mr Moni, and Mr Loader is representing Mr Moni. Are we in a position to commence, Mr Loader?

MR LOADER: We are indeed, Madam Chair. In the circumstances, I then call Mr Linda Moni to give his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

Mr Moni, what language will you use when you testify?

MR MONI: English, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any objection to taking the oath?

LINDA OSCAR MONI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR LOADER: Mr Moni, you are one of the applicants in this matter, seeking amnesty relating to the deaths of - and we've established the names of the three deceased, Mr Casius Nceba, Kaswell Khumalo and Mr Richard Ngwenya, who were then known to you as Nceba, Castro and Elias respectively, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct.

MR LOADER: In your original application for amnesty you deposed to an affidavit which was then commissioned on the 16th of October 1996, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct.

MR LOADER: Madam Chair, for purposes of the record, that affidavit appears at page 51 to 69 of the bundle.

Do you confirm that?

MR MONI: That's correct.

MR LOADER: Subsequent thereto an amendment has been effected to in particular, one of the paragraphs of that affidavit, paragraph 51 thereof, which we'll deal with in due course, but do you confirm that there has been a change brought to that affidavit?

MR MONI: That's correct.

MR LOADER: We'll get to that in due course. I'd like to just take you through the affidavit and confirm the contents thereof. You deal at the outset, and in particular from paragraphs 3 running right through to paragraph 15, with your background, how you were introduced into and within the ranks of the ANC, you deal with the type of training that you received, you deal with a period during which you were in exile out of the country, during which period of time you received further training, and from paragraphs 11 through to 15, you talk about your return to South Africa. Do you confirm the contents of all of those paragraphs?

MR MONI: I do, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loader, may I interrupt you?

MR LOADER: Certainly, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: The victims seem to be experiencing some problem of some kind, they can't pick up, I think, the Zulu translation or the Sotho translation. Can we request the assistance of our technicians. Thank you, Mr Loader, you may proceed.

MR LOADER: May it please you, Madam Chair.

Mr Moni, in paragraphs 15 and 16, you make mention and describe the circumstances surrounding your arrest and then following that arrest, in paragraphs 17 to 25 of your affidavit you describe in some detail the circumstances surrounding your incarceration following your arrest. Do you confirm the contents of those paragraphs insofar as that that is what occurred to you in brief terms, during your incarceration?

MR MONI: I confirm, Chairperson.

MR LOADER: In paragraphs 26 through to 28 you've dealt further with the events that surrounded you and your position as a State witness in the trial of Khumalo, Dlhomo and Ramlakan respectively. Do you confirm the contents of those particular paragraphs?

MR MONI: I confirm, Chairperson.

MR LOADER: You then set out in paragraph 29 and paragraph 30, how it came to be that you were introduced to and met with Mr Eugene de Kock and the suggestions that were put to you insofar as them attempting to solicit your co-operation with the South African Police. Do you confirm those paragraphs?

MR MONI: I confirm, Chairperson.

MR LOADER: Consequent upon that meeting, or the introduction to de Kock and the various discussions that were held with him and the events at that particular point in time, you deal thereafter in paragraphs 31 and 32, with how it came to pass that you were then ultimately released from detention and in 33 through to 38, you then deal with your involvement with de Kock and his colleagues at Vlakplaas and you describe in broad terms the type of training, the type of operations and in general terms the manner in which you were utilised as an askari at Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR MONI: I confirm, Chairperson.

MR LOADER: In paragraph 39 in particular, you describe in some detail an incident that took place at Vlakplaas with Mr Eugene de Kock, which you've described as something of an acute process of intimidation that was effected by de Kock upon you in particular and others in general in order to effect discipline within the junior SAP members' ranks and the askari ranks in particular, is that correct?

MR MONI: I confirm, Chairperson.

MR LOADER: Just dealing in very brief terms with this particular incident, first of all you confirm what you have set out there, that that is in fact what happened.

MR MONI: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LOADER: How did this change the way you viewed Mr Eugene de Kock from that point onwards?

MR MONI: I can say that generally I had no problems with all the things that he did and the other people that he beat up all the time, but when he put me at that shooting range that particular day, I became extremely perturbed and I saw another side of him, which said to me this is not the kind of a person to mess around with. And having said that I never had problems with him, after this particular incident I was extremely scared of him, I had the fear of God that was instilled in me.

CHAIRPERSON: Just by one incident, Mr Moni?

MR MONI: Madam Chair, I'd seen other individuals at that particular farm being assaulted and mishandled by the gentleman, Mr de Kock, and I thought I'd never get to the wrong side of him, but somehow he picked up a rumour and he placed me in this unfortunate position.

MR LOADER: Perhaps it's - if I may interject, Madam Chair, if I can clarify this particular aspect.

Perhaps it's important Mr Moni, for you to describe in further terms what the standard of discipline was like at Vlakplaas under Mr de Kock and what he expected of his members.

MR MONI: Madam Chair, dwelling on the circumstances there, one would ...(indistinct) facts such as the fact that there was extreme military discipline at Vlakplaas, which was accompanied by occasional beatings, almost on a weekly basis on the various members who happened to indulge in unauthorised use of alcohol or who happened to ill-treat their wives or who happened to have had some other social problem or the other which is as a result of ill-discipline. And there was very little tolerance for defiance of orders, whether from junior officers or anybody. I can also say that there was no questioning of orders that were issued by the gentleman, Mr de Kock.

MR LOADER: You've referred to the beatings, was this limited to the black members that were there?

MR MONI: No, Madam Chair, the beatings were across racial lines, anybody was a candidate if they should transgress the disciplinary lines that were set.

MR LOADER: If we can move on then. In paragraph 40 you refer to the fact that in approximately June of 1989, de Kock called you into his office and asked you whether you were prepared to go and work at a friend or colleague of his in Soweto, presumably relating to another mission. Is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: Did you agree to do so?

MR MONI: Yes I did, I had no other option, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: This was just part and parcel of the ordinary instructions he would carry out to you.

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: This was then when you were soon thereafter to be introduced to Mr Pretorius, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: The friend that he spoke about or referred to, was that in fact Mr Pretorius that he was referring to?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: You've said in paragraph 41, that during that period of time a policeman by the name of Manuel Olifant - that's one of the other applicants in this application, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: ... whom you say you believed to be an ex-member of Koevoet and was a Mozambican, came to fetch you at Vlakplaas. There's already been some dispute at a rather later stage following the evidence of Mr Pretorius, as to whether or not Mr Olifant went to collect you or whether he didn't. What is your recollection in this regard?

MR MONI: Madam Chair, I definitely do recall, or recollect that Mr Pretorius did actually pick us up on the first occasion. However, we've had ins and outs with Mr Manuel more than with Mr Pretorius at the particular farm, Vlakplaas. Meaning that during the period that we were busy with this particular action and the ins and outs at Vlakplaas, we had been to Vlakplaas more times with Mr Manuel Olifant than with Mr Pretorius. And just for the sake of clarity there, in my mind I had more dealings with Manuel than I had with Mr Pretorius, but I do recollect that Mr Pretorius himself picked us up at the farm.

MR LOADER: You mean Mr Olifant.

MR MONI: No, no, Mr Pretorius.

MR LOADER: Mr Pretorius at a stage.

MR MONI: Yes, on the first occasion.

CHAIRPERSON: So you then want to correct the fact insofar as paragraph 41 is concerned, which would suggest that you were picked up by Mr Olifant. You now recollect that you were initially picked up by Mr Pretorius himself.

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOADER: You do refer in that paragraph to the fact that -

During that period of time, Olifant did in fact come to and from Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR MONI: Many, many times, yes Chair. He actually took over from there. He was the person that was bringing us and taking us away from the farm on the various occasions.

MR LOADER: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loader, I don't think you need to take this matter up. I think that paragraph stands corrected, because when you read further the impression created was that Mr Pretorius was met after Mr Olifant had picked up Mr Moni, and to that extent we accept that he wishes to amend.

MR LOADER: May it please you, thank you.

That then introduced you to what has been described and is known as Gys Farm, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: And that was one of the offices from which Mr Pretorius worked, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr Loader?

MR LOADER: Certainly, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: When Mr Pretorius initially picked you up, did you pick you up to take you to the farm in Zuurbekom(?), the Gys Farm?

MR MONI: Most likely, yes Madam Chair. I think most likely we went directly to the ...(indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: Was it the first time you met Mr Pretorius? You had not met him before.

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Loader.

MR LOADER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

You then describe in paragraph 43 of your affidavit, that Mr Pretorius gave a description to yourself, Mr Olifant, Mr Lengene and Mr Monyane. Perhaps I must just deal briefly with that. Monyane was one of the other members from Vlakplaas that were seconded for this particular operation, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: And you describe that it was explained by Mr Pretorius that there was a group of young comrades in Soweto who wanted to go for military training. Now we've already heard the evidence from Mr Pretorius, that he won't dispute this and doesn't necessarily dispute that this is how it was explained initially. Do you confirm that?

MR MONI: I do confirm, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: And that Lengene was going to be the link between yourselves on the one hand and these comrades on the other, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: The operation was described as being one of the false flag methods, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: And you understood what that meant.

MR MONI: Correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: You say that the reason why you were brought into this operation was that you had a better knowledge of the use of weaponry than the operatives in Soweto, and this was how it had been explained to you by Mr de Kock. Do you confirm that?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: In paragraphs 44, 45 and 46 you deal with the steps you took in preparation for completing this particular operation and the arrangements that were put in place. And in paragraph 46 itself you describe the process of utilising a hotel in Hillbrow, at which place you were going to meet these comrades, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: You confirm the contents of those paragraphs.

MR MONI: Yes, I do, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: In paragraph 47 you describe going with them to the hotel, showing them various pieces of weaponry, in particular explosive devices and rendering an explanation to them as to how one properly uses these explosive devices, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: Paragraph 48, you describe the further preparation that was to be employed in approaching this particular mission. I need to deal with one or two aspects in this paragraph for purposes of clarification ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What paragraph is that, Mr Loader?

MR LOADER: I'm looking Madam Chair, at paragraph 48 and in particular I'm looking at page 28 of the affidavit, or of the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOADER: And I'm going to read from that and ask for certain comments from you, pursuant to some of the evidence that was led yesterday. You say -

... now I'm reading from the second line down, Madam Chair.

Now it was put to Mr Pretorius as to whether Mr Lengene voiced any objection in this regard, and Mr Pretorius indicated that that was not the case, that he doesn't recall Lengene offering any opposition to the plan that was to be enacted. What is your recollection in this regard?

MR MONI: Madam Chair, I recall that there was no definite defiance, there was no clearly cut defiance from Peter Lengene. He didn't defy the order, except to raise these concerns that are stated in sub-paragraph 48.1, .2 and .3, that he was concerned about this issue and the issues raised thereof and that he wished that this particular action was not carried through. I understood that as being a strong objection, considering the seriousness of this particular act that was to be committed or that was contemplated.

And somehow I recall that myself and Mr Anton Pretorius went out of the car and he said to me we'll have to do something for this operation, we'll have to carry out this operation and if Pete (as he called him) was pulling out, he at least can ask him to make these individuals, these activist individuals available, so that we can carry out the operation, somehow we have to find a way of carrying that through. So it is in that spirit that I wrote that he had an objection towards the carrying through with this operation.

MR LOADER: As it turns out it's of course common cause that in fact Lengene did participate and was involved in the operation. So is it fair to say that while whatever preconceived misapprehensions he may have had at that stage, they certainly didn't prevent him from participating?

MR MONI: That's correct.

MR LOADER: There is an additional aspect that requires clarification. I'm looking in the same paragraph, but the latter portion thereof Madam Chair, on page 29. Where you've dealt then with what transpired a few days later. You were called into Pretorius' office, he showed yourself and Monyane three limpet mines and two AK47 rifles and a Tokarev pistol. He asked you whether you were familiar with the usage of the weapons. He indicated that Lengene was going to meet the comrades that afternoon and would arrange a further meeting point. Do you confirm all of that?

MR MONI: I do confirm, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: And the balance of that paragraph?

MR MONI: I do confirm.

MR LOADER: Later that day you were then driven around with Pretorius to view and assess the proposed targets, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: At Nancefield and Kliptown and New Canada.

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: You've described the targets as sub-electrical power stations in your paragraph 49, situated next to or near the railway lines. How did you understand the targets to be? What did you understand the targets precisely to be?

MR MONI: Madam Chair, not being a specialist in electricity, I presumed that these were substations or stations that had something to do with electricity. It is just a colloquial language that I use there, or a common saying that they had something to do with electricity on the railway lines.

MR LOADER: They've been described by - that is the targets have been described by Messrs Pretorius and Steenberg, as "sinjaal houers". Do you agree with that?

MR MONI: It could be that they were signal ...(intervention)

MR LOADER: ... signal points.

MR MONI: ... signal points or something like that, but they had electrical cables or they looked like some sort of substation.

MR LOADER: Okay. But it's clear we're talking about the same thing?

MR MONI: Absolutely correct there, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: In the balance of that paragraph you deal just then with the pre-operation preparation, how the groupings were to be set up, which is precisely in line with the evidence that's already been led in this matter, and you confirm all of that.

MR MONI: I do confirm, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: You later in paragraph 50, describe how you were each furnished with a limpet mine, you were furnished in addition, with an AK47 rifle and you then proceeded to go and meet the comrades. The person that you were to take out, was known to you then as Elias, is that correct?

MR MONI: It's probably the correct person, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: Perhaps now is an appropriate point to deal with this. The three comrades that were to be the targets of this particular operation, were they at any previous stage known to you?

MR MONI: Not at all, except for the one or two occasions where we went to show them the arms and ammunition that we carried with us.

MR LOADER: And that was part of the operation itself, the introductory part?

MR MONI: That was part of the actual operation.

MR LOADER: Prior to you embarking at all on this operation or even being seconded to Pretorius, did you know any one of these three people?

MR MONI: Not at all, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: In fact did you know what their proper names were?

MR MONI: Not at all, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: When did you discover what their names were?

MR MONI: When I was issued with the Section 19 invitation by the TRC ...(intervention)

MR LOADER: In these particular proceedings?

MR MONI: In these particular proceedings, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: We then move on to paragraph 51, and you describe driving to the targets, each one of you taking the particular comrade to whom you'd been assigned to the respective target. Which one of the targets were you taken to, or did you go to and take the comrade to?

MR MONI: The one in New Canada.

MR LOADER: New Canada.

MR MONI: Yes.

MR LOADER: You describe showing the target to the comrade and you informed the comrade that he would only pull the pin out after attaching the limpet mine to the target. It was dark then, you left him there and walked back to your car. Do you confirm that?

MR MONI: I do confirm, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: Okay. We need then to deal at this particular juncture, with the amendment to the statement previously furnished by you in October of 1986, in relation to the incident. Madam Chair, if I can refer to page 67 of the bundle, and I'm going to read from that particular portion of the paragraph what was originally stated. You say -

Okay, I want to pause at that stage. In your new amendment dealing with that specific incident, you describe it as follows -

And then you carry on. And we'll deal with the balance of that in due course.

It's perfectly clear that the essence of the amendment is that in your earlier statement you hinted, in fact you went beyond hinting, you sought to draw the direct inference from what you said, that you heard the comrade shouting and that either he or someone else thereafter commenced shooting at you, consequent upon which you then returned fire. So you seem to create the inference that you were acting then in self-defence, whereas in your new amendment you indicate that that simply never happened and that you were the one who fired on instructions. Is that correct?

MR MONI: I confirm, Madam Chair, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: May I on a question of clarity, find out if you thought initially you were acting in self-defence against who, against the comrade? Did you think that maybe the gunfire could have come from the comrade?

MR MONI: Madam Chair, the paragraph itself which you referred to in 68, in the bundle there, is a complete lie. I wrote that particular statement because I was not sure where the TRC was going to take me if I tell the truth. However, two months after I had written that particular statement, I had a discussion with the TRC Investigators, who advised me that I do not have any misgivings - I shouldn't have rather, any misgivings with regards to telling the truth. Because I had told them that I had definite misgivings in committing myself in an affidavit of this nature to have committed a murder, which is what we had done, and they advised me that they think the documents of the TRC were in good hands.

And I must also mention that most of us and in particular myself, had serious misgivings about the TRC. I heard that there were going to be prosecutions etc., etc., and I never had applied or seen anything like the TRC before and I knew where I was standing with regards to the criminal Courts. So it was in that mind that I drafted this affidavit, the first affidavit which I'm saying here now that it was a lie. The truth is set out in the amendment and is set out in paragraph 51, as said by my counsel, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you not assisted by an attorney in drafting the affidavit that you signed in December of '96? - no, in October.

MR MONI: In October, no, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: At whose instance did you approach the TRC, when you submitted this affidavit?

MR MONI: On my own volition, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr Loader.

MR LOADER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The amendment was drawn, as is reflected, on the 25th of December 1996, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: And it was at that early stage that you had already made the decision that it was imperative for you to set out precisely what happened in its true terms, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: And you confirm now under oath, that when you heard the comrade shouting for you, you then immediately, and of your own volition on instructions, fired at him, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: Okay. You then describe that you went and purchased five or six quarts of beer. This is an aspect that I wish to deal with because one, on a reading from that paragraph, seems to gain the impression that you thereafter perhaps went on a drinking binge. Was that the case?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: Well straight afterwards, did you go on a drinking binge?

MR MONI: From the scene of crime I drove straight to Eldorado Park, as I have said, and I remember my aim was to try and link up with Mr Manuel Olifant so that we can try and you know, I could explain to him what had transpired. I had doubts about the fact that I had actually executed the comrade as instructed and I had serious misgivings about what had happened in the scene of the crime and I wanted to link up with him to find some solace. And I didn't find him at his place and I drove through around a corner and that's where I purchased these five quarts of beer ...(intervention)

MR LOADER: But did you drink them all?

MR MONI: No, no.

MR LOADER: Now that's what I - when I say you were on a drinking binge, I mean you were set about finishing all of these beers. Is that what you did?

MR MONI: No, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: Did you take then back to Gys Farm with you?

MR MONI: We actually participated in drinking the beers, myself, Peter Lengene and Monyane and I think Mr Manuel also.

MR LOADER: And when was that?

MR MONI: Whilst we were in the process of going to dispose of the deceased.

MR LOADER: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: So I think the suggestion as reflected at paragraph 52 of your application, of your affidavit, and that's the fifth line from paragraph 52, that you drank the beers and then drove back to Gys Farm, because that's where you linked up with Lengene, Olifant and the rest, is incorrect.

MR MONI: Precisely, Madam Chair, it gives an impression that I completed the whole consignment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MONI: The truth is that I had them with me and we were drinking the beers in the process of completing this action that we were busy with.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And the suggestion contained again at paragraph 52, and that's the third line thereof, that you deliberately shot him at the legs, should remain as is. It was your intention not to kill, that is why you shot him at the legs?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew then immediately that you had not executed the orders given by Pretorius, that in the event that the planned operation should abort, you should then immediately use the AK47 that you had been given to kill the comrade, or the activist. You knew then that you had not executed the order.

MR MONI: Madam Chair, I have a problem with the length of the question, however I do understand that the instructions to complete the mission were clearly defined, that here we were instructed to execute by way of elimination of these individuals. I had no doubt about that. The shooting to the legs came with my, I can say fear if not conscience of one of the elements that operated there. I actually faced the weapon more towards the lower parts of the body, and I remember that instinctively because it feels like I didn't want to carry out this action, or somehow I knew it was an incorrect thing to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The only reason why I'm raising this question is because having said that, you then went on to ...(indistinct) that you wanted to link up with Olifant because you had doubts about whether you had executed the orders correctly.

MR MONI: Absolutely correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: Perhaps if I may come in at this stage, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Loader.

MR LOADER: While indicating that you shot towards the lower region of his body, you were using an automatic weapon were you not?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: And you discharged numerous rounds, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: And you were surely aware of the fact that he at the very least would have been grievously injured, if not killed, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: How many rounds, Mr Loader, were fired?

MR LOADER: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: How many rounds were fired?

MR LOADER: Perhaps I must clarify that with the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOADER: Do you recall precisely how many rounds were fired?

MR MONI: I cannot recall the exact amount, but it was in the region of 15 rounds, not more than 15 or somewhere there, plus minus 15 rounds.

MR LOADER: The weapon was on automatic mode, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: You later met up at Gys Farm and that's when the report-backs were given ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Sorry, just before you proceed, Mr Loader.

Mr Moni, you heard the evidence here that the victim was shot in his upper body and also in his face, on his cheek. Did you hear that evidence yesterday?

MR MONI: I did hear that evidence, Madam Chair.

MR MALAN: Did you see any other wounds on the body, or did you observe these?

MR MONI: I do not dispute that evidence at all, Madam Chair. There is - obviously the fact that there was blood all over and I doubt that anyone of us can for certain say that the blood that was seen on the cheek consisted of a wound, or any other part of the body. But I cannot dispute that. We ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: What distance were you from the victim when you opened fire?

MR MONI: I estimate six metres, not more than ten metres, Madam Chair.

MR MALAN: Could you see him that night? Was he visible to you?

MR MONI: It was dark, relatively I could see the shadow. It was a shadow form that I saw, Madam Chair.

MR MALAN: You said he shouted, what did he shout?

MR MONI: He shouted something like "Commander" or "Comrade", "Commander, Commander" you know, as he was coming back from the target, and it was then that I cast a glance in that direction of the shout and I saw this figure coming towards my direction, Madam Chair.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: So you shouted towards the screaming? Sorry, you shot towards where the screaming was coming from?

MR MONI: Towards the shadow. I did see the shadow, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: As well as the screaming.

MR MONI: Yes, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And according to you, would you say that the screaming came from where you would see the shadow?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And you are certain about that?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: What time of the night was this?

MR MONI: I recall that the operation itself was set for 12 o'clock exactly in the evening, so we're talking something like a couple of minutes after 12 o'clock, ten minutes or five minutes after 12 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr Loader.

MR LOADER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think we must get clarity on this aspect because there's room for some misconception about it. You've indicated that while you aimed at the lower part of the body, you don't dispute the nature of the injuries that were described by Mr Pretorius, is that correct?

MR MONI: I do not dispute Mr Pretorius' observations.

MR LOADER: Do I understand you then to say that it's quite possible, you may well have hit him in the head, you may well have hit him in the body?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: You are saying you subjectively thought you were aiming towards the lower part of the body but you in fact could well have hit him in the manner described by Mr Pretorius.

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair. If I may comment. It explains the fact that the individual having come back to ...(indistinct) the scene of the crime was still alive, or he was still alive, that's correct.

MR MALAN: Mr Loader, sorry for the interruption.

Mr Moni, if one comes clean at these hearings, one comes clean. It seems to me that you've - and I'm putting here an impression, I want your comment on this, that you've left in this paragraph what you put initially in the earlier paragraph, in order to sustain the impression that you did not want to kill. Even in the amended paragraph you're not saying that you subjectively, as it was put to you, thought that you were shooting at his lower legs, you say explicitly -

Now do you really stand with this, or are you coming clean, saying I fired and I fired at the shadow? You have an opportunity to come clean and we have to believe your story. I know I'm putting you under pressure, but I don't want you to lose an opportunity to get amnesty by not being frank, clear and open with the Committee.

MR MONI: Madam Chair, I will try and understand the definition of the terminology that I used whilst I was drafting this affidavit. When I say I deliberately fired at the legs, I'm referring to the lower part of the shadow that I had shot at. I also do make an observation, or cast an observation to yourselves Madam Chair, that that action, that particular action of not seeing to it that this particular individual was finished, was as a result of probably the fear of committing this heinous murder, or was as a result of my conscience having operated.

I'm trying to explain in that particular paragraph or sentence, Madam Chair, that because of the fact that the individual was still found alive, it was because of the fact that I hadn't shot at the individual the correct way. And I'm not trying to be evasive with any evidence here. The order was to commit this murder and I was part of the order to commit this murder and I set out to go and commit this murder and there is no dispute about that, that we had the intention to commit this murder and to execute and eliminate these individuals. The terminology I may have used could be slightly unfortunate or unintentional, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We are only concerned about what you have used after you have been duly assisted by your lawyer, the words that you used. I mean what seems to be troubling us is what you are conveying to us. You are suggesting that you had no intention to kill the activist after the planned operation had aborted. That's what you are suggesting. You deliberately did not shoot him in any part of his body that would have rendered his death immediately, but shot at the lower part of his body in order not to kill him. Now you seem to be underplaying your role in the whole operation, particularly when it comes to the killing of Mr Ngwenya. Could you - if a person was six metres away from you and it's dark at five past twelve in the morning, could you say that you could deliberately shoot at a certain part of his body? When you are consumed by fear, don't you just shoot instinctively without having to think where you are going to shoot, I mean which part of his body are you shooting at?

MR MONI: Madam Chair, there's no dispute also about the fact that I shot this comrade anywhere whilst I was shooting, even though I had this feeling that I had shot too low, the chances that he would have died still remains ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm not concerned about that. You are suggesting that you were consumed by fear, now when you are consumed by fear, don't you just shoot without having an opportunity to think now do I shoot at the upper body or at the lower body? Do you have room to be thinking about which part of his body should I be shooting at, when you are consumed with fear?

MR MONI: Madam Chair, there was room for that. What normally happens, having participated in a variety of other actions in my life where you have the choice or you have actually a chance of committing, like shooting at the person from the upper body or the lower body or actually knowing whether your firearm was actually faced in the position that would normally result in most of the bullets going at the upper body or lower body. You can determine that, Madam Chair. The element of fear normally doesn't play much role in that fashion, Madam Chair.

But I'm saying here and I'm repeating this, Madam Chair, that I'm mentioning this simply because I'm trying to explain the fact that we still found the individual alive. It's stated - I've read various affidavits, because the gentleman was still alive at that stage, that's why I'm mentioning the fact that I shot at the lower parts and it was for that reason, but it was my intention to kill the activist concerned. I have no other way of explaining what was operating on that evening, Madam Chair.

ADV MOTATA: Whilst discharging these bullets, could you determine where you're hitting him even though you had deliberately intended to now shoot him on his legs?

MR MONI: I hoped that the dispersion of the ammunition that was discharged from the firearm would go towards the lower part of the body, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, this is an assumption?

MR MONI: Yes, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Up to today you don't know whether you did hit him at the legs or not.

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR MALAN: May I just ask, what is your first language?

MR MONI: Xhosa.

MR MALAN: During some of the questioning here - I just want to make sure I got my note correct, you say that there's no doubt that you set out to commit this murder. When you were shooting you were indeed at that time, shooting to kill him, then you developed doubts - and I'm now paraphrasing, as to whether you really hit him and killed him and that's why you were looking for Olifant. And then you come now with this explanation as to why he was not dead, that maybe subconsciously you were shooting at the lower body. Or are you saying you can remember that when you were shooting at this shadow and screaming, that you tried not to hit him in any other part than the lower body? What really is your version?

MR MONI: The latter part of what you've just said, Madam Chair, is not the version that I'm trying to present here. I do subscribe to the first part of your suggestions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loader, you may proceed.

MR LOADER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let's just get clarity on this. You knew as a fact afterwards that he was found alive, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: And you had misgivings when you left as to where you had in fact shot him and that's why you were looking for Olifant.

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose. We've come back to this, I thought we had actually gone passed it. I would like us to move further.

But can you explain to us why you were looking for Mr Olifant?

MR MONI: Madam Chair, I trusted Mr Olifant very much as a friend and I wanted to sit down with him, or just to tell him my misgivings or that I'm not sure whether this whole thing has gone the correct way and try to solicit some advice from him. And I also know that he was supposed to be my covering, in the covering group.

CHAIRPERSON: And you had not seen him around, you hadn't heard anything from him during the shoot-out.

MR MONI: Not at all, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Loader?

MR LOADER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

You then further in your statement deal with the disposal of the bodies of the three activists, having discovered that only one of the limpet mines went off, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: And you've heard the evidence of Mr Pretorius in this regard, which I understand you have no difficulty with and agree with, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: I anticipate that my learned friend who is representing the victims and the families in this matter, is going to pose certain questions to you as to where the bodies were disposed of precisely. Are you in a position to state with any precision where they were disposed of?

MR MONI: I wouldn't be in a position to state precisely or exactly where they bodies were disposed of, but I do remember that we drove towards the direction of Randfontein, which I think is in the West Rand, and along the route I could see signboards that were written Rustenburg/Magaliesburg/Hekpoort. And somewhere along that road we diverted into a gravel road and there was I remember, a stream, sort of a dried river where the bodies were thrown into. And then I also remember that there was a fire that was set onto the bodies.

MR LOADER: Okay. Do you believe that you would at all be in a position to assist, should the victims wish to recover or try and recover the remains?

MR MONI: Madam Chair, I would do anything to help the families of the victims to achieve that goal.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you be in a position to identify the spot?

MR MONI: I doubt that that would be easy, Madam Chair, but I would help a lot if I have to help in identifying the spot.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think Mr Visser can also come to your assistance. Between Mr Pretorius and Mr Steenberg, I'm sure you can reply the tapes as to exactly where in Randfontein or around Randfontein the bodies were disposed of.

MR VISSER: It was somewhere in the Western Transvaal, between Rustenburg, Magaliesburg and Randfontein. I'm not quite sure. Of course we'll assist, but we specifically led the evidence, as did my learned friend just a moment ago, that they don't have much hope that they will find the exact spot, but obviously they'll assist, sure.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, that will be appreciated.

MR LOADER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

You describe in your very last paragraph of your affidavit, that -

You're now talking about when you were then reintroduced back to Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER:

And then you say -

Do you know that as a fact?

MR MONI: I do not know that as a fact.

MR LOADER: That was an assumption that you made?

MR MONI: Well I presumed that it was - when he said that here's an envelope from the people of Soweto, I presumed that he was referring to this operation that had been carried out.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this the only operation that you had carried out in Soweto, when this envelope was given to you?

MR MONI: Of this nature, yes Madam Chair. Of this nature.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say "of this nature", what other operations had you carried out in Soweto of a different nature?

MR MONI: We would get information that there were certain people who were armed in Soweto and we'd go and look for them and we would drive out to Soweto, go around Soweto looking for criminals, ordinary criminals, murderers, rapist etc., and now and then we'd apprehend them and there would be no reward. This was now the normal police work that we'd be carrying out. So it is on that basis that I presumed that he was referring to the assistance that we went to render to Mr Pretorius.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this the first envelope you received from Mr de Kock?

MR MONI: Yes, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loader?

MR LOADER: Thank you.

Were any promises made by Pretorius that you would be rewarded at all?

MR MONI: Not at all, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: So there were no expectations by you before this mission or operation, of any particular personal reward, is that correct?

MR MONI: Not at all, there were no offers or promises or anything, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: In the process of completing this operation you understand that you rendered yourself guilty of a number of offences, including murder, conspiracy to commit two murders, obstruction of justice and perhaps certain other criminal offences. You're aware of that, is that correct?

MR MONI: I am aware of that, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: And in respect of all of these offences you are seeking amnesty before this Committee, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LOADER: Madam Chair, I'm indebted. I have no further questions for the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Can we allocate a number to the amended affidavit as handed up by you, Mr Loader? Will that be Exhibit F? That will be Exhibit E. The last exhibit was Exhibit D and that was of General Nienaber.

MR LOADER: That's in order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. I think before allowing Mr Visser an opportunity to put questions to Mr Moni, we'll have a 10 minutes adjournment, just to enable the family members to compose themselves. Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Moni, just before you ended your evidence, you said that you ask for amnesty for all offences committed by you in connection with this incident. I take you're also applying for amnesty for all delicts that you might have committed during the incident. Is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Is it also correct that you were actually seconded from Vlakplaas by de Kock to Soweto, to go on a temporary basis to help out in this particular incident?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Is it correct what Pretorius told this Committee that later he actually asked for you to be transferred to Soweto and work with him on a permanent basis?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: And did that then happen?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: I only received your affidavit, Exhibit E, this morning and I haven't had time to correlate that with your statement, so I will largely refer to your statement in bundle 2. What I want to deal with first of all is, in paragraph 46 you dealt with the training which you gave to these three victims in the hotel room in the Harris Reef Hotel, and the only point I want to clear here is this. You say that you remember that this session lasted - that's at the bottom of the page, at page 64 Chairperson...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm with you, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: ... lasted for a period of about two to three hours. Would that be correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Mr Peter Lengene at page 233, paragraph 48, the last line, suggested that you, and he refers to you by name, Linda Moni and Monyane, taught the three gentlemen with explosives for about two weeks. Is he making a mistake with that? It couldn't have happened over a period of two or three weeks, isn't that right?

MR MONI: I'm referring to sessions, Madam Chair, and I presume that Mr Lengene is referring to acquaintance, the period within which we were acquainted with the individuals, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Yes. The only point is that weapons training which you were involved in, lasted in total for two to three hours, is that right?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: But for how long did the training go for, was it two weeks?

MR MONI: If I recollect correctly, we met the victims on two occasions over the period of these two weeks and on both occasions we had sat for two hours to three hours, or an hour. I think on one occasion we didn't sit too long, maybe we sat for an hour or two. But I recollect that I only knew these individuals for a period of not more than a month, not more than two weeks, somewhere around there, within a month, but I met them only twice or even less than that.

MR VISSER: Yes, the question is, was there weapons training on both those occasions or only on the one occasion that you refer to in your affidavit?

MR MONI: I'm inclined to think that, to recollect that it was on both occasions, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Yes, but aren't you sure?

MR MONI: I'm not hundred percent sure.

MR VISSER: Right. Did you report to Pretorius that it was clear to you that the comrades had previously received training in the use of AK47s and handgrenades, as he testified here?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: If we could turn to page 66, paragraph 48. I'm not sure what you mean by this, but you said -

... and that's paragraph 48 and it's two-thirds down that paragraph -

Now at the bottom of that page you say - well, let me first ask you, what precisely do you intend to say with this sentence?

MR MONI: What I intended to say with this sentence, Madam Chair, is that usually during such actions a few things go wrong and you can't anticipate all of them and that you would always have a covering group should the people in the operation itself, or who are involved in the operation itself, get injured or should things not go according to plan. That's the abort that I'm referring to.

MR VISSER: Yes, that accords with the evidence of Pretorius before this Committee. You see what I don't quite understand, and I must perhaps be fair to you, you said that in this affidavit you did not speak the truth, you referred only to one paragraph. Were there other issues that you also held back on because you did not trust the amnesty process when you filed this affidavit?

MR MALAN: What is your question to him, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Should I repeat the question, perhaps simplify it.

You were courageous enough today to tell this Committee that initially when you signed the affidavit which we're dealing with now, you mistrusted the amnesty process, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: And you said that you told a complete lie with reference to paragraph 51, is that correct? Or 52.

CHAIRPERSON: 51.

MR VISSER: 51, yes.

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Now I'm simply asking you, were there other issues also that you held back on, that you didn't tell the complete truth in this affidavit?

MR MONI: To my best recollection, Madam Chair, I've told everything except for the paragraph in question, where I intended to protect or I thought I was protecting myself against criminal prosecution.

MR VISSER: Alright. Now if I go to the bottom of page 66, the last sentence there reads, well the second-last -

And then you say -

Now does this mean - well first of all, do you still stand with this statement?

MR MONI: This is what I thought at the time, Chair.

MR VISSER: In fairness to you, Mr Moni, you did say that, you say you thought. So was there nothing ever said to you or indicated to you that if you did not kill the comrade, that you would be shot yourself or killed yourself?

MR MONI: There was nothing that was said to me of that nature or that sounded like that, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Yes. Because you see, Olifant you told this Committee was a trusted person by you.

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: And you would not have expected him to kill you, would you?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: And in fact when things did go wrong and Elias was only wounded, Olifant didn't kill you. We know that.

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: In fact, on your evidence he wasn't even there, because you went to look for him.

MR MONI: I went to look for him at his house, not at the scene of the incident.

MR VISSER: Yes. But he was supposed to be your backup, but he wasn't even there when you looked for him.

MR MONI: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Yes. And you wanted to go and tell him that things had gone wrong.

MR MONI: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Yes. Now Mr Moni, in fairness to you also, reading paragraphs 49, 50 and 51 at pages 66 and 67, it does appear that you were to a greater or a lesser extent under the influence of alcohol that evening. Would I be correct in saying that?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: You say in paragraph 15 -

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Alright. I'm not going to deal with the differences between your old paragraph 51 and the new one, but I just want to ask you a few questions other than that.

When you got to Gys Farm and you reported what had happened to Pretorius, you said at page 68, paragraph 52, the first part of that, the last sentence that - "Manuel ..."

... that is Olifant, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER:

... and I interrupt my reading by referring to the scene as the scene where Elias was shot, is that right? - by you.

MR MONI: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Yes.

That can surely not be correct.

MR MONI: It is correct that Manuel was paged by Pretorius. It is correct that Manuel did arrive and he did tell Mr Pretorius that he was at the scene and that he saw everything.

MR VISSER: But he couldn't have done that because you went to look for him in Eldorado Park, to tell him what had happened.

MR MONI: I went to see him at Eldorado Park, to discuss with him what fears I had, what fears I had about what has transpired in the scene of the crime, being the person that had actually fired the shots.

MR VISSER: Alright.

ADV MOTATA: But there's a backup - sorry, Mr Visser.

But as he was your backup, after you had shot at Elias, did you see him at the scene?

MR MONI: I didn't see him, Madam Chair.

ADV MOTATA: That's what Mr Visser is asking.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Mr Moni, you know if you can't remember these things, please feel free to just say so because it is 10 years ago and nobody will blame you or hold it against you for lack of how you remember matters. So please do feel free if you don't remember, just to say so.

As far as this issue of where you shot Elias, did you go along to collect Elias after you had been to Gys Farm?

MR MONI: I did go along to collect Elias after, from Gys Farm.

MR VISSER: You heard the evidence of Pretorius that he was still breathing, I think properly translated what he said was breathing shallowly or he was still just breathing. Is that your recollection?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Because in paragraph 52, page 68, you mention that -

Is that really what happened or was he just breathing and not calling for help?

MR MONI: I heard the deceased saying "Help me, I'm injured".

MR VISSER: I see, alright. Now did he die before you got to the dry river bed, as far as you're concerned? - at any stage.

MR MONI: I think I'd be on the safe side if I say he died before we reached this area where we dumped the bodies.

MR VISSER: Do you remember that Casius was first picked up from where he was? Can you remember that?

MR MONI: I do remember that, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Do you agree that his body was then placed in a bluegum bush?

MR MONI: I agree with that.

MR VISSER: Yes. So did you hear Pretorius say that after you picked up Elias and you drove to the bluegum bush, that by the time you reached that point where Elias was - I'm sorry, where Casius was, that Elias had died?

CHAIRPERSON: Castro.

MR VISSER: Is it Castro. I'm sorry, Chairperson. When I refer to Casius, I'm told that I should be referring to Castro. Pretorius' evidence was that Elias was dead by the time they reached the point where Castro was in the bluegum bush. Would you agree with that?

MR MONI: I don't dispute that, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Right. Did you see blood on his upper body, Elias' upper body, when you found and put him into the vehicle?

MR MONI: That's correct, I saw the blood.

MR VISSER: Okay. The issue of Lengene expressing, as far as you understood it, reservations of his participation in this incident, I hear you to say now that what he was really saying was that the comrades are known to him and that his family stays in Soweto and other people might link him to the comrades' disappearance and those were really his concerns, is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: The question I want to ask you is simply this. At the end of the day, was he forced or compelled in any way by anyone to participate in this incident or did he do so freely from his own will?

MR MONI: He did it in his free will I presume, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Yes, I'm not saying that you did not act under orders, because I take it your evidence is that you acted, as well as Olifant and Monyane, acted under orders and it was orders that you were supposed and expected to comply with, is that right?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: You see, because I just want to put to you one thing that does appear to be logical, and that is that if you really wanted to wound, only to wound Elias, it would have been a very dangerous thing to do, wouldn't you agree, because he would have been found later and he might have identified you and the others, isn't that so?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Yes. Now you say that you received R2 500 and you were told that it's from Soweto and you took that to be from Pretorius.

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Well I'm informed by all three the applicants for whom I appear that none of them knows anything about this.

MR MONI: I don't dispute that, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Were you an askari at the time, what is generally referred to as an askari?

MR MONI: Well that's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Yes. And how were you paid as an askari?

MR MONI: Madam Chair, we were appointed members of the South African Police and we were paid salaries on a monthly basis and we had benefits as all members of the South African Police, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Well you see that was really the first question. Had you already been appointed in 1989, in April '89, as a member of the Police Force?

MR MONI: I was already appointed, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: And what was your salary then? Can you remember?

MR MONI: Madam Chair, I think it was in the region of R1 500.

MR VISSER: Or R2 500?

MR MONI: It could have been.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What benefits did you also enjoy as a member of the Police Force?

MR MONI: We were afforded housing subsidies, medical aid, clothing allowance and such similar benefits, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: I've just been reminded, I thought I was finished, but there is one issue that remains and that is this. And again I know this happened a long time ago, but I want to refer you to page 66 in paragraph 48 of bundle 2. You heard the evidence of Pretorius here that his recollection was that both yourself and Monyane and Lengene were given an AK47 to take along that evening in case things went wrong. Now you said that there were two AK47 rifles and one Tokarev pistol. Could you be mistaken as far as that's concerned?

MR MONI: I am not mistaken, Madam Chair, there were two AK47s and one Tokarev was given to, the Tokarev pistol was given to Monyane. I don't recall - well in my presence, Monyane was never given an AK47 in my presence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Would a Tokarev be similar to a Makarov?

MR MONI: It's more-or-less, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Because Mr Visser, Mr Lengene said Mr Monyane was issued with a Makarov pistol and definitely not an AK47. - page 234.

MR VISSER: Yes, he spoke of a Makarov in paragraph 15, that's quite correct, yes. Yes. Chairperson, those are the questions which I have, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Moni, just to come on one aspect here, on page 66 of your first ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, could you please speak up so we can also try and hear. It's very inconvenient to have to go through this if there are alternatives.

MR LAMEY: Mr Moni, I'm referring to page 66 of your initial statement, on the bottom. Mr Visser has also asked you questions on this point, where you stated that you think -

What did you intend to convey by the last sentence -

MR MONI: Well I met with Manuel Olifant on a regular basis since I was introduced to him from the first time when we were picked up by Mr Pretorius and he was always raised concerns, he has mentioned or raised concerns in the presence of myself and Peter Lengene, that there was a possibility or a potential for us to be used against each other. And he jokingly - I remember at one point he jokingly said he's of the opinion that if Mr Pretorius can give me R50 000, I wouldn't hesitate to kill him. We laughed it off. But that obviously left an indication to me that there is, I thought that he doesn't have to tell me specifically that he knows something about these issues, but I had taken that as a definite warning that there is such a possibility.

And I must also add that in such circles, such arrangements, such presumptions are fairly safe to take, because I had seen previously at Vlakplaas where members were used against each other, where members of the SAP were used to kill other members. ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr Moni, sorry for interrupting you. I think the question is a very specific one. The last sentence, and I don't know whether you have page 66 of your original application before you, the question is, has Mr Olifant ever told you that he had instructions to kill you should you not carry out the mission, on this specific occasion?

MR MONI: No.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: So this discussion that you talk about happened afterwards?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: It was speculative talk, what you say.

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: May I just have a moment, thank you, Chairperson.

Alright. My instructions from Mr Olifant, he doesn't recall such a discussion, but clearly he never had the - there was never an instruction from his point of view, that he should eliminate you or that any of the other people that had to serve the cover had instructions ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, he's already conceded that. Please.

MR LAMEY: I'll step off that point, thank you Chairperson.

Then you have testified here that on route to the place where you had to dispose of the bodies, that there was drinking. Now I gathered from your evidence that you're not exactly sure what the position was with Mr Olifant. Is my impression correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: I can just put it to you then. His version is that he was the driver of the vehicle that night, do you agree with that?

MR MONI: That's a possibility.

MR LAMEY: And my instructions are that he didn't partake in any drinking.

MR MONI: I wouldn't dispute that, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Now just one other aspect. My instructions from Mr Olifant are that he didn't - after the shooting had taken place, he was there in the area where he, at the point where he gave the cover, but he saw you. Is it possible that you just had missed him when you were looking for him? Or are you saying that you exclude totally that he wasn't there? Because my instructions are that he was still there, he saw you, he heard the gunshots and he saw him moving out but you apparently didn't see him.

MR MONI: I didn't see him. The intention was not to see him. I'm saying the intention in that we never planned to see each other, or I can't dispute that he was there. I'm not saying he was not there either.

MR LAMEY: So it's possible that you were looking out for him, but you missed him?

MR MONI: I never looked for Manuel at the scene of the crime itself.

MR LAMEY: You went to look for him at his home.

MR MONI: At his home.

MR LAMEY: I see. Then when you went back to - I take it you reported back at the farm at some stage. That is now after you bought the beers, because you had to report what transpired. Is that correct?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Now can you recall that there was a delay about Monyane? Or can't you recall anything in that regard?

MR MONI: I can't commit myself.

MR LAMEY: Let me just get to the point. Manuel Olifant says he didn't go along, he wasn't there with all the people when they picked up the bodies. Prior to that departure he went out to look for Monyane and he came back to the farm and the people left and he remained there. He wasn't with the group that picked up the bodies, but he went along when they disposed of the bodies. What are your comments about that?

MR MONI: Firstly, I do not dispute Manuel's version. If I was to comment, it's that during the process of this operation, as it would be obvious, we interacted with each other on a variety of levels and it would be fair to say that one would place an individual at a place where he was not. So I'm not saying it's incorrect if he says that he was not present when the bodies were being collected.

MR LAMEY: What he also recalls is that at the arrival of the vehicle with the victims, he saw that one of them was still breathing and apparently still alive, but he died on the way to the disposal site. What are your comments about that? Is that possible?

MR MONI: I cannot dispute that, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: And then one aspect which you've already rectified, I just want to put on record about the collection of yourself at Vlakplaas initially. As you rectified it, Mr Olifant agrees with you. He also agrees that he was involved in taking you to Vlakplaas, but not at the first time when you were picked up to go to Gys Farm, but subsequently when for the purposes of your needs you were taken to Vlakplaas on occasion during this period. I just want to put to you that he agrees with that.

Chairperson, thank you, those are my questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr van Heerden, do you have any questions to put to Mr Moni?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair, just one aspect.

Mr Moni, are you're willing to assist the families to locate the place where the bodies were disposed of?

MR MONI: I am more than willing, Madam Chair.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Have you ever been back to the scene?

MR MONI: I've not been back to the scene, Madam Chair.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Are you prepared to go back?

MR MONI: I am prepared to go back, Madam Chair.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Are you willing to go back in your time and see if you can locate the bodies or the place?

MR MONI: Yes, I am and of course in conjunction with the TRC, as we're operating this thing within the ambit of the TRC.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you. I have no further questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van Heerden. Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair, no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moni, during your evidence you've stated that you advised Mr Pretorius that the activists had previous training in weaponry. You recall saying that?

MR MONI: I do, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how had you established that fact that they already had training in weaponry?

MR MONI: Madam Chair, during my interaction with the activists we had spoken about the very particular weapons that we were carrying, being the grenades, the AKs, and they had specifically told me that it was not the first time that they've been introduced to these weapons.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you aware that prior to your interaction with the activists, Mr Lengene had already been giving the activists some training in the use of weapons?

MR MONI: Not at all, Madam Chair, that I can bind myself into. I was aware that he had met them before, but I was not aware of the extent or whether they had actually received any training from him.

CHAIRPERSON: So you are saying that you were not aware of Mr Lengene's involvement in the training of activists in the use of weapons?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you've also testified that prior, well as you were going to where the target had to be destroyed with Mr Elias, you were very nervous because you knew that Elias was going to die.

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: My question is, was this the first occasion on which you had to participate in an elimination of this nature?

MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Do you know old Mr Monyane was?

MR MONI: Not more than 25, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: At the time of this incident?

MR MONI: At the time. Yes, he must have been 22/23.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, emanating from my questions, do you wish to re-examine? Are you bold enough ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Loader.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loader, sorry, do you wish to re-examine?

MR LOADER: I have no re-examination, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Sorry about that, Mr Visser. I hope I didn't instil the fear of God in you.

Mr Moni, you are excused as a witness.

MR LOADER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Loader. Mr Lamey, is this your turn to lead the evidence of Mr Olifant?

MR LAMEY: Yes, it appears so, Madam Chair.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: What language will Mr Olifant be using in giving his testimony before us?

MR LAMEY: My instructions are, English, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Olifant, it has been brought to my attention that the administration of your oath was not recorded, so will you please again rise in order to have your oath recorded.

MANUEL ANTONIO OLIFANT: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may take a seat.

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Olifant, in the bundle before you this Panel there is on page 146 to 152, an initial application dated the 11th of December 1996, signed before a Commissioner of Oaths, Andrew Liesk. Can I just lead you on this. Is this the first application that you submitted to the TRC with the assistance of the Investigating Team of the Attorney-General of Transvaal, to which was an annexure listing the incidents that you want to apply for amnesty?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Now could you just have a look at item 15 on page 152, is that the present incident that is to be heard that you mentioned in that annexure?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Now there's further in the bundle on page 154 to 160, a form, an amnesty application form and then after that there is a statement on page 161 up to page 170 in the bundle. I don't see your signature on the statement from 160 to that. Can you just explain how - do you have any knowledge of this and how this came about?

MR OLIFANT: I was approached by two members of the TRC. They requested me to give the statement of the incident, of which I did so.

MR LAMEY: And was it later typed?

MR OLIFANT: It was, yes.

MR LAMEY: But did you ever sign the typed version of that?

MR OLIFANT: No, I didn't.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that you wish to rely in this hearing on the supplementary statement which you have made in consultation, after consultation with your legal representative, Mr Rossouw, which appears on page 171 up to page 209?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Which was signed before a Commissioner of Oaths.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: You will also later when we deal with the particulars, explain and elaborate further on certain aspects that you have provided me with instructions on, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Now the particulars of this incident starts on page 194 and continues up to 200, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Headed "The Murder of Three ANC Cadres", is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Which we all know have been referred to as Nceba, Castro and Elias.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: And we've also heard their full names, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Could you just have a look at paragraph 1 - Chairperson, may I proceed on the basis to move on and just get to those aspects which need further clarification?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you confirm, Mr Olifant, the correctness of the facts contained in the statement that Mr Lamey has referred to, that you signed on the 11th of December 1997?

MR LAMEY: May I just repeat, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Do you confirm the correctness of the statement which you have signed before, on 11 December 1997?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, I do confirm, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: And I will come back to you now on certain aspects that you want to further clarify. The first aspect. On page 195, paragraph 1, you say -

Now can you recall what the precise words of Pretorius were at that stage?

MR OLIFANT: The precise words I cannot remember, but I know for a fact that he mentioned something in relation to what I've stated.

MR LAMEY: What do you mean, what was the essence of the instruction?

MR OLIFANT: Anyway it was to eliminate the three activists.

MR LAMEY: The wording that you've used here, this was your own wording? - in your statement.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: By intending to convey that meaning.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Where are you reading from, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: It's page 195, Chairperson, the paragraph 1 under Nature and Particulars ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I want to know the line, what line?

MR LAMEY: Round about - I haven't counted the lines, it's just after the middle of that paragraph where the date is mentioned, 29 July 19...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR LAMEY: Then if I can move over, Mr Olifant, to page 196. Chairperson, I'm at paragraph 2, the first third of that paragraph. You stated here -

Now you've heard the evidence here about the signal boxes and you have referred here to the railway bridges. Could you just explain here the situation.

MR OLIFANT: Well the signal boxes were in fact next to the bridges. That's the reason why I had to state no, they were the bridges.

MR LAMEY: So the signal boxes were located at these railway bridges?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: So it is correct then as far as you are concerned, that it was also the signal boxes that were actually the intention of the, or the supposed target?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: And not the bridges as such?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Now just more to the bottom - Chairperson, it's in fact the last sentence on page 196, you stated here -

What do you recall of the instruction of Pretorius?

MR OLIFANT: Well the instruction was as follows. If anything should go wrong they should shoot.

MR LAMEY: Okay. And why did you mention the pulling, the pull of the pins in this context?

MR OLIFANT: Could you please come back.

MR LAMEY: You've mentioned here in the paragraph -

Could you just explain why you've mentioned this.

MR OLIFANT: Maybe that is the way how I had state the matter, to say that no, if anything should go wrong they should shoot.

MR LAMEY: Is it what you had in your mind as something that could go wrong, that they might fail to pull out the pins.

MR OLIFANT: Well we never thought so initially, we thought that everything would go according to the plans.

MR LAMEY: Right, you thought that they would be blown up with the limpet mines, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: But now in the context of anything that can go wrong, did you think yourself that they might fail to pull the pins?

MR OLIFANT: Should anything go wrong with that things, maybe if the activists they tried to sort of like you know, kill the policemen or in any unfortunate event I would say, they would just defend themselves.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Olifant, did Mr Pretorius specifically say if the activists fail to pull the pins from the limpet mines, they should be shot at by Mr Moni, Lengene and Monyane? Did he say that?

MR OLIFANT: No, he didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he specifically referred to the failure by the activists to pull the pins from the limpet mines?

MR OLIFANT: No, he didn't say so, it's what I actually thought.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were thinking here, you were wrong in saying it as a fact, as if these were instructions given by Pretorius to your colleagues.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Then just to carry on page 197, paragraph 5 where you have given evidence about the bodies that were picked up, collected, the bodies of Elias and Castro and thrown into the kombi. How do you know this, were you there?

MR OLIFANT: No, I wasn't there, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Where were you when that happened?

MR OLIFANT: I had remained at the Gys, that was our farm.

MR LAMEY: How did it happen that you didn't go along to collect the bodies?

MR OLIFANT: You know after the incident everyone to convene into the farm, but unfortunately we ...(indistinct) Monyane was not at the farm at that time, so Mr Pretorius suggested no, since Monyane's not here you men must just quickly drive up to you know, to the scene, just pass by you know, in order to check whether you can see whether Monyane's around or what happened to Monyane, or something like that. And at that time while I was away, that happened that Mr Pretorius and Linda Moni, Peter Lengene and a Mr Steenberg, then they went away to go collect the bodies.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was assisting you Mr Olifant, in drawing up this affidavit?

MR OLIFANT: If you may repeat the question, Madam.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was assisting you in drawing up your affidavit?

MR OLIFANT: Mr Fanie Rossouw.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just asking this because I get a little confused when reading your affidavit. You have stated that you had to wait for Mr Monyane and so Mr Monyane couldn't have been part of the delegation that went to look for the bodies of the activists, but then in your affidavit you actually put Mr Monyane as having gone to collect the bodies of Elias and Castro.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you again explain that you did not participate in the group that went to collect the said bodies. It's a little confusing. That paragraph, when you read it, it's very confusing.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, can I just lead the evidence further on this aspect. The Chairperson is referring to I think the first line where you stated that Peter Lengene, Linda Moni, Monyane, Lt Pretorius and Lt Steenberg went to collect the bodies. Could you just explain to the Committee how did this happen. You said that you went to look for Monyane, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you find Monyane?

MR OLIFANT: I never found him.

MR LAMEY: What did you do then?

MR OLIFANT: I went back to the farm.

MR LAMEY: And when you arrived at the farm, what did you find there?

MR OLIFANT: I found nobody there, everybody had gone away and it came into my mind that no - it appeared to myself going to look for Monyane - we had already arranged that no, we should go and pick up the two bodies which were shot.

MR LAMEY: Yes. So how do you know that Monyane went with to collect the bodies?

MR OLIFANT: Well it came to my mind that you know, since Monyane was not there by that time when I came back to the farm, he should have gone with them.

CHAIRPERSON: You are incorrect. What is contained in this paragraph is completely incorrect, isn't it? Because the more I read it the more it doesn't make any sense to me. Do you concede Mr Olifant, that the contents of paragraph 5 are incorrect?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I think in all fairness could we just point out what is incorrect in that statement. I think the situation ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Can I do that, Mr Lamey? Can I point out what is a problem to me?

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr Monyane present when amongst others, Mr Pretorius, Mr Steenberg and Mr Moni went to the various sites, that's Kliptown and New Canada, to collect the bodies of the activists? Was Mr Monyane present?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, he was present.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you know that?

MR OLIFANT: I learnt afterwards when they came back to the farm with the bodies.

CHAIRPERSON: So why did you have to remain at the farm and not go with Steenberg, Pretorius, Moni and the others?

MR OLIFANT: Before they could go to collect the bodies, Mr Pretorius he sent me to go look for Monyane who went missing you know, nobody knew where he was. But at that time while I was away, it happened that Monyane came back to the farm and sometime while I was away ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: They proceeded to Kliptown and New Canada.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: So these are facts that you later came to hear about?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That are not within your personal knowledge. And you also state that there were police which were already at the scene of the explosion at Midway railway bridge. Is this to your own knowledge, or is this what you heard from your colleagues?

MR OLIFANT: No, what I've seen.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Proceed, Mr Lamey, I think this point has now been clarified.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Just to move over to page 198, you stated that you remained then at Gys Farm, to wait there, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Did everybody then arrive later, while you waited there?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: You stated here on the top of page 198 -

Do you have personal knowledge of this, and if so, what did you observe?

MR OLIFANT: That was almost everybody's worry when I arrived at the farm, because Elias was still alive and Mr Pretorius said that no, Elias was still alive, Moni said that no, Elias was still alive and as well as Peter Lengene said so. And that was everybody's concern, that Elias was still alive. Not that I went next to him and touch his body and felt his blood pressure.

CHAIRPERSON: Again this is what was told to you by your colleagues who had gone to pick up the body of Elias amongst others.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Did you yourself see or witness any signs of life with Elias?

CHAIRPERSON: He says he didn't, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Sorry, then I missed it.

Then in paragraph 6, page 198, you have stated that -

Now could you just explain here what was the basis of this statement.

MR OLIFANT: That was an assumption which I took when Mr Coetzee made a joke with me, that the police were looking for me, was looking for me and Mr Pretorius and Mr Lengene. So you know I drew an attention that no, maybe Mr Coetzee knew something about the incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Your statement Mr Olifant, reads as follows -

Not that you or assumed, you heard that Lt Pretorius and Capt Coetzee fetched the bones of the burnt corpses the next day. From whom did you hear that?

MR OLIFANT: What I know of is this, Mr Coetzee made a joke with me. He made a joke with me that the police were looking for me and Mr Pretorius and you know, from there on I drew a ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: An inference?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair. ... that Mr Coetzee might know something concerning the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand you having to draw an inference about Mr Coetzee having been brought up to speed about the incident. What I want to know is, how could you draw an inference that the bones of the activists had been collected by him and Mr Pretorius the following day of the incident? How could you have made such an inference?

MR OLIFANT: I might have got confused, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Mr Coetzee make any reference to the bones of the deceased having been collected by Mr Pretorius, in the process of making that joke he shared with you?

MR OLIFANT: No, he never made any.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how could you make such a deduction based on what he had said to you? Because if I understand you correctly, it's that he said the police were looking for you.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And that you should not be worried because things will be taken care of.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair. So I thought that saying so he might have gone to the scene and removed all the bones.

CHAIRPERSON: Why? That statement refers to nothing, it does not allude to the bones having been collected. Maybe we don't understand on what basis you drew that inference.

MR OLIFANT: I may not recall exactly what he might have said to me, but what I recall from him is this "The police are no longer looking for you ..." I mean "The police is looking for you and Mr Pretorius and Mr Lengene" and I should not worry because everything was under control.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR OLIFANT: So I was under the impression that no, since everything was under control, he might have gone to the scene and collected the bones from wherever ...(indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: You know I'm just interested in this because in my culture the bones of somebody who has died in this nature is very important. It's very important for the family to know if this indeed happened, because this has already been to Pretorius and Mr Pretorius has refuted having been at the scene the next day or any day thereafter and he has also denied that he ever collected any bones of these young people. Now that's why I want to know from you, you are the person who came with this intimation that the bones of these young persons were collected the following day by Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius. And this is an issue that's emotional, it's of emotional value to the victims' family. Like I just can't get any basis on which you could have drawn an inference that from the joke which you shared with Mr Coetzee, you then come with the issue that the bones must have been collected by him and Mr Pretorius a day after the occurrence of the incident.

MR OLIFANT: Madam Chairperson, I might have confused myself during the investigating process, because before I could apply to the amnesty, Capt Liesk has been investigating about the whole matter. So somewhere I might have made a mistake.

CHAIRPERSON: I just don't understand you could have made a mistake. You may proceed, Mr Lamey, there is no point in belabouring this issue.

MR LAMEY: I think it's a matter for argument. If that was his subjective belief, whether that was a reasonable belief of not, I think that is something open for argument. As the Chair pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, I have to explore this point because I don't understand. You can't say this was his belief. On what basis could that belief have been arrived at? This is what I'm trying to canvass. And you can't canvass that during argument, you must lay a basis on which you will be able to take the issue up during legal argument.

MR LAMEY: Let me just then ask him.

What was the basis for your belief that Pretorius and Coetzee fetched the bones of the burnt corpses the next day? Why did you believe.

MR OLIFANT: Because he said that everything was under control.

MR LAMEY: Is it because Coetzee said to you that everything was under control?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: That was the basis for your belief?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I will step on.

Then in paragraph 7 you stated that -

Is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: You further went on to say -

Is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Right. Then you say -

And then you stated further -

Now I just want to get to this aspect here where you stated -

What is the basis of that statement, Mr Olifant?

MR OLIFANT: Before Mr Pretorius and myself could go to Hillbrow in order to go and observe Moni, Linda and Monyane ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: Where was this now?

MR OLIFANT: At the office.

MR LAMEY: Where was this?

MR OLIFANT: Kibler Park office.

MR LAMEY: Yes.

MR OLIFANT: So Mr Pretorius phoned Mr Grobbelaar saying that ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: Were you present?

MR OLIFANT: I was present in the office, in the same office with him.

MR LAMEY: Tell the Committee what did you hear. What did you observe with your own senses? Exactly what did you hear?

MR OLIFANT: Exactly what I heard is this, "Mr Grobbie, can I carry on with my operation?" That was the only words which I heard.

MR LAMEY: And did you know at the time that he was the officer on duty?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And according to your own knowledge what was the duty of the officer on duty at the Security Branch?

MR OLIFANT: Well to be responsible for any terrorism act which may occur during his duty hours.

MR LAMEY: Then I'd like to move on to page 199, where you've stated that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Before you move, Mr Lamey, may I just interpose. The second line, paragraph 7, when Mr Olifant you state thereat that Maj Grobbelaar was present at the scene of the explosion at Midway railway station, is this what you assume or is this what you know as a fact?

MR OLIFANT: It's what I assumed, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Olifant, on page 199, paragraph 10 - before I proceed to that. You have set out from your own perspective the political objective on page 199, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Do you confirm that?

MR OLIFANT: I do confirm that, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: You've also heard the evidence here of particularly Col Pretorius, about the broader political objective that preceded the decision to eliminate the three victims. Do you in any way dispute that?

MR OLIFANT: I don't dispute that.

MR LAMEY: You've mentioned here in this statement that you received a bonus of R500 "... for my involvement in this operation", is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: I stated so.

MR LAMEY: Okay. Do you want to explain that further, is that correct as it's stated there?

MR OLIFANT: No, it's not correct.

MR LAMEY: Okay, could you just state the reason for the mistake there.

MR OLIFANT: After the operation, let's say after two or three days, Mr Pretorius tasked me and late Peter Lengene to go to Durban and eventually he gave me R500, he gave Pete R500 for petrol expenses and accommodation expenses in Durban, where we were supposed to have gone to collect the SR824.

MR LAMEY: What is SR284(sic)?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: No, what is SR ...(intervention)

MR OLIFANT: It was an agent.

MR LAMEY: Was there anything apart from that instruction, told to you by Pretorius? What made you initially think that this R500 had a connection with this incident?

MR OLIFANT: Because it was just after the incident, so I could properly recall about the whole matter, I thought maybe that was part of the operation.

MR LAMEY: During instructions you also said to me that ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: With respect, Chairperson ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You can't say that, Mr Lamey. Just lead Mr Olifant. You definitely know as an attorney that you can't do that. Just lead him on what you want him to say, without having to put leading questions or telling us about information you received in your capacity as an attorney, which is very confidential. Isn't that privileged information? We don't want to hear privileged information, we are not interested in the consultation you had with him. As far as we are concerned, those are privileged consultations. Give us the facts insofar as this incident is concerned and insofar pertinently as the issue of the bonus and how the mistake occurred in Mr Olifant having to state quite clearly, unequivocally in his application that he received a bonus of R500 for his involvement in this operation, how that mistake could have occurred. We want to know, we want that explanation.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I have put during the examination of Mr Pretorius what my instructions were, I perhaps approached it just wrongly now, but I just intended to make an attempt to elicit further from Olifant as to what I've in fact put to Mr Pretorius. But I'll approach it ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do so without having to put leading questions.

MR LAMEY: I'll approach it differently, thank you.

You've now stated that Pretorius gave you and Lengene each R500 and that the task was to pick up somebody, an agent SR and the number that you've received, in Durban. Is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Was that the total of what Pretorius told you? Do you understand the question?

CHAIRPERSON: So far Pretorius has said nothing except to give him the R500 to go pick up the informer in Durban.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Is that all that Pretorius stated?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, do you have any questions to put to Mr Olifant?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Madam Chair, there's just one aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry I made a mistake Mr van Heerden, you will come last and not first. Let's proceed with the applicants' legal representatives.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to be afforded an opportunity to put another question?

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I just omitted one thing and that is, I will just perhaps deal with that more in argument.

But Mr Olifant, you wish to apply for amnesty for offence or delict concerning your involvement in this whole operation, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser on behalf of the three applicants.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Olifant, let me see whether I understand where you fitted in and how you fitted in into this incident.

Am I correct to say that Lengene was the one who had personal contact with these three victims and you never had personal contact with them? Am I correct in saying that?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Am I correct in saying that you were never present at any training in firearms of these persons?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: And you were not present when an inspection was held as to where the limpet mines had to be placed by the three activists.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And you were not present when their bodies were picked up.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR VISSER: So wherever you refer to any aspects concerning these contacts or issues, the best you can do is speak from what somebody else had told you, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Were you instructed at any stage to kill Linda Moni?

MR OLIFANT: No.

MR VISSER: Right. Now I just want to talk to you about Coetzee and Grobbelaar. Where precisely did you see Col Coetzee, when this joke was made that you talk about?

MR OLIFANT: At his home, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Where was that?

MR OLIFANT: In Vereeniging.

MR VISSER: In Vereeniging. Where were you living at that time?

MR OLIFANT: Klipspruit, Madam Chairperson.

MR VISSER: How far from Coetzee's home is that?

MR OLIFANT: Plus-minus 40-something kilometres, Madam Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Where was Coetzee working at the time?

MR OLIFANT: He had been transferred to Pretoria, Madam Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Would you deny that he had been working at Security Headquarters in Pretoria for at least 18 months prior to April 1989?

MR OLIFANT: Plus-minus.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry, July 1989. He was transferred at the end of 1997, Mr Olifant.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR VISSER: '87, sorry. 1987. Now what I want to know from you is why did you go and see Coetzee in July of 1989?

MR OLIFANT: I cannot precisely recall what I had gone there to do, but I know for a fact that I went to his place and I had something else to do there at his place.

MR VISSER: Well let me understand this. You don't know what the prime reason was why you went but you do remember a conversation, as you tried to explain to us here.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Mr Olifant, it's your evidence and therefore I've got to ask you this question. Have the police been looking for you at points in time in your life?

MR OLIFANT: No, Madam Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Never?

MR OLIFANT: No.

MR VISSER: Were you never arrested by the police?

MR OLIFANT: No.

MR VISSER: Right. Did you go and talk to Pretorius after this joke by Coetzee, to find out from him what had happened?

MR OLIFANT: No, I didn't.

MR VISSER: Weren't you concerned?

MR OLIFANT: Well after he has told me that everything was under control, I wasn't any longer concerned.

MR VISSER: I just want to put it to you that you actually gave five different versions of what occurred here. It's on the record, I'm not going to repeat it all to you, I'm going to argue it. But I want to put it to you that Coetzee denies that this conversation ever took place, as you gave evidence here.

MR OLIFANT: Well I don't dispute that.

MR VISSER: You don't dispute it? He says it didn't take place, he never spoke to you about this joke that you're talking about.

MR OLIFANT: Maybe he was relating something else in place of the incident.

MR VISSER: Yes, alright. Now let's get to Grobbelaar. And I want to put to you that at page 198 you gave the evidence that Pretorius phoned Grobbelaar and informed him of the planned operation, is that right?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Where were you - where was Pretorius when he made this phone call?

MR OLIFANT: In his office.

MR VISSER: At where?

MR OLIFANT: Kibler Park.

MR VISSER: Kibler Park.

MR OLIFANT: Johannesburg.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I just want to correct you. He didn't inform Grobbelaar, he actually was asking for Grobbelaar's go-ahead.

MR VISSER: First I'm reading from page 198, Chairperson -

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see. His viva voce ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: I'm coming to his evidence - there are three steps, Chairperson, I'm coming to the second one in a moment.

At page 198, to make it clear to you, what I read here in paragraph 7 is that -

That's what I'm referring to, I don't want to confuse you. Okay? And you said that was from Kibler Park.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Were you present when this telephone call was made?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Could you hear what Grobbelaar was saying?

MR OLIFANT: I never heard anything, but since there was an operation to take place, I immediately reflected no, he might be informing him about the operation which we were supposed to have done.

MR VISSER: So were you drawing an inference that he might be telling Grobbelaar about the operation, is that what you're now saying?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR VISSER: So he didn't say listen Grobbelaar, we are going to kill three activists tonight.

MR OLIFANT: I agree with you.

MR VISSER: He didn't say that. Alright. Are you fluent in Afrikaans?

MR OLIFANT: No, no, very little, I know very little Afrikaans actually.

MR VISSER: And what language was Pretorius speaking to Grobbelaar?

MR OLIFANT: In Afrikaans. You see the thing is that you repeated here today the question of the planned operation, but you then said he requested permission, if I understood you correctly, from Grobbelaar to carry on with the operation. Could that possibly be true? Because I'll tell you why I ask you the question, to be fair to you. If on your version, Grobbelaar wasn't informed of the details of the operation, how could he give authorisation for the operation? And what is more is, why would he have to give authorisation, the General had already given authorisation? Can you explain that?

MR OLIFANT: Well I thought since he was phoning Mr Grobbelaar, he was actually informing him about the whole operation.

MR VISSER: You thought so.

MR OLIFANT: Yes.

MR VISSER: Isn't the truth of the matter that this also never happened, as you tried to put it in paragraph 7? Can I put it to you this way. If you to page 168, paragraph 26, isn't this far closer to the truth? The last sentence -

Note please, not operation, work. Isn't that far closer to the truth?

MR OLIFANT: Well it's possible.

MR VISSER: Well you know you're the applicant, you go to different conflicting versions. I'm asking you, did Grobbelaar say go on, carry on with your work, I'm on duty tonight, or did Grobbelaar say I give permission to continue with this operation to kill these victims? Which is it?

MR MALAN: In all fairness, there was never any evidence that he said that Grobbelaar gave him permission to kill the victims. I'm just quoting your words.

MR VISSER: Maybe I'm unfair. Did Grobbelaar - can I put it differently Did Grobbelaar not - if there was a telephone conversation which Pretorius has conceded there might have been, which is true? Did Grobbelaar say carry on with your work or was Grobbelaar informed of a planned operation and did he give permission for it? Which of those two is it?

MR OLIFANT: Carry on with the operation.

MR VISSER: I see, so you want to stick with that. Alright. How do you know what Grobbelaar says if you can't hear him?

MR LAMEY: I don't think he stated that that is what Grobbelaar said, he overheard what Pretorius stated.

MR VISSER: How did you know that Grobbelaar said carry on with the operation? Pretorius didn't say that, Grobbelaar that.

ADV MOTATA: But in all fairness, I think the question you asked Mr Visser, he said he could only hear Pretorius, he could not hear what Grobbelaar was saying to Pretorius. I think we've got that evidence on record.

MR VISSER: The question is now precisely on that evidence. How can he say, how does he know what Grobbelaar said, carry on with the operation, carry on with the work or whatever.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know Mr Olifant? Did Mr Pretorius tell you what Grobbelaar had said pursuant to his discussion with him telephonically? Or you again assumed.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just come in here. His evidence is not that Grobbelaar said carry on with the operation. That is not his evidence, with all respect. And I don't know ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: His evidence is that Mr Pretorius asked for permission from Mr Grobbelaar if he could carry on with his operation.

MR LAMEY: Ja, he overheard a conversation into the phone of Pretorius saying that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: I will leave it. If it's now conceded that Grobbelaar didn't say anything of the kind, well then the question falls away, Chairperson. That's not how I understood his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Visser, I think in his viva voce he's been quite clear that it was Pretorius who asked Mr Grobbelaar if he could proceed with the operation and he didn't take it any further than that.

MR VISSER: Lastly, you say Grobbelaar was present at the scene of the explosion at Midway, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Do you intend to say by that that he was there when the explosion went off, or that he visited the scene later?

MR OLIFANT: He visited the scene later.

MR VISSER: I see. Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I do apologise, my attorney has been frantically sending me notes and I've been ignoring them. May I perhaps just comply with some of his requests? I have one issue that I have to raise.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Olifant, Mr Pretorius tells me that after Mr Liesk had spoken to you, you told Pretorius what had happened, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, yes.

MR VISSER: And he says that you told him that Liesk showed you a parcel, a bag in which there were human bones.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, yes.

MR VISSER: And that he asked you, or that he told you that these are the bones belonging to the victims in this incident. Is that also correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And is it correct that you also told him that you felt compelled to work with the Attorney-General in order to safeguard your own position?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, that's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is Mr Liesk?

MR OLIFANT: He's an investigating officer from the Attorney-General's office.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what bones are you ...(intervention)

MR VAN DER MERWE: Excuse me Madam Chair, maybe just to assist, page 151 of the bundle. This applicant's application was fill in initially by Andrew Gordon Liesk who is from the Special Investigating Team of the Attorney-General, the super squad.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now what bones - when did he show you these bones?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just come in. I want to know what the reason for the remark of Mr van der Merwe is, because I've led this evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no he was assisting me because I had put the question who is Mr Liesk.

Mr Olifant, what bones did Mr Liesk show you?

MR OLIFANT: Mr Liesk he called me to the Attorney-General's office in Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: When was this?

MR OLIFANT: This was two-and-a-half years back if I'm not mistaken.

CHAIRPERSON: That's in 1997.

MR OLIFANT: Somewhere there, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR OLIFANT: And he said that "Okay, we have discovered the activists bones and here are they in the bag".

CHAIRPERSON: And proceeded to point them out to you?

MR OLIFANT: No, he never showed me, he never really opened the bag but he just showed me the bag which contained the bones. That was it.

CHAIRPERSON: Now was this prior to you applying for amnesty or shortly after you had lodged your application for amnesty?

MR OLIFANT: Madam Chairperson, I cannot recall whether it was before I had applied. ...(indistinct) it was after.

CHAIRPERSON: Couldn't this have been a reason that compelled you to apply for amnesty or probably made it easier for you to find the process more appealing to apply for amnesty?

MR OLIFANT: Well he is the one who helped me to apply for amnesty actually.

CHAIRPERSON: So was that before you were shown or told about the bones of the activists?

MR OLIFANT: After, after I was shown the bones about the activists.

CHAIRPERSON: You then applied for amnesty.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And he assisted you in your application for amnesty.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR MALAN: That was after he had shown you the bag which he said contained the bones?

MR OLIFANT: The bones, yes.

ADV MOTATA: And would that be during - because the assistance from Liesk in your application is on the 11th December 1996, of the application for amnesty. So you would be entirely certain when you saw him?

MR OLIFANT: I cannot precisely be certain about the date, but I know for a fact that he first investigated me, interrogated me, and thereafter I was open to him about the whole issue and he then said okay, that's good, now I will help you, the Attorney-General has instructed me to apply amnesty for you.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So it must have been after your many meetings with him that you proceeded to apply for amnesty.

MR OLIFANT: Yes, that's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loader, do you have any questions to put to Mr Olifant?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LOADER: Just one dealing with the same aspect, Madam Chair.

I'm instructed to put to you Mr Olifant, that Mr Moni says you had a conversation with him, he can't recall precisely when it was, when you said exactly the same thing, that you had seen Mr Liesk and if he recalls correctly, you mentioned that it was in the lift at the Attorney-General's office when he was holding one or two boxes you indicated and that he indicated to you that those boxes contained the bones of the activists. But that's the extent of that conversation. Do you confirm that?

MR OLIFANT: Well I might have said something similar to that to Linda Moni. I don't dispute that.

MR LOADER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van Heerden.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair, just one aspect.

Are you willing to assist the family to point out the place where this incident took place?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, I am willing.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you. No further questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Madam Chair, no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Mr Olifant, in terms of assisting the family, this last bit of evidence that came out under cross-examination about the bag which according to you, Mr Liesk said contained the bones of the two activists. Has that ever surfaced again in communications with the Attorney-General's office? Have you heard of that again, or was it only at this one occasion?

MR OLIFANT: I've never heard about it, it was only on one occasion.

MR MALAN: The fist statement which Mr Lamey referred us to, and specifically page 161 and further, you said this was a statement typed by the TRC people after they had discussions with you.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Did they read it back to you, can you remember that?

MR OLIFANT: No.

MR MALAN: Now again on this issue of the bones, this is a very, very, it's not only sensitive but I think is a very important aspect to bring closure in some way or another, especially to the victims and relatives but also to getting to the truth. Are you pretty sure that Mr Liesk said this? Is there any other evidence except your word on this score? Do you know of anyone else who has knowledge of this?

MR OLIFANT: Not that I know of.

MR MALAN: You haven't had any contact with any of the relatives before the amnesty application?

MR OLIFANT: No.

MR MALAN: Before this hearing.

MR OLIFANT: No, Madam Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Chair, I don't think I can take it further with questioning, but I think we should at least in some way find assistance in taking this further, as far as the victims are concerned. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It is my feeling that it is a matter of cardinal importance to the victims and we will be directing Mr Steenkamp on behalf of the Committee, to liaise with Mr Liesk, who is in the office of the Attorney-General in Pretoria, and Mr Steenkamp would be requested that Mr Liesk's assistance be sought in this regard immediately. And we would request Mr Steenkamp to come back and report to this Committee as to what has transpired during his conversation with Mr Liesk.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I'll gladly do so. I can maybe just state on record as well that we had previous dealings with the Attorney-General's office, not in this matter but in other matters, but the normal view of the Attorney-General is that officers of his office are not willing and able to come freely and voluntarily to the hearing. So they will probably have to be subpoenaed as well for this hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying Mr Liesk will not be in a position to assist you with regard to the question of the bones that allegedly were shown to Mr Olifant, which were contained in some bag or a box or some container of some kind?

ADV STEENKAMP: No, Madam Chair, what I'm saying is it will probably have to take a subpoena from this Committee to get information or any information, or at least get the presence of Mr Liesk here at this Committee. That is my personal practical experience so far until today.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe we should try to be a little optimistic, Mr Steenkamp. Try and make contact with Mr Liesk. Should you experience any difficulty come back to us and the necessary action will taken by us to ensure that they do give us and the family some kind of co-operation. It is a matter of vital importance to the family.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair, I'll do so.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Chairperson, I wonder whether I might ask for an indulgence, just to put one brief question to Mr Olifant and then to make some contribution if possible, to this issue about what should be done as far as the Attorney-General is concerned. May I just put one question, a further question to Mr Olifant?

Mr Olifant, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, you may.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But I am not very happy in granting you that opportunity, I'm doing it for the second time. But you may proceed.

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson, we are trying to get at the truth here and it's only from that point of view.

Mr Olifant, isn't it true that because of this experience which you had with Mr Liesk, because of the fact that you thought it better to assist the Attorney-General, that you then thought up this version of the meeting with Mr Coetzee?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, or no, Mr Olifant?

MR OLIFANT: You know the answer is getting difficult to me because I know for a fact that I was under severe interrogation by Mr Liesk and somewhere I might have extracted some passages you know what I have said to Mr Liesk during that interrogation into the amnesty application.

MR VISSER: That's not the question. The question is, was it after the severe interrogation by Mr Liesk and having been shown this bag and told what is in it that you decided to tell him this story about the meeting between yourself and Mr Coetzee?

MR OLIFANT: Well it's possible that I might have taken up from, I might have made a conclusion that you know Mr Coetzee told him about this, that everything was under control, and anyway he might have taken up the bones the scene.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have a discussion with Mr Coetzee at all?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, I had a discussion with Mr Coetzee, that I'm sure of.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson. Chairperson, perhaps what could be established from the Attorney-General is whether there was a post-mortem, a legal post-mortem held, whether there's a docket. That would be very helpful. I'm not suggesting that we should postpone this matter in order to hear Mr Liesk, I believe that there's sufficient evidence before you here to deal with the amnesty applications, but only as far as assisting you inasfar as the family is concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I think Mr Steenkamp has already been directed by this Committee and will do in accordance with our direction and hopefully report to us when we commence with our hearing on Tuesday next week.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I'm sure during the adjournment I will probably be able to contact Mr Liesk and get an answer from him today.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and in the process of our short leave as a Committee, when we are not sitting, you may revert to me at any time prior to Tuesday should you experience any problems.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: I've got no re-examination, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: I've got no questions.

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

MR OLIFANT: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe, I take it that it is now your turn to lead evidence in respect of your three applicants.

MR VAN DER MERWE: That is correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: They are all present today.

MR VAN DER MERWE: They are all present and available and willing.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe this will be an appropriate time to take the lunch adjournment before you proceed to lead their evidence. Who are you going to start with?

MR VAN DER MERWE: I'm going to start with Brig Wybrand Andreas Lodewikus du Toit, who shouldn't be long. But I'm in your hands.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. No, we will be guided by you. So we'll then proceed to hear Mr du Toit upon our return from lunch. We'll have a 45 minute lunch adjournment, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, did we adjourn when it was - no, it was Mr van der Merwe's turn to lead evidence and we'll be starting with the evidence of Mr du Toit.

ADV STEENKAMP ADDRESSES: Madam Chair, maybe just before we proceed, if I may be allowed a minute or two. Madam Chair, in the break I had the opportunity to contact Capt Liesk, in the presence of one of the witness protectors, and he informed me that currently he is in Mozambique or on the border of Mozambique. I explained to him just quickly what the reason was for the Committee to get him to the hearing. He will avail himself next week, and the date so far that's had been, or the time that's been arranged with him is between one and two next week Thursday. I've requested that an investigating officer, apparently an Inspector Peet van der Merwe, will also accompany him and he will also be present at the hearing next week, depending on whether or not everybody else can be present next week Thursday between one and two o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Steenkamp, I think there is no need for everybody to be present, it's the Committee who would like to speak to them pertinently with regard to some of the side issues relating to the interest of the victims' relatives with regard to the bones, the existence or non-existence thereof.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We thank you for having quickly attended to the matter, Mr Steenkamp.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe, are you in a position to commence?

MR VAN DER MERWE: I am, thank you very much. I have placed before you an additional statement by Mr du Toit, which is just to supplement his statement which was not bound in bundle 3. I think for practical purposes we will have to - the application of Mr du Toit which starts with the paginated page 240, you indicated yesterday you would be marking as and exhibit. Would that be ...?

CHAIRPERSON: F.

MR VAN DER MERWE: F then. And then his subsequent statement, would that be Exhibit G? I've placed it in front of you. I think it's right under your arms now.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm checking mine, I don't seem to be having anything additional ...

MR VAN DER MERWE: I placed it right there where you are. You must have picked it up when you came in. It's a thin document and it is the signed copy as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Somebody must have tampered with the documents subsequent to you having placed them because there is nothing in front of me. I think my colleague has tampered with my documents.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I apologise. I put three copies down on the table. First there's a bundle which will be Exhibit F.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no I definitely do not have Mr du Toit's further supplementary affidavit.

MR VAN DER MERWE: It would be G then.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think Mr du Toit would prefer to give his evidence in Afrikaans. I think he should be sworn in, thank you.

MR MALAN: Mr du Toit, you have previously applied, if I recall you have no objection to taking the oath.

WYBRAND ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr du Toit, you have applied for amnesty here today for any deed or delict which was committed before, during or after the incident which led to the death of the three deceased, Mr Nceba, Mr Khumalo and Mr Ngwenya, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Just to provide the Committee with the necessary background, initially in 1996 you had already applied for amnesty and one of the incidents which you listed at that stage is then embodied in Exhibit F as it has been placed before the Committee at this stage. Exhibit F then has also been compiled by yourself without the assistance of an attorney. This was before you approached any attorney to assist you in these matters, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: During the compilation and composition of your application you then stated it clearly in this document that upon various occasions you were involved in the adjustment of limpet mines and handgrenades, with regard to the detonators of such items, which could then be used operationally.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: At that stage you also indicated that you were not aware of the ultimate result of all this apparatus and that is why you attempted to compile your application as generally as possible, as it is reflected in the exhibit.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Then at this stage you confirm that Exhibit F is true and correct and you request that the Amnesty Committee would consider the entire exhibit as paginated from 240 to 284, when considering your amnesty application.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: If we can then go to Exhibit G. At this stage Chairperson we would just request, as my learned colleague Mr Visser has previous done with regard to Exhibit F, Mr du Toit initially with paragraphs 7(a) and (b) indicated that these were not applicable and I think that this is in Exhibit F on page 272, the paginated 272, we then request at this stage an amendment simply to indicate that Mr du Toit was then a supporter of the National Party at that stage. That would then be paragraphs 7(a) and (b).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, your application succeeds for such an amendment.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Chairperson.

Then Mr du Toit, you have already testified in a similar application in which reference was made to the so-called Zero-Zero application, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And this application briefly, was about the detonators of handgrenades which were also adjusted to a zero delay and as a result, various persons were killed and injured in action on the East Rand.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: If you could then proceed for us with Exhibit G. You may begin at "Additional Information" to you amnesty application. Please just read the facts into the record for us.

MR DU TOIT: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Just for the information of the Committee, at the stage when this incident took place, could you just briefly describe to the Committee what position you occupied, what your position in the South African Police was.

MR DU TOIT: I think I was a Lt-Col. I was in control of the mechanical division of the Technical Division. It was primarily the unit which was involved with the adjustment of relevant apparatus during this time.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I think that you have dealt quite thoroughly with this in your application, the original application, which is Exhibit F on page 250 and further on, in which you describe what the duties of your unit were at that stage. The persons to whom you refer, Lt-Cols J F Kock and J Kok, what were their positions?

MR DU TOIT: Under correction I would say that at that stage they were both Captains, who served below me. They were confidants and persons whom we would ordinarily have supported in the execution of covert operations.

MR VAN DER MERWE: But they resorted directly under your command?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Furthermore, I would like to ask you, the capacity, did your unit have the necessary capacity to deal with requests which came your way, such as in this case, from Pretorius?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I think that during the previous hearing which dealt with the same aspect, the former Commissioner, Gen Johan van der Merwe, expressed that we had the necessary capacity and that I as the Commander, could make certain decisions in this regard due to my capacity. Although the capacity to give orders did not resort within us, we could deal with requests from outside.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Very well. We have used the term "request" up to this point, but in reality, would you say that it was a request or what was it really?

MR DU TOIT: This request was essentially an order, but because all operations of this nature, according to the best of my knowledge, had received approval from a higher level, by the time that it reached me the merits of the operation had already been determined and authorised.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And then in this specific case, as you have already testified, you were informed that this was an already approved operation when your unit received the request, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is what I was informed.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You do not have any specific knowledge of the date of this incident or when exactly it took place, but you do not have a problem with the fact that it is stated that it took place before the 29th of July, because that was the date upon which the deceased passed away.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct. I do not have a clear recollection of the period in which it took place, but I would agree with the dates that have been provided to the Committee.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Furthermore, on page 3 of Exhibit G, you confirm the motives as set out there on that page, in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And you then also request that the Committee at this stage consider your amnesty application on the basis of which you have presented it to them at this stage.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Does that conclude his evidence-in-chief, Mr van der Merwe?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Visser on record, Chairperson, I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loader?

MR LOADER: I have no questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: No questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: I have no questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: I've got none, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Toit, is it your evidence that you were authorised, or there were standing orders given to you by Gen van der Merwe, to accede to request or comply with orders of this nature?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson. As I have explained - I think that evidence has already been given that I possessed deployed capacity, that I could not go into the merits of the situation but that I could offer support to operations which had already been authorised by a higher authority.

CHAIRPERSON: And that's the evidence you say has been already been led before another Committee.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Which has been touched upon in your affidavit as contained in Annexure F.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You are excused as a witness.

MR DU TOIT: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe, I didn't go back to you to find out if you wanted to re-examine, there was nothing for you to re-examine upon.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I confirm, Madam Chair, I have no further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you proceed to call your next witness.

MR VAN DER MERWE: It will be Mr Jakob Francois Kok.

JAKOB FRANCOIS KOK: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Kok, your amnesty application is embodied in bundle number 3, and on paginated page 50 up to and including 58, is that correct?

MR J F KOK: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You confirm that you submitted this application on your own during 1996, without the assistance of an attorney, is that correct?

MR J F KOK: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You then confirm the truth and correctness of that application, as it is contained therein and you request that the Amnesty Committee will consider this along with your viva voce evidence that you will give today.

MR J F KOK: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You also state in that application, and also then - excuse me, Madam Chair, maybe just for practical purposes, I have placed another statement before you of Mr Jakob Kok. That will be Exhibit H.

You then also state in your initial application on page 50, as well as here in Exhibit H, that you request that the amnesty application of Brig W A L du Toit, will also be considered and evaluated when they consider your own application.

MR J F KOK: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: If we can go to your application on page 50 of bundle 3, you also request that the Committee, as far as 7(a) and (b) is concerned, grant you the amendment to replace the "Not Applicable" with "National Party" and "Supporter", respectively. Is that correct?

MR J F KOK: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: The amendment is similarly granted, Mr van der Merwe.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Chairperson.

You may then proceed and briefly sketch your involvement as you have done in Exhibit H, from the bottom paragraph, 1. Please submit this to the Committee.

MR J F KOK:

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you. You then also confirm the rest which appears on page 3, from paragraphs 10 to 14, which would incorporate your motives with regard to this matter, is that correct?

MR J F KOK: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You then request that the Amnesty Committee would grant you amnesty as you have just requested and that it be dealt with as such.

MR J F KOK: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.

MR VISSER: Visser, Madam Chair, I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loader?

MR LOADER: I have no questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Loader. Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: No questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Mr Kok, I would just want to know, did you ever make any enquiries as to why these detonators had malfunctioned?

MR J F KOK: We discussed it amongst each other. Me and my brother discussed it between the two of us and we could not say with certainty, because we had provided these items in sealed containers, so it is possible that they may have been confused with other items which had been rendered harmless. One cannot really say what happened.

MR MALAN: Can you specifically recall, because you said that your brother handed it over to Pretorius?

MR J F KOK: Yes, he did the work, he worked with the detonators and he handed it over to Pretorius.

MR MALAN: But did he hand these over with other items as well?

MR J F KOK: No. It may be. He was busy with the modification of detonators at that stage. We took them out of the containers as they had been packaged, modified them and repackaged them. So it is possible that one of those containers or forms of packaging may have become confused.

MR MALAN: Do you mean with other detonators, that the wrong detonators may have been used for the operation, or have I misunderstood you?

MR J F KOK: No, the need would sometimes arrive that the detonating mechanism, not the detonator itself, but the detonating mechanism, had to be adapted so that it would not work at all. Kobus was busy working on an existing set of detonators and he had already replaced it into the cardboard boxes in which it have been originally packaged, so it is possible that the other detonators may have become mixed up with the original detonators. In other words, that he mistakenly modified detonators which had been modified already to never work properly.

MR MALAN: Is that the closest explanation that you can arrive at?

MR J F KOK: Yes, that is the closest explanation that I can offer as to why these detonators malfunctioned.

MR MALAN: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

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

CHAIRPERSON: You are excused as a witness, Mr Kok.

MR J F KOK: Thank you.

MR VAN DER MERWE: The following applicant, Chairperson, would be Jakobus Kok.

JAKOBUS KOK: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Please be seated.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I also have a statement which was drawn up for Mr Kok, which is before you. This will be Exhibit J, if we skip I.

CHAIRPERSON: Why should we skip I, I've never understood the reason for skipping I. If you don't mind, let's just stick to I.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I have found the practice like that when I joined the legal fraternity, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I have found it like that, but I've never understood it. Since we both don't understand the reason, let's just proceed and chronologically number it as I.

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Exhibit I. As you please, Madam Chair.

Mr Kok, your amnesty application is embodied in bundle number 3, from pages 32 to page 49, is that correct?

MR J KOK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: As the previous two applicants, you have already handed up this application in 1996, and you were not assisted by a legal advisor when you drew up this application, is that correct?

MR J KOK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You confirm the truth and the correctness of the contents of this application in bundle 3, from page 32 to page 49 and you request that this Committee considers it in the consideration of your amnesty application.

MR J KOK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And furthermore, an additional statement has been prepared which is Exhibit I before this Committee, is that correct?

MR J KOK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And you request similarly as the two previous applicants, that paragraph 7 of your application on page 32 of bundle 3, be amended to indicate that you were a supporter of the National Party and that the words "Not Applicable" be substituted with "National Party" and "Supporter".

MR J KOK: That's correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And you may continue ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr van der Merwe, I beg your pardon, I don't think it is necessary. I have read it and except for the amendment of persons he's already confirmed it. I think we can just stand by that.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I am satisfied, Chairperson, I will leave it there.

You have nothing else to add, and you confirm that the additional statement is true and correct, is that correct?

MR J KOK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Madam Chair, then I have no further evidence to lead.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: No questions, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loader?

MR LOADER: I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: No questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: I would just like to put the same question to this applicant, Chair.

Your brother has testified that you discussed the matter why it did not detonate, do you have any other explanation?

MR J KOK: Chairperson, the method which we used was infallible, I would say it was infallible. The possibility did exist that some of the switches which we had already "had made sure that they did not work", and it may have come about that we had adjusted the same switch to work immediately because once it has been rendered fallible, one could not see this because it was sealed, even we could not see it, unless we had taken the whole switch apart. So this is one possibility. The other possibility is that the detonator could have been dead because we did not provide the detonators for them, only the switch mechanism. It is difficult to surmise afterwards what had gone wrong with the mechanism, because we did not have access to the rest of the bomb.

MR MALAN: Did you not ask Mr Pretorius when he informed you that things had not gone off, to give it back to you so that you could find out where the fault had set in?

MR J KOK: I did not speak to Mr Pretorius about it. He did report to my brother, but to myself he did not report.

MR MALAN: Did you not have any need to find out why you were doing such "bad work"?

MR J KOK: It is difficult because when such an explosion takes place, one can find out what type of device was used, but the switch is usually blown apart.

MR MALAN: But this was not blown apart.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I beg your pardon, but the evidence which was led was that the two that did not explode were destroyed at the scene.

MR MALAN: Oh, I had forgotten about that. I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: They were destroyed by Mr Steenberg.

MR J KOK: That's right, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all, Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: I have no more questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

MR MOTATA: I've got none, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kok, you may step down as a witness.

MR J KOK: Thank you.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Madam Chair, that is the evidence on behalf of three applicants I'm appearing on behalf of. I would beg leave at this stage if they might be excused. They are available, I can contact them, but they unfortunately have some other economical commitments to meet and are not able to attend the hearing full-time at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, they will be excused on condition that they understand if there is a need for them to be recalled, they will be immediately available.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Definitely, thank you very much, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose this concludes your applications, all of you. You don't intend to lead further witnesses in support of your respective clients.

MR VISSER: Madam Chair, Visser on record, we don't intend to lead any further evidence, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Is it the same with you, Mr van der Merwe?

MR VAN DER MERWE: The same, I don't intend leading any further evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Loader?

MR LOADER: Likewise, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Also not in this case, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We now come to Mr van Heerden. Mr van Heerden, what is the position with you?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I've been approached by the families of the three deceased and a representative of each family requests an opportunity to testify before this Committee. If I may proceed and then call Nokuthula Skhosana, the cousin of Mr Ngwenya.

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you spell that for us, Mr? The name?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes. The first name is N-o-k-u-t-h-u-l-a and the surname is S-k-h-o-s-a-n-a.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. What language will she be using, Mr van der Merwe?

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Skhosana, the way I understand you, you don't want to testify under oath, you merely want to speak on behalf of the family and share their sentiments insofar as this incident is concerned.

MS NOKUTHULA: Yes, and this TRC process.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We are going to afford you such an opportunity.

MS NOKUTHULA ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Okay, thank you, Madam Chair.

As a representative that has been appointed by the Ngwenya family, I would like to say that the family feels that there are a

lot of things that they do not understand about this TRC process as has started yesterday. And the environment they said they have found to be very alienating and the procedures were not victim friendly, and as such they are happy as a family to be afforded this opportunity to appear before the TRC and to listen to the testimonies of the applicants, but this is not enough.

We as the family have heard everything that has been said thusfar, but the main concern of the family is that the remains should be brought back to the families and the matter cannot be closed until this is done, this goal is achieved. And for us as the family, the granting of amnesty to the perpetrators who are applicants today, should unequivocally rest on the remains being brought back to the families and verify that the remains are indeed those of Richard Ngwenya.

For the family, full disclosure of the truth upon which the granting of amnesty rests means that the correct remains are brought back to the family. And the family wishes to say that they are not satisfied about the applicants' alleged non-recollection of the exact spot where the bodies could be found, the bones could be found. And if it means that State resources or the perpetrators resources should be used to this end, then the Committee should make sure that this matter is pursued.

And the family regards this, not as a privilege but as a human right and justice being done to them as victims, who have thusfar not been taken very seriously. The TRC process has caused further trauma to the families, the families want to say that and would perhaps like some debriefing sessions to be arranged for them.

And the families would also like to be reassured that they will come to no harm by appearing before the perpetrators, who are applicants today. And it seems that for the applicants, everything is allegedly fuzzy and they claim that they cannot remember, but the families want to stress that as far as - and one applicant yesterday went as far as saying that all he wants to do is forget. For the families, the process of closure is very far and today's and yesterday's proceedings have sort of like brought everything to the fore afresh for them. And for the perpetrators everything is so long ago, but the pain and trauma for the family is still very acute and the Committee should bear this in mind as they make their decision on the granting or not granting of amnesty to the respective applicants. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Skhosana. We have noted the sentiments that you have expressed on behalf of the family. Insofar as the issue of the remains of the victims are concerned, as you yourself are aware, we have taken the matter up with the Attorney-General, Mr Liesk in particular and Mr Steenkamp has, without any waste of time, proceeded to act in accordance with the direction of this Committee. If that is not indicative enough of the compassion that this Committee, and in particular this Panel, has displayed insofar as the interest and the rights of the victims are concerned, I am afraid we can do no more. It is our function to be as compassionate to victims as we can and to that extent I, as a Chair, am convinced and am satisfied that I have discharged my duty in that regard to the best of my abilities, and so have been my fellow members that I'm sitting with.

As far as the applicants' rights are concerned, this is a quasi judicial process, we have to indicate fairness and justice which this process is all about. If the process of amnesty has not been fully explained to victims by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it is quite an unfortunate situation. To my mind and understanding, as a Commissioner of that Commission, the Commission has done its best to try and explain the process of amnesty to all and sundry. They've held workshops, I think amongst others, the Kulumani group has been quite pivotal amongst the workshops held by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in trying to educate and trying to make the process of amnesty known to the victims.

I must concede in my capacity as a Commissioner, that the process of amnesty has never found acceptance amongst the victims. I think it will be foolhardy to expect that process to find easy acceptance. But we as a Committee, are governed by the Act and we as Members of that Committee, are acting in accordance with the powers that we have been given by the Act. Our conduct of these proceedings are done precisely within the four corners of that Act. Inasmuch as we do that, we go out of our way to show more than compassion to victims, to be as sensitive to the needs of the victims as possible. We nevertheless note your sentiments.

Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair. If you can grant me a moment, I just want to make sure if the representatives of the other two families also want to continue with ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Madam Chair, there's only one person who wants to speak, that is George Nhlapo. He's a representative of the Nceba family he's the grandfather of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Will he also be expressing his sentiments without having to take an oath, Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Nhlapo, would you then take this opportunity to express your feelings and direct yourself to the Committee in relation to the applications appearing before us.

MR NHLAPO ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Thank you, Chairperson.

I am grateful to the Committee for informing us about our fellow family member who disappeared in 1989. We had no idea about his whereabouts until 1996, when three men came home to inform us that they were coming from the TRC. We were summoned to Braamfontein to meet our deceased, Nceba. We saw him. But then only Nceba was located, not the rest. They then informed us that Nceba was killed by a bomb in an explosion. To date we don't know where he disappeared to. And it is very much disturbing that these people are not coming out to indicate where he disappeared to. We need his remains. We are very much interested and would like to know where his remains are. We did not know anything about this at all until this surfaced. It is our humble appeal to these people to tell us where he disappeared to.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you through, Mr Nhlapo?

MR NHLAPO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The most important question to you is to know as to what happened to Nceba.

MR NHLAPO: Yes, indeed, that's the prime concern.

CHAIRPERSON: In the testimony rendered before this Committee by Mr Pretorius yesterday, if I'm not mistaken, was such that Nceba ended up being buried as a pauper. I don't know whether you heard about this.

MR NHLAPO: Yes, I did hear about this, but we just wanted to verify or get some verification with reference to that information. We want to know where to get hold of him.

CHAIRPERSON: There is a member of the TRC in charge of such similar things and now that you have submitted your request to the effect that you want that if possible you be given the remains so that you can give these remains the proper burial, that is a request noted by the Committee, to go and exhume the body. There is a member of the TRC in charge of that aspect of responsibility. There is also another Committee, Rehabilitation and Reparations Committee. They will contact you so that the other Committee responsible for locating the bones, can help you out pertaining to that. However, what is important is that Mr Pretorius has pointed out already that Nceba had been buried, because had he not been buried we would not know whether the was buried or burnt or whatever. So members of our Investigative Unit will continue in pursuance of that matter. They will meet with you directly and take this matter up.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair, I've got nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. May I just, as a question of just rounding up - I have already I think stated what I would have wanted to state as a Member of the Committee and also as a Commissioner of the Commission, may I just express my gratitude to the families of Ngwenya, Khumalo and Nceba, for having attended these hearings. We always know when we conduct these hearings, that we open up wounds which people had thought they were already healing, but at least we hope in that so opening up these wounds we are promoting an even better and greater healing than one that would have taken place had it not been because of this process. Because if wounds heal without sufficient information having reached the ears of the victims' family about what happened to their loved ones, how their loved were killed, we feel as a Commission, that that's not sufficient.

We hope this process insomuch as it has opened up those wounds, will also contribute to a better healing, which will make us to be a better society. I thank the family for attending.

Mr van Heerden, you will express it better on my behalf.

Coming back to the matter at hand, are we in a position to present argument?

MR VISSER: Visser on record, Chairperson, I can address you straight away.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Visser, you may proceed.

MR VISSER IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, we know what this amnesty application is about. The applicants nor ourselves knew what the correct names of the victims were. We are in gratitude to having now discovered who they were and we would ask you to include those names if you should decide to grant amnesty, instead of the ones that had been mentioned by the applicants. I submit with respect that there can be no doubt as to the identity of the people we're talking about and that they are the same persons, although we don't know the real names of two of them.

Chairperson, I would like to start off by referring again to the written argument as to the background and other matters, legal matters which have been handed to you previously, and I would ask you without me referring to that in any detail at all, to bear that into consideration when considering the amnesty applications of the applicants before you here today.

Chairperson, the relevant facts in my submission, are the following. The year in which the incident took place saw increased political activity and violence, particularly as we heard, in the Soweto area, that there were various units and MK units operating in that area and those units were mentioned by Pretorius in Exhibit B, page 5, paragraph 18, where he set them out. He also referred to the position which I will refer to as the Nceba Unit, took up. He explained that according to information, the Nceba Unit was part of Mfomolo Agmed Cathrada zone, that they were responsible or contributed to creating no-go areas where policing couldn't take place, which resulted in heightened political and violent activity within the areas, where policemen could not attend to the violence, that information showed that they were in contact with MK units within the area, and that is paragraph 24 to 26, that they had previously committed attacks. And you will recall that Mr Nceba at some meetings where Lengene had attended, boasted about that and that they were keen to do so again. That all appears from paragraph 28 to 41 of Exhibit B. It also became clear as time went on, that they had previously received training in AK47s and handgrenades and that this unit was particularly militant. That was the evidence given and it was not disputed by anyone.

Chairperson, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Who would have disputed that, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Well, Mr van Heerden on behalf of the families, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: How would he have been in a position to dispute? The family never attended the meetings where this militancy was displayed by Mr Nceba, so he could have been in no position to dispute.

MR VISSER: Well the point is it stands undisputed before you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: That's the fact of the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: For a different reason than the one you are suggesting.

MR VISSER: For any reason will do, Chairperson, but it stands undisputed before you.

Chairperson, the situation as it pertained at the time, you heard Pretorius as well as Steenberg and Nienaber testify before you, brought about pressure to obtain information on MK units' activities and identities and whereabouts and that this brought about a false flag operation, as it is called, whereby Lengene infiltrated this particular unit. Pretorius also referred to four other units which are not relevant here, but Lengene infiltrated here, and he had specific instructions, which were set out at page 7, paragraph 30 of Pretorius' Exhibit B. And it is clear, Chairperson, that Lengene had to try to obtain information about the whereabouts and the identities of MK people.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, whilst you are on that point, what are we to do with the evidence as given by the late Mr Lengene, that having been told that he must obtain information pertinently with regard to the names of the MK connected with the Nceba unit, as well as their addresses, what does he proceed to do? He proceeds to request Nceba to obtain information with regard to the -well, he recruits, he requests him to recruit police informers. He requests him to recruit - I just made a mental note, but there is nothing in his application which suggests that he really was interested in obtaining information about the addresses of the MK members or their identity.

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson, of course - and there are other issues. For example at page 233, paragraph 47 he talks about having trained his unit in AK47s, handgrenades and he even refers to limpet mines, which is in direct conflict with the evidence you've heard here.

Of course the problem is that Mr Lengene has since died and is not here to be cross-examined. And Chairperson, with great respect, we have seen often in this process, as we see often in Courts of law, that here's a witness giving slightly or even radically different evidence from what he has stated on paper previously and we saw it again in this hearing. We don't know if Mr Lengene was here and he was cross-examined and presented with proper legal advice, what he might have said. And without attempting at all to undermine the credibility of Mr Lengene, but for the mere objective fact that he is not here to come and repeat to you today what he remembers and perhaps make concessions etc., we submit that you will accept the evidence of Pretorius, or any other witness for that matter, who gainsays Mr Lengene.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. But my problem appears on page 232, that's paragraph 46, where he talks about having advised or instructed Nceba to identify police informers, obtain safehouses, and recruit other people from his organisation. From his organisation. Not recruit MK members, just ordinary persons. And it was as a result of that recruitment that people like Richard Ngwenya and Mr Khumalo were recruited.

MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, yes of course, and it does create the, it creates an impression that all of this was part of a plan just to kill these people.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Well with respect, you have heard first of all, the evidence of the applicants, but secondly, Chairperson, quite clearly, and I didn't make much point of it, but quite clearly some of the issues raised by Mr Lengene are clearly wrong. For example, the training of these three for two weeks, it clearly is an incorrect statement. And again, it's just to show, Chairperson, that he may well have made mistakes. His attention might not have been directed by himself to certain issues. He certainly didn't have the evidence of Pretorius in front of him when he made his statement. There's no suggestion that that is so. And if you look at Mr Olifant's statement - you will recall my first question to him is really all that he knew he heard basically from Lengene prior to the incident, and he said yes, and if you look at his statement, it comes very close to what Pretorius says the intention with the false flag operation was. The same with Mr Moni. And a reading of their statements will show one thing and that is that whatever they heard from Lengene, went far beyond what Mr Lengene himself said in his statement. And again, Chairperson, I don't want to criticise Mr Lengene who's not here to defend himself, but in light of the unfortunate fact that he's not here, wherever his evidence is in conflict with viva voce evidence that you're heard, we respectfully submit that you're bound in the law of evidence to accept the viva voce evidence, unless of course it is so flawed with improbabilities, that you can't accept it. But we submit that that is not the case before you.

Chairperson, I don't want to waste too much of your time, I'm just wondering whether I can't put my fingers very quickly on precisely what I want to show you to support this submission of mine. If you look at page 65, where Moni has made his affidavit ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That's Olifant's.

MR VISSER: No, that's Moni, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, this is Moni.

MR VISSER: Yes, Moni. I'm referring to bundle 2, I should have added. Bundle 1, I'm terribly sorry. Yes, Chairperson, I haven't prepared properly on all the details, but I can recall and I submit that if you read the statements of Olifant and all the statements of Moni, you will find a lot of information regarding to what pertained to this unit, which Mr Lengene did not mention. And it is from that point of view as well that we submit that the evidence given before you here yesterday and today ought to be accepted if there's a conflict.

Now Chairperson, as it happened the matter got out of hand. Thinking back in calm retrospect and using one's common sense, one can see why it happened. Clearly the Nceba group started expecting things from this man Lengene who presented himself as an MK cadre and the obvious things they would have expected would be training, would be weapons and would be training inside the country, weapons, and assistance to go outside the country to obtain military training and that's exactly what happened here. As Gen Nienaber said, at the end it turned out that they were busy with creating a monster. This in turn, because the information was not forthcoming as regards MK units, meant that Pretorius had to make more and more concessions in order to protect and for the upkeep of the credibility of Mr Lengene, he told you that first of all he gave him a Russian firearms, an AK47, handgrenades to go and show these people.

There was then promises made, if I remember his evidence correctly, about training and eventually when it came to the question of elimination, they demanded that they be sent out for training in a foreign country outside the borders of the RSA, as soon as the incident had been taken care of. So at the end of the day when matters started getting out of hand, because of demands, it was felt that Lengene who had not been exposed to the latest developments and ideas of MK, that somebody had to be brought in who had fresher knowledge of these issues and it was decided to bring in Moni and Monyane from Vlakplaas. And this happened about a month or so after the initial penetration, so the evidence was, of this group by Lengene. Moni also in fact supports that contention.

Moni comes in and he is now represented as an MK who has come in to deal with the Nceba Unit, and another false flag operation and he is also instructed to give them at one point - and by all accounts, Chairperson, this was very close to the actual incident. It must have been - Mr Moni in fact refers to it as the previous day, when he gave them instructions in the use of weapons.

CHAIRPERSON: He corrected himself, he conceded that he couldn't remember. If you read his affidavit it gives one an impression that there was only one training which lasted between two to three hours.

MR VISSER: Yes, but that might be two.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but then he corrected himself and he said it was over a two week period and the contact he made with them was only on two occasions, so he doesn't know when exactly.

MR VISSER: Yes, but the point I'm making is this. That whether it's one or two, after the last one, if I may then refer to it, it was very close, that must have been very close by all accounts, to the actual incident. And you will recall the evidence of Pretorius and confirmed by Moni, that what he learnt was that the group of Nceba had prior knowledge and had obviously had prior training in the use of AK47s and handgrenades and that he told Pretorius that.

CHAIRPERSON: That was my problem I must concede, Mr Visser, that was my problem because when you read Lengene's affidavit, one doesn't come out with an impression that these young persons were trained in any use of weapons. But I put the same question to Moni, how he came about to advise Pretorius of their training. He admitted that he advised Pretorius that his opinion or his impression of them was that they had already received training, but then he went on further, which actually sorted my problem and left me a little baffled, but then he confirmed Pretorius' version that Mr Nceba himself had told him ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: That's the point, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Yes, that's precisely the point that I was coming to. In fact it was confirmed by them, Chairperson. Apart from the fact that Moni said he could see that they knew what it was about, Mr Nceba actually confirmed to him the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he told him.

MR VISSER: He told him, yes.

So a situation had then developed. And these are all part of the material, or the relevant facts in my submission, had told them that and had started making demands which led up to this situation. No information was forthcoming, but one thing that appeared fairly clearly was that this group was waiting for weapons and if they had received the weapons, they would have, in all probability, gone over to attacks. There's no dispute about that before this Committee.

So Chairperson, then a decision is taken and you've heard very full evidence by Pretorius, confirmed by Nienaber, as to the fact that this was not a decision which was taken easily and on the spur of the moment, it was a matter which was based on information which had been brought by Lengene to Pretorius, and which he had told Nienaber about on an ongoing basis. And Chairperson, it is quite clear that this was not an easy decision, particularly for Nienaber. You will recall his evidence, that he found the whole thing so distasteful that afterwards he didn't even want to know what the details were. And I submit that that is typical of a man who came to a decision very hesitantly, but they discussed and they considered all possible alternatives. And we submit with respect, that if you analyse that evidence there is a very good reason why they could not do any of the things which they considered. And at the end of the day, bearing in mind the issues mentioned by Pretorius and confirmed by Steenberg and Nienaber, a decision was reached and that was that there's only one way out and that was to eliminate.

I want to make it clear, Chairperson, that the intention of setting in detail what considerations they considered, is not intended to be placed before you to show that they want to excuse themselves, or to want to show that they acted in self-defence or for any other excuse in law, but merely to make a full disclosure before you, in order to bring you into the picture of what tormented their minds at the time when this decision was made.

Chairperson, when the decision was made it was decided on the advice of Pretorius, that limpet mines that had been doctored be used. The reason for that were twofold, the one is that it would appear prima facie that here were activists that had blown themselves up with faulty ANC weaponry. And the second possible consequence that was foreseen was that it might stem violence because prospective activists wanting to use limpet mines, might be scared to do so in the future.

Chairperson, when the decision was taken ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I just take you back.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why should it have acted as a deterrent to other activists? Is it not conceivable that the other activists might have simply taken this as having been carried out, an operation carried out by people who were not properly trained?

MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, place yourself on the ground, in the position of an activist, how does he know? Does he take that chance? But in any event, this is what the applicants considered. Whether in fact it would have turned out that way, that's another matter. But they told you what they considered. And in the spirit of making full disclosure, we presented that to you, Chairperson.

So Chairperson, the fact is, and Pretorius sets this out in paragraph 43 of Exhibit B, the fact is that they knew or they seriously suspected that this group would go over to some attack or other. And as Pretorius put it, what they did was to use the limpet mine scheme to direct the aggression to a place where other people would not be injured or killed and where no great financial, economic damage would be done. And that was the signal boxes.

The members of the group were then informed, there was a recce, reconnoitre - I'm not sure how you pronounce it ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Reconnaissance.

MR VISSER: Reconnaissance, yes, ... done and Nceba and his comrades were obviously keen, as Mr Olifant said ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well as you have also stated, you had created a monster.

MR VISSER: Yes, but a monster in the sense that I meant, not a monster in the sense that it was something that was created where there was nothing before. That's not my submission.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not saying it is.

MR VISSER: No, I just want to make that distinction ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There was something, but then you created an even bigger monster by training the group in the use of limpet mines. Initially they didn't have that training.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, the evidence there is not what you're putting to me, with respect. The evidence is that they were never trained in the use of limpet mines until after the decision was taken to eliminate them. That was quite clearly their evidence. They had been trained before, and Lengene says in paragraph 47 that he had trained them. But that doesn't accord with Pretorius' evidence. Although, how do we know, it might be that Lengene trained them, that Pretorius didn't know of, but what he knows of is that Moni was sent to train them in AK47s and handgrenades, and at that stage it appeared that they had been trained before. But what was made quite clear and I made a point in re-examination of clarifying that again, was that the training in the limpet mines, such as it was, only took place after the decision had already been made for them to be eliminated. They were then given a limpet mine and they were told to place it on the signal box and to pull the pin.

CHAIRPERSON: And the modus operandi for the elimination had been taken.

MR VISSER: Yes, yes, indeed Chairperson, it was only after that.

MR MOTATA: And is it after that when they realise no further information could be gained from Nceba, who was a person who wouldn't volunteer that information, a decision was taken that the training was merely to keep confidence that they have contact with these people?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson, as I understand the evidence, rightly or wrongly, it became apparent that Nceba was not going to give the information prior to the decision being taken. That was part of the consideration.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that. What wasn't quite clear to me was when the modus operandi was taken with regard to the elimination.

MR VISSER: That was at the last discussion. We don't know how many discussions there were between Pretorius and Nienaber about the elimination, but Pretorius - or was it Nienaber, said there may have been one or two.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you heard there was more than one.

MR VISSER: There was more than one. I think we can with safety accept that. But it was on the last occasions and it was after the decision had been taken to eliminate, then Pretorius said alright now, the way in which we should do this I suggest, is by using limpet mines, I can get the fuses that have been reduced to a zero retardation, I think is the word, zero tolerance. And that only came after the decision was taken, as I understand the evidence, Chairperson.

Chairperson, we know, and I don't want to dwell on what happened, the evidence is pretty much the same from all the operatives, that what happened is they went out - we set out at page 13 of Exhibit B, who accompanied who, for easy reference, but it is clear that only one of the mines exploded, there's no dispute about that, and that Elias and Castro were then shot by Moni and Lengene respectively, with the AK47s which they had in their possession.

Thereafter, when this was reported at Gys Farm, there was some concern about the fact that the mines had not exploded, there was some concern that they had not made provision for the contingency that one or more of the mines would not explode, you heard the evidence of both Steenberg and Pretorius, and they immediately realised that they would have had to take further action in order to protect themselves if nothing else. They then went to collect the bodies. We know how. First it was Castro and he was left in a bluegum bush when they went to fetch Elias and Chairperson, they then picked up Castro, went back to Gys, picked up tyres and petrol and then they drove to a spot which they have described to you where the bodies were placed in the ditch and they were covered by petrol and oil and tyres and set alight and their bodies destroyed.

Chairperson, I may or may not have left out one or perhaps even more relevant facts, but those are the material facts in my submission, regarding this incident. And as far as that is concerned, it is my submission that the three applicants for whom I appear have gone out of their way to make a full disclosure to this Committee about precisely their part in this incident, they have held nothing back, they have conducted themselves, in my respectful submission, as one would expect from honest witnesses, they have made concessions where they thought they could make concessions, they have not adopted an attitude that they are right and anybody else is wrong, they have tendered their assistance in any way at all, in relieving the pain of the families. We hope that something might come of that, we don't know. I heard, and perhaps Mr van Heerden can elucidate on this point, but I heard for example, that apparently in relation to the bones that I asked Mr Olifant about, that certain DNA tests were done. I didn't know about that, but it's something you could take up perhaps with Liesk.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that will be taken up. I think we'll be able to get further elucidation from the A-G's office.

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson. And by and large Chairperson, with respect, we submit that there are no material differences on the relevant evidence concerning this incident, among any of the applicants. There are some differences and I'm going to refer to the immediately, but it is my submission that Mr Moni as well as Mr Olifant by and large, gave evidence which is comparable and which can fit in with the evidence of the three first applicants and vice versa.

Chairperson, coming then to what disputes there might be, I have submitted to you that in my submission they're not material. The one issue is whether or not they were ordered, should the mines not be set off, that the activists had to be shot. Very properly ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: But surely, Mr Visser, that's not in dispute after the concessions given.

MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, after cross-examination and the evidence of all the people, in fact there are very few points that remain an issue. I'm just lifting out the points on the papers, just to remind you what the issues were, but my submission is that basically there's nothing left in dispute apart perhaps from, not even Grobbelaar, but perhaps.

The issue of whether they were ordered to shoot, it's quite clear on the probabilities that at least Pretorius' body language must have told them that and they're given AK47s, on Pretorius' own version. I mean, to do what with? To shoot with, clearly. The issue which was mentioned of an order to shoot Moni, he himself has set that straight. When Elias died, Chairperson, it is the impression on all the evidence, with great respect, that he must have succumbed very soon after being placed in the red Husky. Even Olifant has conceded that he didn't inspect the body and as far as he's concerned, he may have been dead when they reached the farm. Pretorius says that it was a very short distance from where they picked up Olifant to where they Castro and it was a question of within minutes, and when they reached that point he had succumbed to his wounds.

Who had fetched Moni and Olifant, Chairperson, is really totally irrelevant basically. ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What? Come again, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: The issue of who went to fetch Moni and Monyane from Vlakplaas on the first occasion, Pretorius has conceded it might have been him. He remembers it differently, but it ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's not sufficiently relevant for us to decide.

MR VISSER: It takes the matter no further.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Whether only AKs, or two AKs and a Tokarev, or two AKs and a Makarov were given, Chairperson, these are the type of disputes or difference in evidence one would expect after 10 years. And clearly, for people who made their life, their livelihoods basically, at Vlakplaas and in the Police, by the use of what they used and that is firearms. It is so easy to understand that such a discrepancy could turn up.

CHAIRPERSON: In that case, Mr Visser, shouldn't we probably believe what Mr Moni and Olifant and Mr Lengene are saying, because they all seem to be saying Mr Monyane, for reasons of his youth or being younger than the others, the fact that he was younger than the other operatives, meaning Vlakplaas operatives, he was given something other than an AK47. The others are saying a Tokarev and one is saying a Makarov.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I stand ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But clearly Mr Pretorius must be wrong in that regard.

MR VISSER: Well, except that at page 196 of bundle 1, Olifant supports Mr Pretorius, at the bottom of that page. I did not understand Mr Olifant to give evidence about anything but AK47s, but really it takes the matter absolutely no further, as you're already pointed out, Chairperson. So it's not even necessary for you to accept the one or the other's version really, with great respect.

Chairperson, unless you want to hear me on anything else that might be bothering you about those issues, I would like to come lastly and very briefly, to the issue of the implicated person, Mr Coetzee. We have heard, I've counted no less than six version given by Mr Olifant in this regard. As you from the Chair have pointed out, your failure to be able to understand, we have the same problem. We fail to understand if such a conversation took place, how it could ever have been related to this particular incident. We take it no further than that, Chairperson. If the Attorney-General decides that Mr Coetzee should be prosecuted, well we'll deal with that matter when the time comes. But at this stage, Chairperson, quite clearly there is garbled evidence before you about any part that he might have had in this situation and we find, and we must say this, we find it unfortunate, Chairperson. We agree with you in that regard, that such a matter had to be raised in such sensitive circumstances as the present one, where the bones of the deceased have not been found. We actually find that in bad taste.

As far as Grobbelaar is concerned, Chairperson, well whether there was or wasn't a telephone call is not really a problem, Pretorius conceded there may well have been. What was said in that conversation, Chairperson, is clearly in dispute. Not only is Mr Olifant's evidence that Grobbelaar was informed about the operation, disputed by Pretorius, but is also disputed by himself in his original amnesty application where he suggested that Grobbelaar had said to Pretorius "well go on with your work". So Chairperson, that takes the matter no further and again it's an issue to be decided by the Attorney-General, and if that should happen, well then we'll deal with it. But other than that, I don't believe that it is necessary for me to take up further time of yours with those issues.

In any event, as my attorney just correctly points out to me, is that for those incidents for which Coetzee and Grobbelaar, in which they took part, they have applied for amnesty, Chairperson, and that's on record in the records of the Amnesty Committee. It's most improbable that they would leave this out, where they are now being implicated.

Chairperson, with that, I submit with respect, you have heard on the evidence what these people might have made themselves guilty of and we would ask you to favourably consider, you and Your Honourable Committee, granting the amnesty as described by us on the cover sheet of Exhibit B and Exhibit C and D, between two lines on the first page. And Chairperson, in all the statements which are exhibits before you, all the witnesses have also stated, as they understand, the different offences for which they need to obtain amnesty and we would ask you to favourably consider and to grant such amnesty to the applicants. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser. Mr van der Merwe, before I come back to you, I would like to start with Mr Loader first and then proceed to Mr Lamey, then I'll come back to you.

MR LOADER IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, my learned friend Mr Visser, has very correctly articulated what the central issues are in this matter and where he perceives the points of dispute to lie in and in that respect I'm in complete agreement with him, with respect. In fact I go so far as to suggest, as pointed out by you, Madam Chair, that in respect of my client, the applicant Mr Moni, and Mr Pretorius, there remain no points of dispute and there remain no material areas of their respective versions that are not reconcilable with one another.

At the outset of the application and on a cold clinical reading of the original statements as they stood, there appeared to be one or two aspects of variation and potential dispute and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Inconsistencies.

MR LOADER: Inconsistencies. ... and that certain has been explained. And I don't believe, with respect, that I need to go back and highlight all of those aspects now, it's been dealt with. I'll certainly address specific aspects if you wish me so to do.

In respect of Mr Moni and his application, in broad terms he confirmed the contents of his original affidavit insofar as it related to all of the events leading up to the incident itself. And he dealt in detail as well as in broad terms, with his background, his training, his involvement with the African National Congress, his exile period out of the country, his reintroduction into the country, his arrest, his detention and the circumstances surrounding that detention. And I mention that because in my respectful submission, it's directly relevant to what governed his thought process throughout the period of time he was then and thereafter working and seconded to the, or incorporated within the ranks of the South African Police at that stage. He was then an operative and known as an askari at Vlakplaas, they worked under extraordinary circumstances, they were subjected to harsh regimens of discipline, they worked in circumstances where orders were never questioned, instructions were never questioned, insubordination was never tolerated, high standards of discipline were expected and maintained and exacted if necessary, by force.

CHAIRPERSON: But not when it comes to drinking.

MR LOADER: Well with respect, Madam Chair, when it came to drinking, when it came to drinking at Vlakplaas, those standards were still maintained. What he's articulated in his statement is that one of the central problems that the askaris in particular had, was an inclination to resort to the bottle when times were tough. And this was what invariably landed them on the wrong side of the disciplinary line when it came to the attitude adopted by Mr Eugene de Kock at that stage. And he's highlighted the incident that transpired and occurred at Vlakplaas at a particular point in time, which must have been a terrifying incident for him. And he highlights all of these to describe and convey what it meant to be an askari, a former ANC activist now working within the ranks of the South African Police. In essence, what's being conveyed is that one finds himself in no-mans land. And that was the situation that Mr Moni found himself in at that stage.

He's described how they were then seconded with Monyane, him and Monyane seconded across to Mr Pretorius' unit and operation and he describes then all points reconcilable with Mr Pretorius, how the incident occurred, how the introductions were made through Lengene to the three activists, how the training occurred. My learned friend, Mr Visser, has touched on the potential points of variation as to when and how and the nature of the type of training that was implemented with these particular three individuals and I submit with respect, those are the precise sort of details that might become clouded over this period of time. Mr Moni has articulated that the contact could have been over a two week period, there might have been two separate contacts, they may have trained them on two separate occasions. But the fact of the matter remains, and it isn't a point of dispute by any party here, is that training was afforded to them, albeit on crash course basis, and as a result of that training and as a result of that contact, the three individuals agreed to cooperate and participate in the planned operation, and that was to detonate these explosives at designated points in order to commit sabotage. Certainly that would have been their intention at the time and what they understood themselves to be embarking on.

It's been described to you in his evidence, how the incident occurred.

The central issue that required explaining by Mr Moni, and in my respectful submission that has now been explained, was why there is a discrepancy between his initial statement made at the time or in October of 1996, and why there was a subsequent change where in the initial statement he seemed to indicate that he was acting on self-defence or as a result of certainly, an initiated attack against him. He freely concedes and openly concedes that that was not the case, that when he shot he shot to kill, no-one shot at him. On a question from Mr Malan, he very properly indicated his intention was at all times to shoot to kill.

At no stage has he indicated viva voce or otherwise, that he saw sought to disassociate himself from the objectives of the mission. It was stated quite clearly from the beginning that the objectives were to eliminate the three individuals, he knew what his instructions were, or he certainly knew what he understood his instructions to be from Mr Pretorius in respect of, should anything go wrong, their weapons were to be used and he used his weapon.

CHAIRPERSON: But when he initially used the word "I deliberately shot him at the legs", it didn't amount to disassociating yourself.

MR LOADER: He explained that it could be perceived to be as such, and he was questioned at length in this regard. I refer to the line of questioning for clarification by your colleague, Mr Malan, in this regard and the situation and the scenario was put to him that he knew what his instructions were, that he was to shoot to kill, he did in fact fire his weapon, it was an automatic weapon, he then goes off looking for Mr Olifant, assuming that he hasn't in fact eliminated the activist, he subsequently discovers that the activist is indeed found still alive or still breathing. And this statement of course is put together after the fact and he describes it as having made certain assumptions about what had happened at the time. He stated on more than two occasions, when answering these questions, that his intention was always to shoot to kill. And he's not standing before this Committee at all and suggesting that he acted on any other basis.

CHAIRPERSON: You are submitting that we should accept his explanation and we should regard the use of the word "deliberate" as an unfortunate word to have been used in his affidavit.

MR LOADER: Precisely, Madam Chair, precisely, that is my respectful submission to you, and he suggested no otherwise when he gave his evidence before you.

CHAIRPERSON: Even though he was assisted by a legal representative?

MR LOADER: Indeed, Madam Chair, these affidavits I must emphasise, and I'm certainly not in any position to give evidence to you in this regard, but these affidavits were drawn up at a time long before the present legal representatives were ever mandated to act on his behalf. And one is often faced with difficulties of a like nature in circumstances like this where one is dealing with incidents that happened many, many years ago and one is called upon to properly articulate with accuracy what happened in circumstances where even he has freely admitted that on this occasion in particular they had been drinking to fortify themselves. One doesn't know to what extent this may cloud his recollection of the whole thing. He has never offered these as any excuses for what he did, not in the beginning in his affidavit, he's never suggested that he was never responsible for his actions. With respect, in my submission Madam Chair, the import of this disclosure from the outset has always been to say this was the mission, this was the operation, we were to eliminate the three activists, I was involved, I was armed, we were there, I fired my weapon, we eliminated them, we took the bodies and we dumped them, and that is what happened with respect, Madam Chair.

MR MALAN: Mr Loader, is that statement correct? His first application referring to paragraph 51 and also in his viva voce evidence here, it was clearly one painting a different picture in order to prevent, as he understood at the time, him being prosecuted. He said it was a downright lie.

MR LOADER: Insofar as the actual shooting incident goes? Yes indeed, Madam Chair, his ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated.

MR LOADER: ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, your microphone is not on, so we are not transcribing ...(intervention)

MR LOADER: I beg your pardon. Yes, he certainly admitted that, that that was a lie. The extent of my submission goes that aside from his description of the actual shooting incident itself, he's never sought to distance himself from the operation. He never then went on and said from that point on I disassociated myself with the consequences, he referred to the fact that even at that stage that on their return to the scene the victim was then still breathing and that he was thrown into the back of the van. There can be no other inference to be drawn from that, but that they all knew that this man wasn't going to survive and he had associated himself with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think he has done so, it's just that it was a little problematic for us to understand the sequence in which he gave his evidence in his affidavit. But I will actually go with you on that one, because if one has recourse to page 31 and that's the second paragraph, he does state that though he was nervous he knew that all these young persons were going to die.

MR LOADER: Absolutely, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And that's even before he has changed his affidavit.

MR LOADER: Perfectly correct in my submission, Madam Chair. He has from the outset described his culpability, not in the most articulate fashion and perhaps initially in order to be evasive, but it certainly comes out. And certainly as the evidence stands right now and on the disclosure that he's made, in my submission he's made a full and open disclosure to you in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, one has to lay blame on the attorney who ultimately assisted him in drawing up these documents.

MR LOADER: I've no problem with that suggestion at all, Madam Chair.

In summary then, with respect, when one considers the provisions of Section 20 and its subsections, in my respectful submission, Mr Moni falls squarely within those subsections dealing with members of the Security Forces and acting with the avowed political objectives. And while he himself has not come forward and said he ascribes to the broad range application dealing with the political climate and motivation at the time, he falls within a particular category of operative and it's not expected of him to be as articulate in that regard, but he falls down the chain and he did the work so to speak, and he's described how that work was done.

In my respectful submission, Mr Moni is entitled to the amnesty which he seeks in respect of his criminal activities and a delictual basis in respect of these offences relating to the murders of all three of these activists. I'm prepared to address you on any additional aspect, Madam Chair, but save for that, that is my address on ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY IN ARGUMENT: I thank you, Chairperson.

As Mr Visser has pointed out, it's also my submission that on the relevant facts of this matter that pertains to the element of full disclosure, I submit from the point of view of Mr Olifant, he has made a full disclosure of all the relevant facts before this Committee.

It's my submission that as far as the contentious issues which I submit revolve around the communication with Mr Coetzee - and I have noted with respect, Madam Chair's concerns and the lack of understand as to how Mr Olifant could have come to that conclusion, that he and Pretorius fetched the bones the next day. My submission in this regard is that it's clear in his evidence that he had this conversation and this joke with Coetzee, which led him to believe from that conversation, to draw that conclusion. Now that might be a totally unreasonable belief, but that is what his belief is, believed at the time. And the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But you do concede that on the facts before us it's really ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: He also conceded as far as that is concerned, that he could ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ... is unreasonable.

MR LAMEY: ... it could be an unreasonable mistaken belief, yes. He also conceded that he might be mistaken in his own evidence about his inference to this particular incident. The fact of the matter is that I don't think that this is a - and that is my submission, that there is not any deliberate attempt here to implicate Mr Coetzee. I think there's no evidence before the Committee that indicates any motive on his part to do that. And my submission is that if it's also viewed by the Committee to be a mistaken belief from that communication, then that would not affect the elements of giving him amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, which is what I was going to ask you. Do you think it is relevant to the facts which we have to consider in deciding whether to grant him amnesty or not for the offences for which he seeks amnesty?

MR LAMEY: No, I don't think that is at all relevant to the aspect of full disclosure. I might just say this, that if Mr Olifant had that belief at the time from that conversation, although mistaken and unreasonable seen objectively, and he failed to disclose that, that could have been something else. That is all that I want to say on that point.

On the next aspect of Maj Grobbelaar, Mr Olifant was clear, in my submission, on the evidence that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry to have interrupted you whilst you are busy with your submission. You are now going through the implication of Mr Grobbelaar by Mr Olifant, which again I don't know if you want to address us extensively on. Is it relevant to the facts which we have to consider whether to grant him amnesty or not?

MR LAMEY: No, my submission is from the point of view of Mr Olifant's application, that is not relevant. May I just say this? As far it could be viewed as a deliberate attempt here to implicate a person and as far as it might affect the credibility, it's my submission that he was clear on this aspect and he overheard that conversation and that he merely stated to this Committee what he heard. and then he stated also about his suspicion. Now there are surrounding facts that led him to draw the inference with that conversation that he had ...(intervention)

MR MOTATA: Wouldn't we say it was a monologue and not describe it as a dialogue?

MR LAMEY: Yes, he could only hear one part of the conversation. And then my impression was because he was the officer on duty, that also led him to his suspicion which he stated in his - but those are all inferences and it affects a person which is not an applicant before this Committee, and I submit that it doesn't really affect Mr Olifant's application. We also don't have any gainsay evidence from Grobbelaar under oath in this regard, which could affect really the credibility of Mr Olifant in this regard.

Chairperson, then it's my submission that the aspect on the bonus has become common cause and is no longer my submission, point of dispute. Mr Olifant has ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He has conceded. ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr Lamey ...

CHAIRPERSON: ... he has conceded on that point.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, then as far as his political objective is concerned, in this regard he was a Constable at the time, as is the evidence before this Committee and he followed orders. He also stated what he knew about the political objective on page 199, and it's my submission that that is, although not as detailed as that of his Commanding Officer at the time, of which he hadn't had all the total knowledge which Pretorius had, it is not out of line and indeed in line with what Pretorius has stated. It's my submission, to summarise, that he has complied with the provisions of the Act and that he is entitled to amnesty for that reason. I may just want to point out that on page 194 it is stated that -

It's my submission that it goes further than an accomplice in this regard because he was part of the briefing and he planned to eliminate them and he participated by forming ...(intervention)

MR MOTATA: That he formed common purpose with the rest.

MR LAMEY: Yes, indeed. I would submit that it goes further, that it forms a common purpose, it forms a conspiracy and as has been the argument earlier this week before you, Madam Chair, I would submit that what would be proper is to grant him amnesty for any offence or delict arising from his participation in the killing of the three victims in this instance. If it's necessary to specify any offence further, I would submit conspiracy to murder, or murder as such, or any lesser offence which could be a competent verdict on those charges.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: As it please you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not going to be harsh on you, but as Mr Visser will know, because he has appeared before this Committee quite a number of times, we usually take a robust view when amendments with regard to acts for which amnesty is being sought, are not made right at the beginning of the hearing so that we can know which evidence is relevant for this Committee to consider and what aspects of issues must be allowed to be canvassed by other legal representatives. We don't want these matters to be raised during legal argument.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, are you referring to this specific paragraph?

CHAIRPERSON: I am referring to your intimation that you now seek to amend paragraph 9(a) as appearing on page 194.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just say what - I know with regard to factual matters, but my experience before the Amnesty Committee - I take note of the sentiments of this Panel, has been a request by the legal representatives to deal with this during submission stage and it is for that reason. I have, initially when we started with this, indicated that I will, at the beginning of Mr Olifant's evidence, address you further on this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: But if it is required in future that we make a formal amendment under oath in this regard - I apologise that I haven't done it, I will see to it that it's done.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't even have to make any formal amendments under oath, you need to mention right at the beginning that you intend to amend, so that we can know what issues to ventilate properly for purposes of deciding whether to grant amnesty in relation to what you would have amended. Because if these issues are not brought right at the beginning of these proceedings, then we would be sitting here just going through the evidence not knowing which facts we have to consider as evidence progresses during the proceedings.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Oh sorry, I am doing it for the second time. Mr van der Merwe, my humblest apologies.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I enjoy it when people ignore me, Madam Chair, I usually make too much of a noise.

CHAIRPERSON: I wish I could say I ignored you.

MR VAN DER MERWE IN ARGUMENT: No, no, not - or forgot about me.

I'm going to be brief. I think the three clients that I've represented, fall in a slightly different category to the rest of the applicants before the Committee. In this regard I would submit to the Committee that they were in the unfortunate situation where they, although they had a political motive, had a political motive of a bit of a different type of political motive. They were never put in any position where they were able to do a proper target evaluation or decide upon the merits of this operation. They were in the unfortunate situation where they received orders to supply or assist in an operation and where they had to rely on the operators on the ground and the people who gave the instructions for this operation, on their perspective and on their authority, or shall I say rather on their target evaluation, for them to have a political motive. In this instance it is clear that they would probably fall under Section 20(2)(f) of the Amnesty Act, in that they were persons who on reasonable grounds, believed that they were acting in the course and scope of their duties and within the scope of their express or implied authority. It is quite clear that when they were approached they were informed that authority for this operation had been granted at a higher level already and they therefore saw this as they have indicated in their amnesty applications, all three of them, that they were participating in this war against the freedom movements who were opposing the government of the day and who were trying to oust the government of the day at that stage. I don't think I'm going to take it any further than that.

I would also submit that they further comply with all the relevant regulations of the Act, they did not perform this for any personal gain, there was no personal malice, ill will or spite.

The only aspect which I think needs to be covered in short is that they did apply for amnesty, all of them, initially in 1996. As a result of the difficult position they found themselves in, they could not always assist the TRC and submit full facts at the initial stages regarding all the operations they were involved with because of the simple fact, as the Committee has heard, that they were not always aware where these apparatus or goods that they were making were being used and if they were used and if they were used successfully.

I would submit that there is nothing to contradict the fact that my clients made an honest and open confession as to their role in this operation and as such there should be nothing that stands in the way of this Committee granting them amnesty as they requested for their conspiracy to murder and murder and also any other crime which could follow from the facts that are before this Committee, lesser crime.

I don't know if there's any other aspect that you wish me to address you on, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN ADDRESSES: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I received no specific instructions to oppose any of the applications before this Committee. I don't think I can take the facts any further, I think I will leave it at that. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you leave it in the hands of the Committee. Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP ADDRESSES: Madam Chair, I don't have any comment except to say that as far as the requirements of the Act goes, all the details of the victims were already submitted to the R&R Committee for processing. And maybe just for record purposes, in the application of Mr Lengene, I've spoken to his wife, Mrs Cynthia Lengene, and explained the position regarding this and she informed me that the estate of her late husband is being resolved, there's nothing outstanding and she's fully aware of the applications being heard and wishes that the application be dealt with on the papers as it stands. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well this brings the applications of the applicants that we have considered yesterday and today, to a close. We are going to reserve our judgment in respect of these applications and undertake to be in a position to pronounce our decision in respect of all these applications, in due course. We thank you for attending.