CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, we have a lot of applicants to get through in the next two days, and I don't know about you, but I do know about members of the Committee, that they hope to get home sometime tomorrow, in which circumstances, I would suggest subject to your availability, that we may perhaps sit a little later than usual today. If any of you have problems that you cannot cope with, let me know, otherwise we may sit, but I don't propose to sit till midnight or anything like that, we may sit an hour or so longer, if that is all right.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just in that regard mention one thing, my client has discussed this matter with a forensic and ballistic expert and the information obtained from this ballistic expert, especially about burning marks around the wounds, apparently differs considerably from the evidence that you have heard of the medical doctors who gave evidence. I don't want to protract these proceedings, and therefore I wish to place on record that I have such a witness available and perhaps request from you an indication if you would want to hear further evidence around those issues or not, Mr Chairman. I don't at this point in time, I don't know what kind of weight you might want to give to that evidence and I don't know if it would be necessary to call this witness, however, he does say that, or the gist of what he told me, or what he told my client, was that the kind of ammunition that was used, would cause burning marks on the skin, so it differs directly from the evidence of the doctor.

CHAIRPERSON: We had two somewhat different versions from the doctors, haven't we? We had Dr van der Wouden and Dr or Prof Saayman and they differed as to, not as to what was seen, that was accepted, Dr Wouden was the only one who could testify as to that, but as I recollect the evidence, and I looked at it again yesterday, there were differences of opinion and I think there, I speak here without having consulted my colleagues on this precise aspect, and subject to further evidence we may hear, at the moment there doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence either way. The matter is one for your decision, it may differ as the day goes on.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. Thank you Mr Chairman. The witness may be made available, so if at any time the Committee feels that it may be necessary to hear evidence ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think not only the Committee, if our Evidence Leader or counsel appearing for the victims or anyone else, I think you could discuss it with them and tell them in perhaps greater detail than you have told us what it is.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I will do so Mr Chairman, thank you very much.

MR RAMAWELE: Mr Chairman, may I say that, Mr Chairman, may I say that my client is not yet available at this stage, but I have informed the Evidence Leader that we can proceed in his absence, and I hope that she is going to make arrangements that he join us later during the proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: He will be available, will he?

MR RAMAWELE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Who do we proceed with now?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar is under cross-examination by Mr Nthai, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Just before you proceed, Mr Nthai, Mr Pienaar, just to remind you that you are still under oath?

FREDERICK JOHANNES PIENAAR: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NTHAI: (Cont) Mr Pienaar, you have already referred to your affidavit, the affidavit that you prepared for the inquest. You have already told us that most of the information that is contained, is not correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Will you confirm, you are the one that took these affidavits, all these affidavits, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.

MR NTHAI: Will you explain to me, is it normal procedure that a person who is involved in an incident, would take affidavits of this nature?

MR PIENAAR: No, it is not normal procedure.

MR NTHAI: In this particular case, why did you do it that way?

MR PIENAAR: I was told by Col Deetlefts to continue with the investigation of the case and to get the necessary statements, it also had the authorisation of the office in Middelburg.

MR NTHAI: Were you not sceptical of it, I mean as an Officer of your rank at the time, were you not sceptical about that?

MR PIENAAR: I did not ask any questions concerning that.

MR NTHAI: You didn't see anything wrong with that?

MR PIENAAR: It was wrong.

MR NTHAI: Did you tell Mr Deetlefts that the instruction that you are giving me, it is wrong?

MR PIENAAR: No, I didn't.

MR NTHAI: Why didn't you do so?

MR PIENAAR: I did not say anything against the senior officers, I just continued and got the necessary statements.

MR NTHAI: Now, maybe you should explain to us exactly what you did with these affidavits, what happened, how did you compile them? Who came with this story?

MR PIENAAR: I went to go and meet with the members, I got rough copies, or statements of them, afterwards it was typed by a secretary and before the people left Piet Retief, they signed these statements.

MR NTHAI: Who told you to fabricate lies?

MR PIENAAR: It was a meeting there, nobody specifically said what had to be said. We all had part in it, when we took the statements.

MR NTHAI: And Mr Deetlefts was also there?

MR PIENAAR: Mr Deetlefts?

MR NTHAI: Yes, was he there also when you ...

MR PIENAAR: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: And then after that meeting, who was taking notes?

MR PIENAAR: I myself wrote it down.

MR NTHAI: So you took notes of what was being said there?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: And on the basis of that, you compiled the affidavits?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: So none of the members compiled affidavits, draft affidavits themselves?

MR PIENAAR: No. We talked about it, I had the notes with me and then got it typed.

MR NTHAI: Now, if there is something that appears here which was not discussed at the meeting, that would be from you, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I cannot really remember everything that was said, it could possibly be said so.

MR NTHAI: So, am I correct to say that you were then the main architect and perhaps to say the "Makulu-baas" of fabricating these lies, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: I won't say that I was the "Makulu-baas", but it was a joint decision that was taken.

MR NTHAI: But you were in charge of writing and fine tuning the affidavits?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I wrote it and also got it typed.

MR NTHAI: And at the time you did not hesitate to fabricate evidence against the dead?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR NTHAI: And you also fabricated evidence against the living at the time, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: What living?

MR NTHAI: Well, you fabricated lies against the people who died, not so, when you compiled the affidavit?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chair.

MR NTHAI: Now the next question is, the next question is, you could also fabricate evidence against the people who were living at the time?

MR PIENAAR: No, not at all.

MR NTHAI: Should I take it that you fabricated because they were dead, they couldn't talk for themselves, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes, Mr Chairperson. We saw the whole matter as an embarrassment for the government and for the police and that is why the statements were taken down in such a way.

MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, I don't know, how can it be an embarrassment when you planned it, executed it, fully appreciating that you were - how can it all of a sudden become an embarrassment?

MR PIENAAR: If that ambush were leaked out to the international community, it would have been a big scandal for the government and for the police.

MR NTHAI: But even if the plan was leaked to the international community, it would be a scandal, not so?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, it would have been a scandal in any way.

MR NTHAI: Did you inform your seniors that you are now protecting the government?

MR PIENAAR: No Mr Chairperson, I did not discuss anything with the senior members, they were present there, they knew what the state of affairs were.

MR LAX: Sorry, just if I may interpose Mr Nthai, which seniors were present, which seniors are you referring to specifically?

MR PIENAAR: It was Col Deetlefts and de Kock at that stage, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: How can you say you didn't discuss it with them, they were part of the meeting, they were part of the agreement?

MR PIENAAR: No, they did know about it Mr Chairperson, but I didn't continue to go to other seniors, for example to the District's office in Middelburg. But they did know about it, Col de Kock and Deetlefts.

MR LAX: But Mr Pienaar, I have just asked you wish seniors you were talking about and you spoke about de Kock and Deetlefts?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.

MR LAX: He said to you, did you discuss it with your seniors and you said no? I clarified which seniors?

MR PIENAAR: I said they knew about it Mr Chairperson, but I did not discuss it any further.

MR LAX: With the greatest of respect, with the greatest of respect Mr Pienaar, you didn't just, they didn't just have notice of it, they were part of your meeting?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAX: That is their evidence already?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR LAX: And it is your evidence?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR LAX: So why did you answer Mr Nthai by saying you didn't discuss it with your seniors, when you in fact did discuss it with them, they were party to it, they were party to the planning of the whole thing in the first place?

CHAIRPERSON: He had said that already?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, what I actually meant with that is that Col Deetlefts and de Kock who were seniors, were present there, but the discussion with other seniors, I did not do, but de Kock and Deetlefts knew about it, that is correct so, yes.

MR LAX: Those other seniors weren't present, were they?

MR PIENAAR: No Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the practice in the Police Force, you would not go above the heads of the officers who were immediately responsible, would you?

MR PIENAAR: No, I wouldn't have.

MR LAX: Please continue, Mr Nthai.

MR NTHAI: Now, you fabricated these lies?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: You didn't want to embarrass the government?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: What assurance do we have that you are now not fabricating more lies, in order to protect yourself?

MR PIENAAR: I have no reason to tell any lies, that is why I am here today, to apply for amnesty or possible amnesty. There is no reason now for me to tell any more lies or stories.

MR NTHAI: But you know of a saying which says "once a liar, always a liar", do you know about it?

MR PIENAAR: There is a saying like that, but I do not agree with it, Mr Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, I want you to help me with something here. It appears from the documents that were submitted here, that there was no inquest into the death of Zandile or Mzwandile, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, all the documents were handed over to the Magistrate as far as I know, but there was not a distinct identification of who the person who died, was.

MR NTHAI: What do you mean by that, the Magistrate had to know, the people had to be identified?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, no, Col Deetlefts also testified that photographs and fingerprints from Zandile was taken and was provided to the Swazi police for a possible identification of Zandile. It was also done in the same way on this side, but there was never a positive identification of this person.

MR LAX: Sorry, may I just interpose, Mr Nthai, page 66 is the J56, in the inquest of Zandile, so there was actually an inquest held and there was a finding made in that. I cannot say the same for the other person you referred to, but definitely for Zandile there was such a thing done.

MR NTHAI: No, thank you. Related to that, there is no indication as to who identified the body of Zandile in the documents, I didn't see that?

MR PIENAAR: The identification was also done by Glory Sidebe the next morning after the incident took place.

CHAIRPERSON: Aren't there other reports of inquests in the papers before us? Did they not relate to this?

MR LAX: Mr Nthai, which two are you referring to, Zandile and ...

MR NTHAI: Well, we are talking about, in the documents here, in the post-mortem report, this person is referred as Zandile. Vusimusi Sandani refers him as Mzwandile, so I take it we are talking about one and the same person. It is actually one and the same person, that is the person who was killed the other side.

MR LAX: Correct.

MR NTHAI: Now, what I don't actually see here is what I actually want to arrive at is, I don't see as to what happened to the body of Zandile. There is no document which indicate that any family member came to identify him there or what happened?

MR PIENAAR: As I said, Mzwandile was not officially identified. We could not find out who he was. As far as I know, he was buried in Amsterdam.

MR NTHAI: He was buried in Amsterdam?

MR PIENAAR: I believe so, I cannot remember what happened there with the body, but he wouldn't be in the mortuary, he is buried, and if they could not find any of the next-of-kin, he would then be buried as a needy person by the State.

MR NTHAI: But I mean you are saying he was identified by Sidebe, he knew him?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, Sidebe and I also believe Mr Sandani.

MR NTHAI: Perhaps while we are still on that, there is something that I want to ask you because, so you believe the body of Zandile was buried there in that area?

MR PIENAAR: I believe so, Mr Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: There is something, if you go to page 70 of Bundle 2, that would be the, no, I am sorry, the affidavit, it appears on page 75, the affidavit of Sandani.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I do have it in front of me.

MR NTHAI: If you check paragraph 23, he says -

Who was this person?

MR PIENAAR: I do not know anything about that, at that stage there were two people according to Section 29, that was Mr Maseko and Dladla, but I cannot remember this incident.

MR NTHAI: Go to page, paragraph 26 of Mr Sandani. He says -

MR PIENAAR: No, I do not know anything about that at all.

MR NTHAI: Could it be, could it be there was another person who was killed, and that is why some of the affidavits talk about five people having been killed in that incident?

MR PIENAAR: No, there were not five people killed in that incident.

MR NTHAI: This appeared in the application of Mr de Kock, he talked about five people, he later on of course changed his version, and it also appears in the submission by someone else, I don't remember, but they are talking about five people. Were they referring to this specific person?

MR PIENAAR: No, five people were not killed there, three people at the pick-up truck, Mr Mdlandile that was found at the T-junction by Mr de Kock.

MR NTHAI: You know why I am asking you this is because Sandani is going to come and testify here and he is going to say that you are the one who showed him that person.

MR PIENAAR: That is not the truth, Mr Chairperson, he can come, it is his right to come and testify.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what is he going to say?

MR NTHAI: Well, to say that the person who he saw peeping through the window, he was shown that person by Mr Pienaar. He was being asked to identify this person when he was still alive.

MR PIENAAR: Mr Chairperson, as I said, at that stage it was only Mr Maseko and Dladla who was held according to Section 29, it could be that one of them indicated or identified Mr Sandani, but they both are still alive today.

MR NTHAI: The person we are talking about, died, he later identified him, two weeks later, on a photo?

MR PIENAAR: I do not know anything about that.

MR LAX: Mr Pienaar, is it a question that you don't remember it and it might have happened, or are you saying without a doubt, it could not have happened?

MR PIENAAR: No, I cannot remember it at all. According to what I know, it did not happen. The person who were detained and then died, it never happened.

MR LAX: Thank you, no, I just wanted to clarify between whether it may have happened, but you just don't remember it at all, or you are absolutely certain it did not happen.

MR PIENAAR: Mr Chairperson, maybe there is a misunderstanding. What I cannot remember what was said is that the incident where I identified a person to Sandani, somebody who stood in the prison cell, it could have happened, but the person who died two weeks later, not at all, there is nothing like that.

MR NTHAI: Okay. I am now taking you to the scene, we are forgetting about the inquest now, we are getting to the scene now. There is a sketch that was drawn by Mr de Kock, but I am sure you have seen it?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did.

MR NTHAI: You agree with that more or less, that is the sketch of that incident?

MR PIENAAR: All that I do not agree though is that people were on the opposite side of the road, I do not agree with that, Mr Chairperson. In other words on the sketch, where Mr de Kock wrote according to my recollection, with the three question marks on the northern side, there were no people there.

MR NTHAI: So Mr de Kock did not tell us the truth when he said that there were people on that side?

MR PIENAAR: What Mr de Kock said according to his recollection, he could have made a mistake, but I am very sure that there were not people on the northern side of the road.

MR NTHAI: Isn't his evidence that there were people on the other side, also consistent with where the driver ultimately ended up, just on the other side of the van, I am talking about Mr de Kock's evidence, is that not consistent with that?

MR PIENAAR: Mr Chairperson, no. Mr de Kock also said that he gave instructions to Mr Labuschagne to shoot the informant or the driver of the pick-up. He then says in this sketch that Mr Labuschagne and according to him, two other people, but I do not agree with him there, because there were no other people on the northern side of the road, although he did say that.

MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, if you look at Mr de Kock's sketch and the point where he is saying the driver ended up, do you see that?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.

MR NTHAI: That is very consistent with the version that there were some people from the other side, who shot him, is that not correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it seems like that, but the body did not lay as Mr de Kock drew it there, it was further back, further back behind the vehicle, and as Col Deetlefts testified earlier on.

MR NTHAI: Are you not now fabricating lies again?

MR PIENAAR: No, there is no need for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that what Mr Deetlefts indeed testified? He is saying the body lay further back, behind the vehicle as Mr Deetlefts testified. Are you saying that is a lie because that is my note of what Mr Deetlefts said?

MR NTHAI: Well, I am saying that is a lie.

CHAIRPERSON: So Mr Deetlefts is lying?

MR NTHAI: Yes.

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, it is correct as Mr Deetlefts said it, the body was further back, behind the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Diagonally out behind the right rear of the vehicle? Is that where the body was lying, sorry I don't understand what is being said. You dispute that?

MR NTHAI: There are two points.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NTHAI: There is a point by Mr de Kock which says the body was laying just next to the door on the right hand side, and there is another one which says it has gone a bit backwards, so ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but this witness said that the body was laying further behind the vehicle, as Mr Deetlefts testified, and you then said that is a lie. Are you saying it is a lie that Mr Deetlefts testified to that affect or are you saying that Mr Deetlefts' evidence to this affect, was a lie?

MR NTHAI: Well, I am saying Mr Deetlefts' evidence to this affect which the witness is confirming, is a lie, it is counterposed by the evidence of Mr de Kock. That is why I want the witness, the witness agrees with Mr Deetlefts, so I take it that is his evidence also, that is why I am putting the question to him.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Mr Chairperson, I do agree with Mr Deetlefts. I think Mr de Kock was slightly wrong with what the position of the body was. It is not as he drew it on that sketch, and I do agree with Mr Deetlefts concerning that.

MR NTHAI: Do you remember the point where you were on the other side, where you were laying, can you remember next to who were you?

MR PIENAAR: I already testified that I cannot remember who was laying next to me. I did not really give attention to that.

MR NTHAI: Do you remember how many shots you fired?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot remember.

MR NTHAI: Can you remember at which point of the bakkie, you fired?

MR PIENAAR: Towards the left front door of the vehicle.

MR NTHAI: I want you to look at the photo's, the photo's of the firearms.

MS LOCKHAT: That is Exhibit C Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Is it C?

MR LAX: There are two, there is A and there is C.

MR NTHAI: Let's look at A, I am more interested, A is the rucksacks, I think, I am interested in A. Mr de Kock indicated that there was also TNT blocks there, do you see that?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: Are you aware that at the time the ANC was no longer using the TNT, in 1986, are you aware of that fact?

MR PIENAAR: They sent it in this case, and the ANC definitely did sent it in from Swaziland into the Republic of South Africa.

MR NTHAI: No, the question is, are you aware that at the time the ANC was no longer using the TNT, are you aware of that?

MR PIENAAR: They did use it, that was sent in from Swaziland into the Republic.

MR NTHAI: I am not talking about this specific one, I am saying are you aware that at the time the ANC was not using the TNT, as such at the time (indistinct) carrying the TNT, are you aware of that?

MR PIENAAR: That is what I am saying Chairperson, what the ANC stopped doing, I do not know but this explosives and weapons were sent by the ANC from Swaziland to the Republic, so it was still used at that stage.

MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, that is what Mr Sandani is going to say and he was part of the Command Structure of the Swaziland Machinery, that the TNT was not in use at the time at all, are you going to dispute that?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I would dispute it, because why was the TNT then sent through by the ANC, so they still had?

MR NTHAI: You are aware that Mr Sandani was part of the Command Structure?

MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson, he was there with Paul Dikaledi.

MR NTHAI: Now, you are saying that these photo's were used in the trial of Maseko and Dladla, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: I do not believe that these photographs were used there, this is as far as I can remember.

MR NTHAI: But we have been given these photographs by your legal representative?

MR PIENAAR: It could be, I am not quite sure, it could possibly be so, I am not sure.

MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, you were there, the other day I was asking you questions around these photo's.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I was there, but I cannot remember everything that was submitted with my case, it was a very long case, and various evidence pieces were ...

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, may the witness be shown Exhibit A, Mr Chairman, the original please and then he can refresh his memory from the photo album.

MR NTHAI: Are you saying that you don't recall that those photo's were used in the Maseko and Dladla trial?

MR PIENAAR: I said they could have been used, they were used in the case of Mr Sandani.

MR NTHAI: You also gave evidence in that trial, is it correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.

MR NTHAI: And you cannot recollect seeing those photo's? The other day I was even asking you whether they were given dates or something like that, do you remember?

MR PIENAAR: No, you asked me about the key of the photo's.

MR NTHAI: Yes.

MR PIENAAR: I cannot remember where that was.

MR NTHAI: And that day you were not saying you were not sure that the photo's were used, you were just telling me that you don't see the key?

MR PIENAAR: That was in the case of Maseko and Dladla, but in Sandani, I know for definite that it was used. But if you look at the exhibit number on the original album, it was also used in the case of Maseko and Dladla.

MR NTHAI: Yes. If these firearms were carried by the deceased, and also Mr Maseko was tried about this, why were these firearms then used for Dladla and Maseko, because they were arrested before the firearms were brought into the country?

MR PIENAAR: It was a claim by Mr Maseko and Ebrahim and Dladla concerning structures and instructions from Mr Ebrahim that was set up by the Government Advocate in the case. It was a very long charge sheet with an extensive information or detail.

MR NTHAI: You see, why I am asking you this question, it is because Sandani doubts whether all these firearms were there when they were crossing the border. I am asking you this question as to whether some of the firearms that are here, are not the firearms that were found in possession of Maseko and other people, and they were used in the trial of Maseko and Dladla later on?

MR PIENAAR: I can give you the assurance that these weapons on this photo in Exhibit A before the Committee, were definitely the weapons which were found in the bakkie. Chairperson, and while we are on this point, I would just like the opportunity to go to my statement on page 6. I would just like to make an amendment which I have thought about and I have made an error, paragraph 10, the second line there I stated, or rather the third line -

that was false. This AK47 which was there below the body, was placed there by Mr de Kock. Then we proceed to paragraph 13, where I compiled a list of the weapons which were found in the back of the bakkie, and you will see that no AK is mentioned there in that list, which to me is a definite indication now, in retrospect, that only one AK was in the vehicle and not two, as I have stated, that Mr de Kock was correct when he stated that there was one AK, perhaps two. If there had been two, I would have mentioned the other AK in paragraph 13 in the list of what was found in the back of the bakkie.

MR NTHAI: When you compiled this submission, you were trying to recollect everything, not so?

MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Why this omissions now, why now you are correcting things here, you corrected the affidavit of the inquest, now you are correcting what you have submitted?

MR PIENAAR: As I have said, I was mistaken when it came to the two AKs, and there I agree with Mr de Kock that he was indeed correct when he stated that there was one AK, that perhaps there might have been two, but if I look at my affidavit, there was definitely only one AK, and then Mr Sandani was also correct in his affidavit when he stated that there was only one AK.

MR NTHAI: You are now fine tuning your evidence after listening to what Mr de Kock said?

MR PIENAAR: No, directly after I gave evidence, I discussed the fact that I had made a mistake, with my legal representative, he would have corrected this during re-examination, but seeing as we are on the point right now, I have mentioned it myself here.

MR NTHAI: But you gave evidence-in-chief, why didn't you correct that in your evidence-in-chief?

MR PIENAAR: I wasn't sure at that stage, subsequently I sat down and thought about it, and read my affidavit once again, and realised that I had made a mistake regarding the two AKs, that is why I have amended it now.

MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, when did you do that? When did you read your affidavit again and realised that it was wrong?

MR PIENAAR: I studied the affidavit.

MR NTHAI: When?

MR PIENAAR: After I had completed my evidence here.

MR NTHAI: So that is when you realised that you had made a mistake?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it bothered me and I re-examined my affidavit and realised that it was a mistake.

MR NTHAI: And at the time when Mr de Kock was giving evidence, there was nothing wrong as far as you were concerned? You didn't realise that there was something wrong in what you submitted and what Mr de Kock was saying?

MR PIENAAR: As I have stated Mr Chairperson, Mr de Kock stated that there was one AK and that there could perhaps have been two, but that he wasn't completely certain. If I recall correctly, that was what Mr de Kock stated, and I now agree with him that there was only one AK and not two.

MR NTHAI: You have also stated that Sithole was part of the ANC Swaziland Machinery, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, he assisted them, the Transvaal Machinery.

MR NTHAI: Are you also saying he was a member of the ANC?

MR PIENAAR: If he had assisted them, if he had transported persons and weapons, then he was a member of the ANC, yes, but as I have stated, I don't know whether he was a recorded member of the ANC as such, I don't know about that.

MR NTHAI: What about Knox Dlamini?

MR PIENAAR: Knox Dlamini was the same. As far as I know, Knox Dlamini was never military trained abroad by the ANC, however he was a collaborator, he assisted them, he was a sympathiser of the ANC.

MR NTHAI: What about Zandile?

MR PIENAAR: The same with Zandile, if he assisted the ANC with the transportation with weaponry, if he was a collaborator, then he was also a member of the ANC.

MR NTHAI: Did you ever receive information whether Zandile was trained or not?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I spoke to Mr Sandani as well as Mr Sidebe and they didn't know whether Zandile was a trained member of the ANC, however they knew that he was a collaborator in Swaziland and Mozambique.

MR NTHAI: Mr Pienaar, Sandani told you that Zandile was not a member of the ANC, didn't he tell you that?

MR PIENAAR: No. He was a collaborator, but he did tell me that they were not certain, they didn't know whether the man had received military training. They were not certain about this aspect.

MR NTHAI: Sandani also told you that Zandile was just an acquaintance of Bernard Shange, is that correct? Did he tell you about that?

MR PIENAAR: He may have said so, yes. But if that was the case Chairperson, then Mr Bernard's people would also have identified Zandile, and nobody could identify him.

MR NTHAI: Of course, because he was an acquaintance of Bernard Shange, I am telling you, he was not an active supporter of the ANC?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I come here, I know it is not my client or so, but I must point out that what is stated to this applicant is not in line with paragraph 3 of Sandani's affidavit on page 75.

MR LAX: Paragraph 3 does not talk about Sandani at all, Mr ...

MR LAMEY: No, it is Sandani's statement and the version is put on behalf of Sandani, relating to Mzwandile.

MR LAX: Yes, I see what you are saying.

MR NTHAI: Mr Chairman ...

MR LAX: What Mr Lamey is in fact saying is it is evident from paragraph 3 that Mzwandile, who you have already put to the witness is the same person as Zandile?

MR NTHAI: Correct.

MR LAX: From here it appears that he is a member of the ANC who worked with these people as contra-distinction to Sithole who they say just helped on occasion.

MR NTHAI: Well, Mr Chairman, what I am putting here is what Mr Sandani is going to say.

CHAIRPERSON: That is he is going to say that his affidavit was untruthful, is that so?

MR NTHAI: Well, Mr Sandani is going to when he gives evidence, he is going to put certain corrections on some of the things that are contained in that affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: The same as the other people have?

MR NTHAI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That it wasn't true? The corrections he is going to make is because there were things that were not true in the affidavit?

MR NTHAI: Yes, the way the affidavit was taken, he will be able to explain that. Now, I am putting to the witness because I want the witness to answer that.

MR LAX: Well, don't you think you should put it to the witness on the basis that at the very least, Mr Sandani is going to explain certain changes in his evidence, for example in relation to this, that is putting it fairly to the witness, otherwise there are two contradictory statements by the same person?

MR NTHAI: Yes, I will do it that way. Well, you see Mr Sandani is going to correct some of the things that are put here.

MR PIENAAR: I understand.

MR NTHAI: Especially about the exactness of the area and stuff like that, the measurements and distance which he was not even aware of it, in other words he could not have said those things because he was coming to that area for the first time, so there are things that he is going to correct. What I am putting to you now is that one of the things that he is going to say is that Mzwandile was just an acquaintance of Bernard Shange.

MR PIENAAR: I don't know that Chairperson, what I said was indeed that Mr Mzwandile was a collaborator and someone who assisted the ANC in Swaziland with the Transvaal Machinery. This was said by Messrs Sidebe and Sandani, but they were not certain of his military training.

MR LAX: Can I just interpose for a moment, Mr Pienaar, surely as a person who was trying to understand and analyse these different people, you would have distinguished between people who you knew were trained guerrillas and people who you knew were supporters, people you knew who were Swazi citizens but who were just helpers, you would have made those distinctions at the time in the way you began to try and develop an understanding of what was going on in Swaziland? The sort of impression you are giving now, well, these were all just people, we regarded them all as ANC. Isn't that a bit of a false impression you are creating?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, what I mean by this in terms of the question which was put to me, that Mr Mzwandile was not a member of the ANC, whether or not I know that he was actually a member of the ANC, if a person assisted the ANC with infiltrations and collaborated in the transportation of weaponry, I would have regarded this person as a member of the ANC, that he was favourably inclined towards them, that he was one of them. But a military trained person was something completely different.

I didn't know whether or not Mzwandile had received military training. This was asked of Sidebe as well as Sandani and neither of them could confirm this, that he had received military training and was as such a member of the ANC. The same applies to Knox Dlamini, as the question was put to me. I knew that Knox Dlamini had never received military training, but he was a great ANC supporter, sympathiser, collaborator in Swaziland which created the same dangers as a member of the ANC would have.

MR LAX: Yes, but my point is really a simple one. You were busy with an analysis of the Transvaal Machinery, the Natal Machinery, all these different people, and in your files you would have distinguished between people who were known cadres of MK on the one hand, trained cadres, you would have distinguished between administrators, you would have distinguished between Swazi citizens who were assisting the ANC, you would have made all those distinctions, isn't that so?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAX: And therefore you wouldn't have just regarded them as ANC members, you would have known the difference because it was quite crucial to your understanding of the scenario?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson. If one compiled a report about the activities of a certain person, then one would have stated that this was an ANC collaborator or sympathiser or a trained person who had a number. They would be allocated numbers, S-numbers according to the photo albums, there was a distinction, yes.

MR LAX: Please continue Mr Nthai.

MR NTHAI: And you wouldn't regard a person who just assist trained people say in the country as an ANC person, not so, who just assist them with transport without even knowing where they were going?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, once again, this is what I said earlier. An ANC collaborator or assistor, was an ANC member in my opinion, but if one discussed such a person or wrote about such a person, the distinction would be made, otherwise this person would be regarded as a member of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understood your evidence, you said people who collaborated with the ANC by transporting weapons, and things of that nature?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the question that was just put to you, counsel is saying well, you wouldn't consider people who merely gave ANC people transport, not knowing where they were going to, as collaborators, you wouldn't, would you, if they didn't know that it was for ANC purposes?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, then it would boil down to the person taking a taxi and the taxi wouldn't know where this person was going, or who this person was, so yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may I ascertain from Mr Nthai, is Mr Sandani going to change his statement in paragraph 4 where it says in line 2 -

CHAIRPERSON: He said some more later.

MR PRINSLOO: Correct Mr Chairman. I assume he is going to change all his references to Mzwandile. Paragraph 6, paragraph 7.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman, paragraph 8 it clearly says -

So it implies clearly Mr Chairman, that Mzwandile assisted in carrying weapons and ammunition, he wasn't just an innocent person assisting people across the border.

MR NTHAI: Well, Mr Chairman, carrying weapons does not make one an ANC Member? Is that what my learned friend is trying to say?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, Mr Nthai put it to the witness that Mr Mzwandile would just be an innocent person, not knowing about where these people were going, but clearly from what is stated in paragraph 8 and the preceding paragraphs, is that Mzwandile carried weapons across the border.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this, I take it, this is all going to be denied if he is just a social acquaintance of Bernard's?

MR NTHAI: Well, the carrying is not going to be denied.

CHAIRPERSON: So he did assist the ANC carrying weapons illegally across the border?

MR NTHAI: Of course.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say that doesn't make him a collaborator of the ANC?

MR NTHAI: Well, it doesn't make him an ANC member, that is what I am saying.

CHAIRPERSON: The test is being laid out that anybody who collaborated with the ANC in the armed struggle carrying weapons and things of that nature, was regarded as ANC? Is that not what you have been saying, Mr Pienaar, this was the test you applied?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: You see Mr Sandani is going to say that he regarded Mr Sithole and Knox as active supporters of the ANC, not necessarily members of the ANC, he is going to explain because to be a member of the ANC, you had to be under the permanent support of the ANC at the time.

MR PIENAAR: I understand that.

MR NTHAI: And in your gathering of evidence, you were not able to get this, that people who are regarded as ANC people, are people who are under the permanent support of the ANC, you couldn't get that information?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, the collaboration from Mzwandile was clear, it was confirmed by Sidebe who was considerably higher up in the ANC ranks than Mr Sandani. It was also confirmed by Sandani himself, but what I maintain is that they could never tell me precisely or with certainty, whether Mzwandile had received military training or not, they didn't know this.

MR LAX: Mr Deetlefts, while Mr Nthai is busy with his papers, was it usual that Swazi citizens would have been sent for training, surely they would have been used in different ...

MR PIENAAR: No, Mr Chairperson. Not at all.

MR LAX: surely that would have then put the matter to a certain extent, beyond doubt in your mind. This man was a Swazi citizen, the same position as Sithole, they were in a different category of person from cadres who would have been South African citizens who had left the country, who had gone for training and come back to work in Swaziland?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Mr Chairperson, but as I said earlier on, there was never a positive identification of who Mzwandile was, if he was a citizen of Swaziland, if he was from Mozambique or if he was from South Africa. We could not find that out.

MR LAX: Okay, that is much more helpful for me, because up until now, the assumption certainly in all the evidence was that he was a Swazi person who was just helping? If it is clear now that you didn't know that, well, that is a different story.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: You want to tell me, are you trying to say that when September told you about Mzwandile, he didn't tell you that he was a Swazi citizen, he didn't tell you that?

MR PIENAAR: No Mr Chairperson, he saw him in Swaziland regularly, he worked there, but he did not know exactly what this person was or where his people were or if received military training, he could not say that.

MR NTHAI: I want to take you to paragraph number 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, 23, 24 of Mr Sandani's affidavit. May I also indicate to you that Mr Sandani is definitely not going to change paragraph 18 of the affidavit, he is also not going to change paragraph 19 of the affidavit, he is not going to change paragraph 20, he is not going to change paragraph 21, he is not going to change paragraph, no paragraph 22, the only thing that he is going to change there was that he never told the person who was taking the statement that he overheard one of the policemen mentioning September, so that he is going to change.

He is going to say that he was aware that he was September from the information that you were asking him, he became aware that the person you were consulting with on the other side, was September, but he is going to say that it is not to say that he overheard, he made a conclusion that the person you were dealing with on the other side, was September.

He is also not going to change paragraph 23, there is not going to be any change in paragraph 24 and we can take it from there. Do you dispute that at the camp, Zandile was assaulted, I am on paragraph 18 now?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, after we received the message that a person was detained at the Stafford Camp, I went there, I met Mr Zandile in the base. He was blindfolded, he did have wounds. I then transported him from there and away from the camp, I took the blindfold off. Mr Botha who was with me there, we never assaulted Mr Sandani, at no stage.

MR NTHAI: No, no, Mr Pienaar, I think you need to understand ...

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Nthai, can I just correct something here, the interpretation is talking about Zandile, we are talking about Sandani here?

MR PIENAAR: Mr Sandani yes.

MR LAX: Just so that there is no confusion.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: No, no, I am just saying that he was saying, he is saying on paragraph 18 he was severely assaulted, I am going to come to you assaulting him, I am not at that stage. What I am trying to say is you cannot dispute this?

MR PIENAAR: I did not assault him, I do not know of an assault on him.

MR NTHAI: Number 19, he is referring your name there in particular and he is saying that he believes that you were one of the people who assaulted him.

MR PIENAAR: He may believe so, he is not sure and I can give you the certainty that myself or Mr Botha did not at any stage, assault Mr Sandani. He was also not assaulted in my presence, by any other person.

MR NTHAI: Number 20, you also dispute that, he was not even assaulted by Warrant Officer Botha?

MR PIENAAR: No, not at all. Not in my presence.

MR LAX: Was he taken to a nearby farm from that base?

MR PIENAAR: No Mr Chairperson, he was taken to the Security offices in Piet Retief, there is no farm close by.

MR LAX: So this thing about you chaps stopping at a farm before he was taken to the offices?

MR PIENAAR: That is not true.

MR NTHAI: Number 23, you are saying, he is coming back to that person who was peeping, and you are saying you know nothing about that, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: He could be correct in paragraph 23, I cannot remember.

MR NTHAI: Paragraph 24, there he is talking about being de medical treatment?

MR PIENAAR: He was taken to the doctor in Piet Retief, and afterwards he was transferred to the Bethal prison where he also received medical attention.

MR NTHAI: But is it correct that he only received medical treatment on the evening of the 15th, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: No Mr Chairman. After we arrived at Piet Retief, Mr Sandani was then taken to the District Surgeon and if I remember correctly, I cannot remember, I think that same day, he was transferred to the Bethal prison, but as I have already said, there was no space available for another detainee that was according to Section 29. The closest there was the Bethal prison where he was detained.

MR NTHAI: What time did he receive that medical treatment?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot remember what time that was, I am not sure.

MR NTHAI: You can remember whether it was in the morning or in the afternoon?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I think if I remember correctly, it was in the afternoon. So it could have been late in the afternoon or earlier, I am not quite sure.

MR NTHAI: When you say late afternoon, it could be early evening, is that not correct?

MR PIENAAR: No, I am saying earlier in the midday or late in the afternoon, if I remember it was during that time, I am not quite sure. It could have been later, it is possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you going to go onto something else now?

MR NTHAI: Yes, I am through with the affidavit, just something that I may need clarity on. Sandani on paragraph 28, he does talk of affidavits, but he was, he could not remember this affidavit, what is not very clear to me was whether these are affidavits for this present application or these were affidavits for something, this affidavit of Sandani was taken in 1990.

I am not sure whether this affidavit he is talking about here were the affidavits for the Harms Commission or - it was not very clear to me.

MR LAX: Does your client not know why he signed this affidavit, what purpose?

MR NTHAI: Well, he was not very clear as to why he signed this affidavit. What he said was that "someone came to me", to him there and then said he wanted an affidavit about that incident. At the time he was already convicted.

MR LAX: Ms Lockhat, can you help us in that regard?

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, this was found basically during our investigation in terms of the dockets and so forth and the inquest reports, so I cannot give you any other information in relation to this.

MR LAX: Maybe at the tea adjournment you can try and get some clarity as to where the origin of this affidavit is and for what purpose it may have been taken and where our Investigators or Evidence Analysts found it.

MS LOCKHAT: I will do so.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the short adjournment now.

MS LOCKHAT: All rise.

ON RESUMPTION:

FREDERICK JOHANNES PIENAAR: (s.u.o.)

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, just in relation to those affidavits that I was asked about, Ms Tanya Hoskins, our Evidence Analyst, she informed me that it was part of the docket that we obtained, but she is going to speak to Mark Killian, one of our other Investigators, just to clarify, maybe he has some details regarding this, Chairperson, so I will get back to you again after that, thank you.

MR NTHAI: Mr Chairman, before we start, I just want to put certain issues on record. During tea time, tea break, I managed, I got a message actually from Sandani on my cellphone and apparently he has been making some enquiries about some of the things that I discussed with him. He managed to get hold of Brig-Gen Shokwe, who at the time in Swaziland worked with Gen Nyanda, I mean by then he was known as Siphiwe, Siphiwe Nyanda, Gubuza, the name was Gubuza, is that not so Mr Pienaar?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: Yes, Gubuza. Now Brig-Gen Shokwe, his name was Jabu, I am sure Mr Pienaar would have known him, but there are certain things that we must remove from dispute so that we get to the bottom of the matter. He, Brig Shokwe is actually confirming that Paul Dikaledi came to him to borrow the firearms and other things that we are talking about for this operation.

He is confirming that contrary to what I put to Mr Pienaar, that TNT was not in use at the time, he is confirming that indeed he did give amongst the things that he gave to Paul Dikaledi, he did give him the TNT and AK47s, so I mean that is no longer in dispute, Mr Chairman. I put it to Mr Pienaar because that is the information I got from Sandani.

CHAIRPERSON: So Mr Sandani gave you information which you put, which you now say is incorrect?

MR NTHAI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So Mr Sandani can perhaps when he comes, explain how he came to give you incorrect information?

MR NTHAI: Yes. The other issue Mr Chairman, which also may be helpful is that he has also been making enquiries about Mzwandile. He also got information again from Brig-Gen Shokwe that Mzwandile was a South African. He went into exile, but he spent most of his time in Swaziland, to an extent that he was, some people regarded him as a Swazi citizen.

He is apparently also confirming that his body, his body was apparently exhumed from where Mr Pienaar was talking about, during the TRC investigations. I have requested him to find more information with regard to the membership of Mr Mzwandile, membership of the ANC of Mr Mzwandile, Knox Dlamini and Sithole. He will be able to clarify that information for sure for us, from the people who worked very closely with these people.

I had promised that I would call him around lunch time, hopefully by that time, he would have got the correct information.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we are obliged to you for the trouble you have taken.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NTHAI: (continued) Just to complete Mr Chairman, my questions to Mr Pienaar. Mr Pienaar, you are aware that the family members of Tollman and Bernard were actually not present during the informal inquest, you are aware of the fact?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, as far as I know, that is correct.

MR NTHAI: Yes. And again you are saying that you cannot help us as far as the photo's of the bodies, is concerned, you don't know?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, unfortunately not.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson. I have just a few questions. Mr Pienaar, just in relation to the people at the Swaziland border, that is in relation to van Dyk and others, what was their instructions, was this an ambush? What did you tell them this operation was about?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I did not issue any orders to Mr van Dyk and the others, the orders were issued collectively by Mr de Kock and Mr Deetlefts, they consulted about it, it was about an ambush, but I know that Mr van Dyk later, I don't know at which stage, spoke about seizing the man and getting him to tell us where the man in Swaziland was. The original order was however, to set up an ambush.

MS LOCKHAT: Because van Dyk in his application talks about an arrest, and that is at page 216 of Bundle 1, Chairperson. Are you saying that that is untrue?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, he did mention possibly seizing the man so that he could show us where the man was in Swaziland, but his orders from Mr de Kock were to set up an ambush as far as I know.

MS LOCKHAT: And do you know who was all part of van Dyk's group?

MR PIENAAR: It was Mr van Dyk himself, Mr Willemse was there, Mr Nofomela was also there, I think Badenhorst was also there.

MS LOCKHAT: And Mngadi?

MR PIENAAR: And Mngadi as well, yes.

MS LOCKHAT: And others that you can remember?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot remember any others.

MS LOCKHAT: There were askaris with them as well, do you know their names?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, I did not know all the persons.

MS LOCKHAT: And then Mr Badenhorst, to which group was he linked, which Branch did he belong to?

MR PIENAAR: He was in the Piet Retief Security Branch at that stage.

MS LOCKHAT: So he fell under Deetlefts' command?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Were there any other members from that Branch, that is not mentioned?

MR PIENAAR: From Piet Retief?

MS LOCKHAT: From Piet Retief, yes?

MR PIENAAR: Mr Botha was there, but he was with the vehicle, not with Mr van Dyk.

MS LOCKHAT: And then just in relation to the source, was it decided beforehand to eliminate the source?

MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: Did Mr Labuschagne know about this beforehand?

MR PIENAAR: I do not know at which stage precisely Mr Labuschagne was informed regarding the shooting of the person, but he was aware that the informer would also be eliminated.

MS LOCKHAT: Just in your opinion, did you think that all of these members that were part of this operation, that in their minds, that this was definitely an ambush?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes Chairperson.

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

MR LAX: Just one aspect Chairperson. Mr Pienaar, isn't it correct that you made arrangements beforehand to cover this thing up, for example the placing of the vehicles, you knew that you would need to show that this was in fact not an ambush, but some other sort of incident that happened, and you had planned to cover it up from the word go?

MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson.

MR LAX: And just in terms of, sorry, in the light of that, it was pretty logical that if you were going to arrest these people, there would be nothing to cover up?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR LAX: And so from that, one can conclude that this must have been an ambush?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR LAX: Thank you Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pienaar, Exhibit A and C, those are the exhibits pertaining to the weapons, and you have viewed the original which is currently in the possession of the honourable Chairperson, where the exhibit number appears as Exhibit EC and you have also seen the name of a Mr Aspeling, I will give to you the record of the State's case, and you see that the Assessor there was Mr Aspeling as well?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Which State case?

MR PRINSLOO: That is the case of S v Maseko, Dladla & Ebrahim, Mr Chairman, and that is the case I referred to earlier in evidence. It is case number CC319/87, of which I have a copy of the judgement, Mr Chairman, which I have quoted from.

I may also mention at this stage Mr Chairman, that Ms Lockhat had instructed the police as well to check on the record and the police confirmed to her and myself, that a photo of the bakkie, Exhibit B as well as a photo of Exhibit AC appears in that same Bundle of the judgement of the case I am presently referring to, Mr Chairman. The photo's are in the archives.

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct Chairperson, there were 28 boxes of exhibits and, but in relation to the bodies, pictures of the bodies, that they could not find Chairperson, just the bakkie and what we have.

MR LAX: Just, while we are on this issue, perhaps you can clarify this for us, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Certainly Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Were Maseko and Dladla convicted of the possession or importation of the weapons in that photograph?

MR PRINSLOO: Not of the same weapons, Mr Chairman, there were other weapons involved as far as Maseko and Dladla were concerned, but in as far as the indictment is concerned, I have a copy available, I obtained it this morning, and I can make it available to the Committee. The Committee will then see from the indictment as well as the judgement, the weapons as well as what was referred to as that particular unit, was laid before the door of Mr Ebrahim, Ismail Ebrahim, as he was in charge at the original Political Military Committee at the time, of the ANC in Swaziland at that stage, and there were a number of other units, as well as other instances of the various structures of the ANC, which all operated from Swaziland at that stage.

MR LAX: Yes, I understand that broad conspiracy.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR LAX: What I am talking about is the specific weapons in Exhibit A, were they not charged or convicted of the possession of those weapons?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman, they were convicted, Mr Maseko was convicted of treason, as he was a South African citizen, as well as Ebrahim and Mr Dladla was not a South African citizen, he was convicted of terrorism. But not of those specific weapons, that was the broad outline of the case itself.

MR LAX: Yes, that is the only aspect I wanted to clear up, whether there had been a miscarriage of justice there or not?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman. Mr Pienaar, reference is made in the statement of Mr Sandani, paragraph 26, to the fact that a person looked through the cell peep hole and if a person was held in a cell at the police station, his name would be recorded in the register?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And if a person was discharged from the cells, or booked out from the cells, it would be recorded in the very same register as well as the case book?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So one would be able to determine quite easily who had been in the cells, who had been discharged and whether or not this person was still alive?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And the persons in control of the cells, were these the uniformed staff or the Security Staff?

MR PIENAAR: The uniformed staff.

MR PRINSLOO: And you had no control over this?

MR PIENAAR: None, whatsoever.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, with regard to the evidence of the doctor who had testified here, as well as the Professor, Saayman, your order was to shoot to kill?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Would there have been any reason to give any other evidence if people were shot from close range, because that was your order to begin with?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, there would have been no reason to cover it up.

MR PRINSLOO: But your evidence is that you fired from a certain point?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And with regard to the exhibit containing the sketch made by Mr de Kock, that is Exhibit B, in this case, it is indicated that there were persons on the opposite side from where you were positioned. If shots were fired as such, you would have shot each other dead?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that would have been a definite risk.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Pienaar, just arising from these questions of Mr Prinsloo, something has occurred to me and that is, did no one possibly after the firing had started, get up and approach the vehicle and carry on firing?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR LAX: And find themselves at a much closer range, just as part of the operation?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I would say that everybody fired from approximately two to three metres away. No one would have moved closer to the vehicle and then have moved into the line of fire. That is highly improbable.

MR LAX: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the evidence, the driver, if the driver had come down, got out, moved down the right hand side of the vehicle, he would have come into range of the person on the extreme right of your group as soon as he reached the end of the vehicle?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And his body was found, you say I think the same as Mr Deetlefts, laying diagonally away from the right rear corner of the vehicle?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

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

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may Mr Pienaar be excused from attendance, his wife is ill in hospital, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: As long as you are able to contact him, I don't see that there is any objection. Have any of you got any objection? Right, Mr Pienaar is released.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Labuschagne, will you rise to take the oath please. Your full names please?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Frans Hendrik Smalberger Labuschagne.

FRANS HENDRIK SMALBERGER LABUSCHAGNE: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI; Thank you, you may be seated. He has been sworn in Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, may I just place on record that we did not expect Mr Labuschagne to testify today and that is why he is not dressed for the occasion, so we apologise for that.

CHAIRPERSON: He is probably more sensibly dressed for the occasion, than the rest of us.

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: That is so Mr Chairman. The reason why we have agreed for Mr Labuschagne to testify now is because Mrs van der Walt requested me to do so, because Mr Lubbe is only available today, and that is why I agreed to do that. Mr Labuschagne, your application commences on page 179 of the first bundle?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you are applying for amnesty for murder, conspiracy?

CHAIRPERSON: It commences at 132, dealing with this ...

MR DU PLESSIS: I am sorry, I am sorry, the information pertaining to the incident starts at 179.

CHAIRPERSON: That is 179, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, and you are applying for murder, conspiracy and everything else which is set out there?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And what would be added to that would be accessory?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now Mr Labuschagne, as the honourable Judge Wilson has indicated, your application or the complete section of your application, commences on page 132 and the background facts and information we can find from page 132 to 178?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then will you turn to page 184 please. The information on page 184 to 195, do you confirm this as correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: That is where you set out the political objectives. Now Mr Labuschagne, let us return to page 179 over to 180. Mr Chairman, I am going to present the evidence on the basis that I am going to deal with the problems in the statement and then I will come back to the background evidence pertaining to how that came about.

Mr Labuschagne, I will just take you paragraph for paragraph. The first paragraph on page 180, do you confirm this as correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: The second paragraph on page 180, in the final sentence it appears it was agreed with the informer that he would stop at a determined point on the Amsterdam/Nersden Road with trained MK members and that an arrest would ensue? Now, according to you, during the planning phase, was there ever any mention of an arrest or what was the order that you received?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: The order which was received from Col de Kock was for every person to be shot dead.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Labuschagne, and then the rest of that paragraph, do you confirm it as correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I confirm this as correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then on page 181, the second sentence it states -

is that entirely correct? Would they have been arrested or was the order any different?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: As far as I know, the order was also for these persons to be killed.

MR DU PLESSIS: You were not a part of that group which had to eliminate the persons accompanying the MK members across the border?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I was not.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you confirm the further information as correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And up to the bottom of that page, 181, do you confirm all of this as correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, it is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: There was evidence given by Mr de Kock that at the place where the shooting took place, the shooting of the passengers of the bakkie, persons had taken up position at both sides of the road and the other applicants testified that position was only taken up on the one side of the road, what is your recollection?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I recall that we took up position only on the one side of the road.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is your evidence in concurrence with the evidence of Messrs Deetlefts and Pienaar?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And who was with you there on that side of the road, who took up position with you there, who can you recall?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was Col de Kock himself, Chris Deetlefts, Freek Pienaar, Gene Fourie and later as I tried to orient myself further, I recalled Greyling and Botha also being present. With regard to Mr Bosch, I cannot recall whether he was also present.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Labuschagne, and if we could just pause there for a moment, who was the senior officer that was present there?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was the then Capt de Kock and Capt Deetlefts.

MR DU PLESSIS: What was your rank?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I was a Sergeant at that stage.

MR DU PLESSIS: Who was the most junior member there?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: As far as I can recall, it was me and Fourie and Bosch and Botha.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, now Mr Labuschagne, in some of the other applications mention is made of, or at least allegations are made that you received an order to shoot the informer or the driver of the bakkie, can you recall anything like that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct. My order was issued by Mr de Kock and Chris Deetlefts that I had to shoot the relevant informer.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. You have heard the evidence given by Mr de Kock and by Mr Deetlefts as well as Mr Pienaar pertaining to the informer and the reasons why he had to be shot, do you associate yourself with this?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I would agree with it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Labuschagne, what were you armed with?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I was armed with a hand carbine.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, can we go over to page 182, the first paragraph. Do you confirm this as correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I confirm this as correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: With the exception that you have said who the other persons were?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then the second paragraph on page 182, I do not want you to look at the paragraph as such, I would just like you to tell the Committee in your own words precisely what you can recall what took place during the incident when the bakkie stopped and I would like for you to tell it as you recall it.

MR LABUSCHAGNE: What happened precisely on that evening is that we formed a line on the shoulder of the Amsterdam/Nersden Road, I cannot recall the precise time because it was already dark.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do not go too quickly, take it easy.

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was already dark. A Datsun bakkie with a canopy stopped at the point where we were positioned. In the prior planning we had already been informed what sort of vehicle it would be. My position in the line that we had formed was on the extreme right, in other words on the side of the Nersden border post if I might put it as such.

MR DU PLESSIS: Let me ask you, as the bakkie stopped, would you have been closer to the front or the rear?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: To the rear. Furthermore the bakkie came to a standstill, it stopped a distance passed me, in other words I could see passed the rear end of the bakkie. The driver of the vehicle jumped out immediately and moved to the rear of the bakkie, and at that stage fire was opened from our line. When he came around the rear of the bakkie, perhaps not around, but when he moved passed the rear of the bakkie, I shot him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Please pause there. The driver disembarked on the side of the bakkie which was away from you, the furthest away from you?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And where precisely did you shoot him, not on his body but was he on the ground? Can you explain to the Committee precisely where he was situated in relation to the bakkie and the road?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: At that stage, I shot him once he had emerged from behind the bakkie, that is when I shot him. I did not fire through the bakkie or anything like that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Labuschagne, and where did he collapse?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, did he keep going or did he turn to try to open the back of the bakkie?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No Mr Chairperson, when he came within my field of vision, I shot him. He fell there where I shot him.

MR LAX: The point was though, did he try to open the bakkie?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, never.

MR LAX: Just in relation to Exhibit B, more or less where was he in relation to the bakkie when you shot him?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: He moved passed the back of the bakkie.

MR LAX: Yes, if you look at where for example, I don't know if it is indicated on your ...

MR LABUSCHAGNE: He did not lay where the initial sketch is, he was not behind the bakkie. He was at the back, passed ...

MR DU PLESSIS: There are eight circles that indicate where the people were laying and then you can see the bakkie and on the opposite side of where the people were laying, if you could see, there is a cross. As I understand your evidence, you say that he was not laying there.

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you give us an indication then, if you look at the right hand side of the sketch to the eight circles, more or less next to which circle on the right hand side?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It would be the third last circle then.

MR LAX: So just for the record, that is approximately in line with the back right hand corner of the vehicle?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: I have what I think is the original of this, perhaps he could mark on this Exhibit B with ...

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, he has marked it on mine, maybe ...

CHAIRPERSON: If you will let me have both of them then.

MR DU PLESSIS: It is Mr Rossouw's, Mr Chairman, it wasn't my client who marked it, but it is the same position.

MR LAX: Perhaps Mr Rossouw's could just be circulated around that way, so that the other parties could just check on that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, may I just clarify from my learned friend, Mr du Plessis, my photocopy has got six round circles.

CHAIRPERSON: So has mine.

MR LAMEY: So there must have been two drawn in.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Rossouw put it another two here, Mr Chairman, or somebody else then.

MR LAX: Somebody was doodling were they, a bit board with the questioning.

MR DU PLESSIS: But I think it is clear from the position, where it was, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And while we are looking at this, you've got it in front of you, you were somewhere, you were, where were you in the line on the extreme right?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So you would be the first person to see him coming from the back?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you would be shooting at an angle?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Towards the rear of the bakkie?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Labuschagne, can you explain to the Committee that after you shot the informer, what did you do then?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I moved to the back of the bakkie. At the back door of the bakkie, I then shot at those sitting inside, it was approximately hip height. I then shot until the weapon was empty.

MR LAX: When you say the back door, you are talking about the sort of opening of the canopy?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: The canopy door, that is right.

MR DU PLESSIS: Will you look at Exhibit E please, the photograph of the bakkie. Can you see that there are bullet wounds at the back of the bakkie?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: The back window is also out? Very well Mr Labuschagne, on page 182, the second paragraph, the second sentence the statement says -

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, that is not correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Can you remember if you saw anybody jumping out on the left hand side of the bakkie?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No Mr Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, there was evidence and you heard it from Mr Deetlefts, he was not quite sure about this aspect and then at one stage said that as far as he could recall the door was open slightly and that the door was not open wide, but only slightly ajar. What is your comment concerning this? Is it possible?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It could be possible, but the fact is that when that bakkie stopped and the driver jumped out, we immediately started to fire. And as I have said, nobody could get out of that vehicle from the left hand side.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, is that how you remember it?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is how I remember it.

MR DU PLESSIS: In the third paragraph it says -

Can you remember who started to fire first or can you not remember?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I remember correctly, it was also during the planning that we decided that Col de Kock would start to fire at that stage and that is why I also put that in my statement.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well the next two sentences, or the next sentence, the members were armed with R1s and Uzzis?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct. As I have already said, we had R1s and hand carbines, and there was also R1 rifles.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. It says also that three of the occupants of the car died, it was the two who were inside the vehicle and the driver who was outside? Was there anybody in the canopy of the vehicle?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, except for weaponry and explosives.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, and the weapons that were submitted as evidence, Exhibit C, you saw the photographs, was that the weapons that you saw or found at the back of the bakkie?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I cannot specifically say if it was all that was found in the back of the bakkie, but I remember the rucksacks, there was an AK47, yes I would say that would be the weapons that we found.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And you also heard evidence that Mr de Kock allegedly placed an AK47 on top of a person, is that true?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Okay, and the last paragraph on page 182, what is your comment concerning that, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Labuschagne, did you know Bernard and Tollman before?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: We did know about them as trained MK soldiers. At that stage they were in Swaziland.

MR DU PLESSIS: Where were you stationed when this incident occurred?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I was at Ermelo at the Security Branch.

MR DU PLESSIS: And where did you operate?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: My operational area was Swaziland.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the information concerning Bernard and Tollman, can you just give us more information concerning that, what information did you have?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I can recall, the information was that not long before this specific incident, they would have arrived in Swaziland and the information was very vague at that stage, we could not really identify them positively on the information that we had, but just the fact that Bernard and Tollman were in Swaziland.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Labuschagne, did you know anything about Sandani?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No. No, I had no information concerning him.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Zandile?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, no information. I also did not know of him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Labuschagne, broadly speaking, the MK members who operated in Swaziland and people who supported the freedom fighters in Swaziland, did you have any knowledge during that time of MK members who operated from Swaziland into the Republic?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And generally speaking, the people who operated from Swaziland, were they South African citizens or were they Swazi citizens?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Mainly they were South African citizens. To use the English word, they were in exile and they were trained or received military training and in certain cases, there were Swazi's who helped them, which was a big problem because not only helping them across the border, they also provided housing. They provided them with vehicles, that is the trained MK members, they also hid weapons for them.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Labuschagne, this statement of yours is more or less word for word the same as the statements of Mr Greyling, Pienaar and Deetlefts. Your application was submitted for amnesty internally and that is for this incident, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Various other applications were submitted for external operations, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And for the purpose of today's evidence, we do not have to go into the background of the submitting of the applications for the external operations or the operations abroad. Mr Chairman, I would prefer to refrain from any evidence pertaining to that, as I will have to present that in an application to the Committee, and I would rather not deal with it here.

Mr Labuschagne, before Mr Strydom Britz became your Attorney in June 1989, who was your Attorney?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was Mr Prinsloo who is here today and Mrs van der Walt.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, and did they represent you when this statement was used in support of your application for amnesty?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember more or less when you saw them for the first time, or when you went to go and see them for the first time?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: The original statement was signed in December, this was December 1996, it was approximately in that time.

MR DU PLESSIS: And that was just before the first cut-off date?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Labuschagne, you will see that this statement of yours on page 197 is dated 9 June 1998, was that when you signed this statement on 197, you have already met them?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And was anything changed in the contents of your statement, and that is the previous statement that you made in 1996?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No Mr Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, maybe I must just place this on record, Ms Lockhat has the original application that was signed in 1996 and this one was then signed in 1998 and what happened was, the applications for the operations in Swaziland were included in a more detailed amnesty application we have lodged in July 1998.

Mr Labuschagne, when you met Mr Britz, did you consult him concerning the external operations, abroad?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And your application for amnesty was then extended to include these operations abroad?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you in any way consult with Mr Britz concerning this incident?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I did not consult him concerning this, it was mainly about the incidents abroad.

MR DU PLESSIS: And this statement was dictated word for word?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Labuschagne, let us just go back to December 1996, can you remember or can you explain to the Committee how it happened that you applied for amnesty and who you consulted with?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: The consultation occurred with Mrs van der Walt and the amnesty applications were as a result of the fact that it was, we were told ...

MR DU PLESSIS: Let me stop you there. Who was present when you consulted with Mrs van der Walt?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: The other members who were there that specific day and maybe not during our consultation, it was Chris Deetlefts, Paul van Dyk, Freek Pienaar, Johan Botha and Dan Greyling I already mentioned, Mr Verwey who was not specifically part of this group. I cannot remember who else was there. I think there were also applicants for other specific applications.

MR DU PLESSIS: Where did this take place?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That was Argent, on the farm of Mrs van der Walt. She has an office there.

MR DU PLESSIS: What did you do that day, except for the consultation?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: After the consultation, there was also a function there on that specific day.

MR DU PLESSIS: If you talk about a function, did you have a braai?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Labuschagne, did you prepare a document with information also concerning this incident and other incidents that you were involved in?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And what did you do with that document on that day?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That specific document I handed over to Mrs van der Walt.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Labuschagne, that document contains information concerning, or with regard to the incidents that you are applying now for amnesty?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Including the incidents abroad?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: The document contains certain information inter alia pertaining to informants, the names of informants and information such as that. It also contains information pertaining to the other amnesty applications which I don't, my client does not want to waive his privilege pertaining to that. I am going to only ask him a question about what was contained in the document pertaining to this incident.

You saw the document a while ago, Mrs van der Walt made it available to you. Can you just then tell the Committee concerning this document, in the first instance, it was numbered, item 5, what did you write there?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Chris Deetlefts describes in full.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is that what you wrote?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is.

MR DU PLESSIS: Chris Deetlefts describes in full, you didn't write anything else?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Labuschagne, can you remember if this specific incident and that is with the other applicants and also Mr Deetlefts among others, was discussed before you had the consultation with Mrs van der Walt?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I am not quite sure, but I think we did talk about the incident and afterwards I also wrote Chris Deetlefts discussed it in full.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Can you remember if this incident as you have just testified about it, was discussed in detail with Mrs van der Walt?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you not remember or didn't you?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I cannot remember. I do not believe that I discussed it in such detail with her.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Now, Mr Labuschagne, this evidence that you have provided us with now, concerning or with regards to the instructions that you got concerning the elimination, as well as the evidence concerning the person who allegedly jumped out on the left hand side of the vehicle with a pistol in his hand, can you recall why it was included in your first amnesty application, that was a written statement?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I can remember correctly, there was talk that we had to all give the same story or that we have to give the same statement.

MR DU PLESSIS: If you are now talking about this talk, as it amongst the applicants?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is true.

MR DU PLESSIS: You do not include Mrs van der Walt in that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I do not.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, and what is your attitude then today concerning the truth and what happened at that incident?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: My attitude is that there are two parts, that is not hundred percent correct in the statement and I feel that the truth must be revealed concerning these two specific sections in the statement.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And the mistakes, in the consultation to mentioned them to me?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me for a moment. Mr Labuschagne, can you recall if in the original statement, I think Ms Lockhat has it, Mr Chairman, 12 or 13 December 1996, I am not hundred percent sure, that statement that you then signed, can you remember if it was on the same day that you consulted with Mrs van der Walt, or can you not remember?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I cannot remember.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions. I am very sorry Mr Labuschagne, but at the end of your application, page 196 of this Bundle, there is a section that you added on, could you just read to that us please. Can you read it especially to the families of the victims?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I will begin to say, I believed that what I did was in the interest of the Republic of South Africa, the people, my religion and my christian beliefs. I am not sure today where I am standing now, and I do not know how I find myself in this position. I feel unhappy and I feel sorry for the victims of those and also those who lost their lives.

I hope that this will also be, this will also lead in me finding reconciliation and understanding with all the people of South Africa, it is however not me to decide who is right or wrong, but as a full member of the Republic of South Africa, it must also be the same for all the other former fighters for freedom.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Mr Labuschagne, did you know what information Mr Sithole provided or gave, that led to this operation?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I just heard this from Mr Pienaar, I did not know specifically from Sithole.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know of Mr Sithole independent of what you heard from Mr Pienaar?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Your instruction was to kill Mr Sithole, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: If I may ask you a hypothetical question, or maybe I should just ask this question first, after the shooting, did you go closer to see if he was dead, this is now Mr Sithole?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I did not go to him specifically.

MR HATTINGH: Let us presume that you did go to him and he was still alive, what would you have done?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I would have shot him again.

MR HATTINGH: Because that was your instruction?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And that was your decision before that you would kill all the occupants of the vehicle?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: The weaponry that was in the back of the bakkie, did you look at it while it was still in the bakkie?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I did look at it.

MR HATTINGH: This launch tube that is on the second photograph, Exhibit A, that is a relatively large object?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR HATTINGH: If I look at it, it does not seem as if it will fit in one of those carrier bags, was it laying open as it is in the photograph?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, if I can recall correctly.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall if any of the other weapons that we can see in the bottom photograph, was also open in comparison with those that were closed in the bags?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I do not know but I do remember the launching tube.

MR HATTINGH: You say that you used a hand carbine, what was the fabrication of it?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was an HMK.

MR HATTINGH: What calibre did it use?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was a 9mm.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. And how many rounds did you have in the magazine?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I cannot remember, I remember that it was full, I do not know if it was 20 or 30 rounds.

MR HATTINGH: Did you use any light tracing rounds?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, there were tracers in it.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know the principle of the tracer round?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I understand you correctly ...

MR HATTINGH: The result is then that this bullet will glow in the dark?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: As far as I know it is phosphor or some element.

MR HATTINGH: That makes it glow in the dark?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is it correct that the projectile itself, the round, the back part of it has a hollow bit in?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I cannot remember specifically. It is marked, but you can see that it is a tracer, I think it is red or green.

MR HATTINGH: But I am now talking about the shell, I am talking about the bullet head, did you see that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR HATTINGH: This element or substance that burns, do you know where that is located in this round? The bullet itself is partly hollow at the back and that the phosphor would be in that section of the bullet, the projectile would then be like a fire works display in that it glows?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I do not know the specific knowledge of it.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Labuschagne, I have singular questions that I have for you, just points for clarification. On page 180 the final sentence where you stated that it was agreed with the informer that he would have to drop off the trained MK members at a determined point along the Nersden/Amsterdam Road, upon which an arrest would follow. You say that this is not correct and true?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct. As I can recall, all of them had to be shot dead pertaining to this particular incident.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but as I read the sentence, it indicates that there were some form of an agreement with the informer, I understand what you have said.

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I also read it as such.

MR LAMEY: You were not present during the discussion where the informer had to identify the place alongside the Amsterdam/Nersden Road and so forth?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR LAMEY: We can accept then that the informer would not have known that he would be shot during the ambush?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I accept that.

MR LAMEY: It is logical?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, it is a logical conclusion.

MR LAMEY: Very well, can you recall precisely and independently at precisely what moment the first shots were fired at the scene where the bakkie stopped, can you recall the precise moment and the position of the driver or the informer when the first shots were fired?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I can recall correctly, he had not reached a point where I could shoot him yet, when the first shots were fired.

MR LAMEY: At which stage did you receive the specific order that you had to shoot him?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was on the afternoon, before we moved out to our relevant points, I was instructed to shoot the informer.

MR LAMEY: Who told you this?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was Col de Kock.

MR LAMEY: In a personal discussion?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, it was not a personal discussion, there were also others who were present.

MR LAMEY: When you say that there were others, can you recall whether Mr Fourie was present or not?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: At that stage when it was said to me, all participants in the operation were together on a smallholding.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall specifically and independently whether Mr Fourie was present at that stage?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It is possible, I wouldn't be able to say, but as far as I know, everyone who was involved with the operation, was present at that stage, and all of these persons are the persons who are present here today.

MR LAMEY: Is it your assumption that everyone was present there, because ultimately everyone was at the scene, everyone who is here today at least?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I would say that everybody had to have been there, because at that stage, everybody had been instructed what they had to do, who they had to move with, that sort of thing.

MR LAMEY: But it remains an assumption of yours, you don't have an independent recollection of seeing Mr Fourie there at that particular point where you were informed that the driver would be shot?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Very well, I would concede that he may have been absent, but as far as I can recall, when an operation was being planned, people wouldn't walk around, everybody would be there if they were part of an operation.

MR LAX: Mr Labuschagne, he might have gone to the toilet, he might have gone outside, anything is possible?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is why I have stated I will concede that he may not have been present.

MR LAMEY: Very well. You say the shots were fired when, just after the driver had disembarked, he had not yet reached the point where you could shoot him?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, as I have stated, it was not possible yet for me to shoot him, otherwise I would have had to fire through the bakkie as the other shots were being fired.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether during planning, after you had received the order to shoot him, whether any modus operandi was calculated in terms of time calculations as to when you were supposed to shoot him, because if you took up position behind the bakkie and you were the person who had to shoot him, how would that have operated?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I cannot recall whether there was any calculation of time as such, whether such a modus operandi was actually calculated.

MR LAMEY: Well let us assume whether it was in the planning, or let me put it like this, was it part of the plan for the shooting to commence immediately after the bakkie had come to a standstill, in other words ...

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I cannot recall such fine detail.

MR LAMEY: In other words before the driver had disembarked or just after he had disembarked or was the plan for you to wait a few moments until he had come into the position that you could shoot him and ...

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I can reconstruct my recollection, if I can recall correctly, I was told that the informer would run away from the bakkie, to the rear of the bakkie. I cannot recall whether there were any precise calculations of time as such.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand your evidence, what had been decided was that de Kock would fire first and then the rest of you would fire?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was a matter of de Kock's discretion?

MR LAMEY: You see the reason why I have asked you this is because the driver did not know that he was a target, and if the shooting were to commence too quickly, my inference tells me that he could have decided to change direction completely in order to escape the line of fire, which could then have defeated the objective that you had of shooting him?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It is possible, but as I recall, I have told you now, I couldn't shoot the man when the shots were fired next to me.

MR LAMEY: But what I want to ask you is whether or not it is possible that fire was opened once he had reached the rear of the bakkie?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR LAMEY: Are you certain of that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I am certain of that.

MR LAMEY: Wouldn't you allow any room for this possibility, perhaps a number of seconds? If you consider something that took place 13 years ago, this could have taken place?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I recall that I could not shoot him when the fire was opened next to me.

MR LAMEY: Very well. You see ... (tape ends) ... other than what it may be necessary, I would just like to tell you that Mr Fourie's recollection is and I just want to find the appropriate point or extract from the documents ...

CHAIRPERSON: Does it really matter when they opened fire, this man was killed at the rear of the bakkie we have heard?

MR LAMEY: It is just the recollection of Mr Fourie which is just slightly different in this regard, Chairperson, I don't want to split hairs, really, and this is the basis on which I approach it. As it pleases you Chairperson.

Very well. Mr Fourie's recollection is that the driver was at the rear of the bakkie when the shots were fired, that is what I put to you, you recall it differently. He could not see it precisely, but he moved to that side when the shots were fired.

MR LABUSCHAGNE: To the rear of the bakkie?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Could you rephrase that question please?

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Lamey, did I hear you say that Fourie couldn't see this clearly?

MR LAMEY: Let me just make sure about this, just a moment Chairperson.

MR LAX: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Sorry, I've got it, thank you Chairperson, what Mr Fourie says in his affidavit is that he disembarked and walked to the back of the bakkie, the driver, we are now referring to the driver. Then Mr Fourie states that when he wanted to open the canopy, the shots were fired, and he states further, this is quite important, he couldn't see that he was opening the canopy, he wasn't in a position according to my instructions, to view this, due to his position. Mr Fourie was at the front, near the front of the bakkie, but it is based upon inference here because somebody related subsequently that somebody had tried to open the canopy?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, there is no way that he could have been close to the canopy.

MR LAMEY: Very well, the position where he was shot, how far away from the canopy was this?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Are you referring to the door of the canopy at the rear, or the canopy itself?

MR LAMEY: No, I am assuming that he wasn't in front of the canopy where one could open the canopy.

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I would say about two paces then.

MR LAMEY: Very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Fourie also said there was someone else in the back of the bakkie?

MR LAMEY: Yes, which in retrospect we will testify and concede.

CHAIRPERSON: It shows how inaccurate his recollection is.

MR LAMEY: Sure Chairperson.

MR LAX: Should we be dwelling on this at all, in the light of that?

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Chairperson. May I just ask you, I just want to mention this, this is merely something which Mr Fourie can recall, is that somebody said that he tried to open the canopy. You don't know anything of such a statement, is that what you are trying to say?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR LAMEY: And then can you recall whether you told Fourie at the scene that you were going to shoot Sithole?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, as far as I know, when we arrived at the scene, every person knew what he was supposed to do, the planning had already been completed at the smallholding.

MR LAMEY: Is it possible that you may have told him and that you cannot recall this, because he has a very clear recollection of this?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I wouldn't deny that I told him this.

MR LAMEY: Very well, you would not deny it? I've got no further questions, thank you Chairperson.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Labuschagne, these events took place 13 years ago and I assume that these events also took place rather quickly?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Labuschagne, this particular order that you received, I just want some clarity about that, the order that you received from Col de Kock to shoot the informer?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So you did not receive it from Col Deetlefts, but Col de Kock, he was the person issuing the commands?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Labuschagne, your attention was focused on the order to shoot the informer?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So you kept him in view at all times, and I am not trying to trick you, but with these events which took place so quickly, isn't it possible that it was necessary for you to check what was happening with the passenger doors? You merely assume what took place there?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I am not assuming, the bakkie drove passed me and my point of perspective of the bakkie was from a corner or an angle as such.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Labuschagne, when the bakkie came to a standstill was your attention fixed on the side of the driver, because you knew that the driver was the informer, isn't that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So you were watching his movements to the rear of the vehicle?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So you had no reason to observe the passenger door as such?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I might just explain properly, this was a very small bakkie and from my position, from where I had to shoot, I couldn't really lay flat in order to shoot, because the magazine would be pressing against the ground. I was almost on my knees so that I could observe the driver and from my point of view, I could observe just about the whole bakkie.

MR PRINSLOO: But Mr Labuschagne what I am asking you is, you were looking at the bakkie and you were looking at the driver who disembarked and after he disembark, fire was opened on the bakkie?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And then you had to observe the driver in order to shoot him?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So in the dark, you had to aim specifically to shoot dead a man in front of you, how then could you observe the passenger door while your attention was supposed to be fixed on the driver?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I recall correctly, it wasn't really that dark on that evening. One could observe the bakkie very clearly along with the passengers, one could clearly observe the passenger or at least the driver jumping out on the left hand side.

MR PRINSLOO: You have heard Pienaar and Mr Deetlefts' evidence regarding this aspect of the door?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Labuschagne, you state in your evidence that in your written instructions to Mrs van der Walt, you stated that Mr Deetlefts gave a thorough description of what took place there, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Well, this is what you have read, this is what I understand from the document, Deetlefts gives a thorough description?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And I assume that at that stage, when the document was compiled as such, you didn't really have a problem with what Deetlefts stated there?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Very well. Mr Labuschagne, just another point, because it appears that there may be some interpretation on your behalf, my colleague Mr Lamey has already examined you about this, and I just want to be certain of this, on page 180 you state that it was agreed with the informer that he would stop at a determined point along the Amsterdam/Nersden Road with these MK persons after which an arrest would ensue? This is what Deetlefts and Pienaar state, there was an agreement with the informer, not that they would conduct the arrest? Do you agree with that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it an agreement in that strict sense of the word or was that what the informer was told?

MR PRINSLOO: It would be better put Mr Chairman, with respect, as what the informer was told, in respect of using the choice of words in stead of saying there was an agreement. Thank you Mr Chairman.

I've got no further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, Mr Lubbe will do the cross-examination.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LUBBE: Mr Labuschagne, I am representing Mr Deetlefts in connection with the cross-examination. There are just certain aspects, Mr Prinsloo has already referred to most of the aspects that I wished to refer to. The first of mine is in response to a question which was put by Adv du Plessis pertaining to the version of Mr Deetlefts surrounding the events regarding the passenger on the left side. Would you concede that Mr Deetlefts' evidence could possibly be correct in this regard, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: In regard that the door may have been opened somewhat, but not that the person jumped out, wielding a pistol.

MR LUBBE: Yes, you will recall that during the cross-examination of Mr Deetlefts by Mr du Plessis, much was made of this aspect to the extent that Mr Deetlefts conceded that his perception of the events, was as he ultimately testified, that being that he was under the impression that someone opened the door, of that the person was in the process of disembarking, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes.

MR LUBBE: Therefore you do not dispute Mr du Plessis' version in this regard, if I understand your evidence correctly? Therefore what you mean is that you are not disputing Mr Deetlefts' version?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Well, if that was his perception, then that was his perception, but what I am disputing is the fact that I say that no one jumped out, wielding a pistol. That the door may have been somewhat ajar, is a possibility.

MR LUBBE: Yes, and he conceded that Mr de Kock's version in this regard is much more probable and should rather be accepted over his own version, you will recall this?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I think I recall this.

MR LUBBE: And I think that it is justified, this statement that Mr Prinsloo put to you, that you were more focused on the driver because it was your ultimate order to take out the driver of the vehicle?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I would agree that that was my focal point, but as I have stated, it wasn't a very large vehicle and from my point of view, I could observe the entire vehicle.

MR LUBBE: Very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what you would have been interested in observing surely, is and I presume you were looking through the glass doors, the driver moving down towards the rear of the vehicle where you expected to be able to shoot him?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LUBBE: Mr Labuschagne, there are just certain statements that I wish to put to you and I think that with respect to the Committee, it might not be of such relevance, but I would just like clarity with regard to the taking of the statements.

I understand from Adv van der Walt, that the first discussion with you took place as far back as the 25th of November 1996, in Middelburg, at the home of Dan King, can you recall this discussion?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I cannot recall this.

MR LUBBE: Can you recall a subsequent discussion on the 28th of November at a restaurant by the name of Burger Hut, Middelburg, that afternoon at 16H00?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I recall correctly, at a certain stage we were there, yes.

MR LUBBE: Can you recall subsequently that you were in the office of Brig Visser on the 5th of December, I beg your pardon in the office of Mr Deetlefts on the 5th of December, and that is where you consulted with Adv van der Walt?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: no.

MR LUBBE: Upon this occasion the following persons were present, Brig Visser, Mr Deetlefts, Mr Loggerenberg, yourself and one other person?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I can recall the Burger Hut event.

MR LUBBE: Can you recall further that the cut-off date for these amnesty applications was the 14th of December 1996 and that for two preceding days, the 12th and the 13th of December, you were at the home of Adv van der Walt, where you were consulting in order to finalise these applications?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I was there on one Friday afternoon, if I recall correctly, it was a Friday afternoon, but not two days.

MR LUBBE: But nonetheless, this statement which is not part of the evidence which is in the possession of the Evidence Leader, was signed by you as an affidavit?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR LUBBE: If you would grant me a moment's indulgence. Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Labuschagne, with regard to Mr Botha, my instructions are that he recalls that both you and he moved around the rear of the bakkie, and that it was from behind that Botha fired into the bakkie, can you recall this?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I cannot recall this. I recall specifically myself, that I fired into the bakkie.

MR LUBBE: Thank you Chairperson.

MR LAX: Mr Lubbe, can you just clarify because it may be relevant later, does Botha say, when he says they moved around the back of the bakkie, what does he mean, does he mean they moved from the left hand side of the bakkie, somewhere not at the back of it, around to the back of it, is that what he is saying?

MR LUBBE: Mr Chairman, as I've got it, they were positioned as described by the witness and they got up and moved to the back of the vehicle, in other words, they didn't move passed the vehicle, but they were then positioned at the back of the vehicle and then Mr Botha started firing into the vehicle, in other words ...

CHAIRPERSON: This was after the shooting?

MR LAX: Where is that different from ...

CHAIRPERSON: Of the driver?

MR LUBBE: After the shooting initially ensued, yes.

MR LAX: How is that different from what he has testified already?

CHAIRPERSON: He says he shot, Botha says he shot.

MR LUBBE: Yes.

MR LAX: He said he was laying at a point in line with the third of those circles, no, he was laying as the last of those circles and he started shooting at the driver and then while he was shooting, once he hit the driver, he then carried on moving towards the back of the vehicle.

MR LUBBE: And he would then be accompanied by Mr Botha.

MR LAX: So the only thing in issue is that he was accompanied by Mr Botha at that point?

MR LUBBE: That is so. I did not recall him testifying that he was accompanied by Botha when he proceeded.

MR LAX: Yes, no that is fine, it is not how they moved, etc, that was more the focus of my confusion.

MR LUBBE: As it pleases you.

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr Labuschagne, just to clarify it for myself, do you recall whether you may have been accompanied by Mr Botha or not?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I cannot recall this.

CHAIRPERSON: Quarter to two?

ON RESUMPTION:

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, just during the break, I furnished every, all the legal representatives with a copy of Mr Labuschagne's initial, just during the lunch break, I furnished all the legal representatives with a copy of Labuschagne's initial application and I have copies for the Committee, if you would like another set, if it is necessary. I don't know if you want another set?

MR LAX: So we will make this H, will we?

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, Exhibit H.

MR LAX: Does anyone know where Mr du Plessis and his witness is? Pardon?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I didn't see his car outside, I know that they left for lunch just a few minutes ago.

MR LAX: Maybe we should adjourn.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I profusely apologise, we, it is usually very quick with this place where we go to, and today of all days, they weren't as quick as they usually are, so I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if it is you or Mr Rossouw, who is perhaps kicking things around?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is mine, Mr Chairman, and Mr Rossouw asks me to specifically place on record, that we didn't watch the cricket and we don't know the score, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: 97/4.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: While we are talking, before we get back onto the thing, I don't want to anticipate things at this stage, but I may it seems, have been a little optimistic about our ability to complete the hearing, I think we will go on this afternoon until four o'clock and see what the position is like now. If it becomes clear that we will not, my proposal would then be gentlemen if we have to adjourn part-heard, that we adjourn fairly early tomorrow, for those who have reservations to go elsewhere or other such things. I gather that others may already have arrived at similar conclusions and that there may be tentative adjourned dates available?

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct Chairperson, the 7th of January 2000.

CHAIRPERSON: January?

MS LOCKHAT: February?

CHAIRPERSON: I was told February.

MS LOCKHAT: My apology, February, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, shall we continue?

FRANS HENDRIK SMALBERGER LABUSCHAGNE: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NTHAI: Mr Labuschagne, you say you were armed with a hand carbine, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: And that is a 9mm is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: If you look at the post-mortem of Mzwandile, sorry of Sithole ...

MS LOCKHAT: It is page 56 Chairperson, page 56.

MR LAX: Sorry once again, your 56, our 58 I think.

MR NTHAI: I cannot get it myself here.

MR LAX: This is post-mortem 105 of it say 1996, but it should be 1986.

MR NTHAI: If you look at that post-mortem, Mr Labuschagne, there are quite a number of gunshot wounds, they talk about the multiple gunshot wounds, one which is one centimetre about the right eye, exit wound and the others are actually mentioned, would you say that all these wounds were caused by your firearm?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR NTHAI: And it also indicates that there was a scull fracture which extends from the left ear over to the above right ear, would also that be caused by your type of firearm?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Chairperson, I cannot really say anything about this report or give an opinion about it, but I shot this person with a 9mm and he fell and he died.

MR NTHAI: And you are the only person who shot him?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, as far as I know, I was the only person.

MR NTHAI: That is what I am asking you, that is what I am asking you? The type of the firearm that was used, can it cause the scull fracture?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I do not know, I cannot say, it is possible, if the report says it, it is possible.

MR NTHAI: The other question I want to ask you is in respect of the post-mortem, I realise that you did not make an affidavit, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: Why is it like that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I do not know, I was never approached for an affidavit concerning this.

MR NTHAI: Were you part of the meeting where it was discussed how the affidavit was going to be drafted?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I was not present.

MR NTHAI: You were not even aware of these affidavits?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: All that I know is that there was a post-mortem report, but I do not know anything about the statements surrounding this.

MR NTHAI: So you did not even know about the inquest that was held?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I do know that there was a post-mortem inquest.

MR NTHAI: Okay. I want to bring you to the scene, especially the point where you are saying you shot the driver. Now, you are saying that Mr de Kock was to fire first, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, we agreed upon that.

MR NTHAI: And Mr de Kock was using a high calibre weapon, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I cannot specifically remember what weapon he had with him.

MR NTHAI: I think you talked about the R1 or R4, I don't remember, but it is R1 or R4, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I said R1 weapons and hand carbine weapons were available.

MR NTHAI: No, no, Mr de Kock himself, Mr de Kock himself talked about, I don't remember whether he talked about an R1 or an R4, I stand to be corrected there, but he was using either an R1 or an R4?

MR LAX: It was an R1, Mr Nthai.

MR NTHAI: Yes, R1, he was using an R1. Now, according to you, the driver was supposed to go out and come towards your direction, is that correct? That was the plan?

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't say towards his direction?

MR NTHAI: No, no, towards the direction where he was?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, with respect, that wasn't the evidence, I think the question is a little bit ambiguous. The evidence was not that the driver would have come towards Mr Labuschagne, the evidence was that the driver would have got out and walked to the back of the van.

CHAIRPERSON: To the right, to the back of the van.

MR NTHAI: But that is where Mr Labuschagne was?

CHAIRPERSON: He wasn't, he was on the other side of the van, laying on the side of the road, on the left of the van? There was no evidence whatsoever that when the driver got to the end of the van, he was to turn right and walk towards Mr Labuschagne.

MR NTHAI: I mean he would go out towards the direction where Mr Labuschagne was laying? Is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, he ...

CHAIRPERSON: Have you looked at the plan and seen where Mr Labuschagne was laying? There was no suggestion that he would walk towards that?

MR NTHAI: Well, Mr Chairman, I have a problem because I was not shown the plan. I was not shown the point where he says ...

CHAIRPERSON: What point weren't you shown? He told you he was on the extreme right hand of them laying on the side of the road?

MR NTHAI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: There was no suggestion ever in the evidence that the driver was to turn and go towards him, was there?

MR NTHAI: No, there was not.

CHAIRPERSON: No, why put it to him?

MR NTHAI: Well, I will put it this way ...

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, perhaps just to make this clear, my Attorney is going to present Mr Nthai with Mr Rossouw's plan which has the eight little people there, but for the rest, it is the same.

CHAIRPERSON: It was to walk towards the rear of the bakkie, to get out of his door and walk towards the rear?

MR NTHAI: And that was within the vicinity where you were, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: Now, if Mr de Kock was the first to fire and he was using a high calibre weapon, where would he have expected the driver to jump out and run towards? Look at that map?

MR LAX: What is the point of your question Mr Nthai, because it is a bit confusing, you said where was the driver expected to run? At what point, had they started firing, had they not fired?

MR NTHAI: At the point when Mr de Kock started firing?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I think the evidence was that the driver had already been out of the car and had been moving to the back of the vehicle when the firing started?

MR LAX: Yes, that is what I was about to put to you Mr Nthai, because if you put that context in, then the question becomes clearer.

MR NTHAI: Let me put it this way, when Mr de Kock, when the first fire was fired, where was the driver, could you see him where you were?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, when I heard the first shot, or when they fired the first shot, the driver was not in a position where I could shoot him, he was still behind the back of the vehicle.

MR NTHAI: Yes, and when you saw him, where was he facing?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I can recall correctly, he was running in the one direction and I could see him from the side. I saw him on the right, his right side.

MR NTHAI: No, no, what I just want to know is whether he was facing the opposite direction where you were or he was facing where you were, was he facing where the bakkie was coming from?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: He was facing where the bakkie was coming from.

MR NTHAI: Where the bakkie was coming from? So, it would then appear that he was supposed to run and pass the bakkie and proceed straight, is that correct, where the bakkie was coming from?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: There was no indication that he was going to come towards your direction or the other side of the road?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was said to me before that he would run passed the bakkie on the side, and that is why I was running on the right far end, so that he was running towards Nersden when I wanted to shoot him.

MR NTHAI: According to the plan, there was an agreement with the driver that he was going to stop and go out as if he was going to urinate, you knew about that plan?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I heard it here in the evidence.

MR NTHAI: So you were not told about that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR NTHAI: And were you told, I mean you were told just, he would just pass there, you were not told where he would end up ultimately?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR NTHAI: There is something that you explain here which I could not get well, you said after you shot him, you went to shoot at the people who were sitting inside, or shooting inside the bakkie, what, can you explain that again?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, what happened is that after the driver fell down, I moved to the back of the bakkie and then from about hip height I shot at the front of the bakkie, towards the front of the bakkie, towards the cabin of the bakkie.

MR NTHAI: And that happened immediately after the driver fell down?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct, yes.

MR NTHAI: And that was before you checked whether the driver was dead or not?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I never said that I went to go and look to see if he was dead or not.

MR NTHAI: No, no, I am saying, I am saying you did that before you checked whether the driver was dead or not?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, but he never testified that he checked whether the driver was dead, in fact he said that he didn't, he cannot remember that he checked and he didn't check.

MR NTHAI: Well, that is correct, that is what I am saying.

CHAIRPERSON: You are not, you are putting to him that he did this before he went and checked. He has told us he did not go and check, so it is not a question of before he went and checked?

MR NTHAI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You can put to him that he did this without going to check?

MR NTHAI: Wouldn't be that, I mean your instruction was to kill Mr Sithole, the driver, why would you start shooting the other direction before you check whether he is dead or not?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I did not think at it at that stage, but if I can give a reasonable explanation, at this stage, the fact is that we knew that this person was an informer and I wouldn't have been worried about him further more, I fired a few shots at him and he fell.

MR NTHAI: No, but your order was to kill him, Mr Labuschagne, your order was to kill him, is that not correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: Were you not interested that he was killed?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, we had to ascertain if the person was dead or not, but not at that stage, no, I wasn't interested.

MR NTHAI: But that is very strange, you know, that you have an order to shoot someone, you shoot him, he falls down and then you proceed to do other things in stead of finalising your mission, is that not strange?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I do not believe so. I fired various shots at the person and he fell to the ground, and he was laying still.

MR NTHAI: At the time, there was no threat against you, because there were other people who were firing at the time, not so, with heavy calibre weapons?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I just fired shots through the back of the bakkie, I do not have a specific explanation for that.

MR NTHAI: And when you were given the order, were you told what were the reasons why Mr Sithole must be killed?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: What was the reason that was given to you?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was discussed there the fact that he could later become a threat for those who operated in Swaziland and if I can recall correctly it was also said and I speak under correction, that he could not be trusted at that stage.

MR NTHAI: I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Labuschagne, just questions in relation to your amnesty application forms, you submitted one in 1996 and then in 1998, you applied for this incident in 1996 already?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you have sight of the particulars attached to your amnesty application form of 1996 that is?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: In 1998?

MS LOCKHAT: In 1996? There is a little annexure annexed to your amnesty application form, just giving a description of the incidents. Did you have sight of that prior, or when did you have sight of those details?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, with respect, I don't know, the question isn't clear to the extent that I don't know if the question relates to the signing of the 1998 incident with reference to the 1996 application?

MS LOCKHAT: I am referring to the 1996 application form. There is the annexure attached.

MR LAX: Let me make it clear for you, let me make it clear for you. If one looks at annexure H, you will see that there is the Form 1, and that it is signed at the bottom of the third page, and then there is an Annexure A to that Form 1, and I think that is what you are talking about?

MS LOCKHAT: That is what I am referring to.

MR LAX: So to put it plainly, did you see this form, this Annexure A to this Form 1, before you signed it or when you signed it?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MS LOCKHAT: You did? And you read the contents of it I assume?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Why didn't you amend your 1996 application as you did today in relation to the arrest and others?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I can just give an explanation concerning this, it happened very quickly, it was about the McBride investigation and we had a limited period of time to do it in, and if I can recall correctly, I mentioned it to the legal representative that we could amend it at a later stage when there is an amnesty hearing and then give an explanation of what happened there.

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, it is just a very long time, and you had three years in which to amend the application? You do realise that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, if I may say that I signed it in 1996 and I never saw it again up until 1998. In 1998 I again saw it for the first time.

MS LOCKHAT: At what stage did you see that that was incorrect, the issues relating to the arrest and others, at what stage? Was it during this hearing or was it previously, was it in 1998?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: As far as I can remember, it was at that stage and also when I was in consultation with Mr du Plessis, we then said that we have to amend this. That was during the amnesty hearing.

MS LOCKHAT: So it was during this amnesty hearing that you realised that it needed to be amended? Just please be more clear relating to that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I saw the content of it when I went over or changed Attorneys, and it was then accepted as it stood. Then my legal representative said that we have to amend it during the hearing, and with my consultation with Mr du Plessis, I also said to him that the facts are not completely correct and that I would like to amend it.

CHAIRPERSON: So even when you changed Attorneys and you went to another Attorney, you accepted this and you left it as it was?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: It was only when you spoke to Mr du Plessis that you thought you had to change it?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MS LOCKHAT: And then just one other question, you said you were from the Ermelo Branch?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: Who of the other members at the Ermelo Branch participated in this operation, can you remember, can you give us more names?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, there was no one from Ermelo except for Chris Deetlefts, who was the Commander at that stage.

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

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Labuschagne, the expectation was that when the driver disembark, would he run or would he walk away from the car?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That I cannot remember, but I can remember that as I gave evidence earlier on, he opened the door and jumped out and then started to run.

MR SIBANYONI: You say you don't know anything about these expectations that he was supposed to pretend as if he was going to urinate?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I heard it here for the first time.

MR SIBANYONI: When you shot at him, was he running?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: Did he fall immediately or did he run for some distance before he fell?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: He fell immediately after I shot him.

MR SIBANYONI: If that happened, was it necessary to shoot him so many times, several times, because according to the post-mortem there are several wounds, gunshot wounds?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I can explain, what you do is that the weapon is on automatic and then you pull the trigger ... (tape ends) ...

MR NTHAI: So would you say ...

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is per second, various bullets can be fired.

MR NTHAI: Would you say most of the bullets struck him while he was standing or when he was already down on the ground?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I cannot say.

MR NTHAI: Thereafter you immediately moved to the back of the van and started shooting through the canopy to the front?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: At what stage did Mr de Kock place the AK47 next to the driver?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That was after the whole incident was over and we realised or found out what was inside the bakkie. Everybody was standing around the bakkie and we saw that there were weapons in the back. It was immediately afterwards, after the shooting ceased.

MR NTHAI: These AK47s, were they mantled or were they dismantled, because if I am not mistaken what we have heard is that when these weapons are infiltrated into the country, they will be dismantled and put in smaller bags, rather than to carry a long weapon like the rocket launcher, etc. Were they mantled or dismantled?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: The weapon was intact, it was assembled.

MR NTHAI: Thank you. No further questions, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Thank you Chair. Mr Labuschagne, just so that I can be clear about this, what was the object of telling the first version? In other words the version that you have now conceded isn't true?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I do not think there was something specific. Chris Deetlefts said that he would deal with the incident and that we have to adapt to what he says.

MR LAX: What was your purpose in doing that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: To be honest, is to say exactly what everybody else said.

MR LAX: So, if I could put it bluntly, your version was just to make sure that there were no contradictions in everyone's statement?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR LAX: And to the extent that that version is different to what you are now saying, that would amount to a cover up?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR LAX: And you did that at the time, knowing that you were obliged to tell the truth?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR LAX: And what motivated you to change it?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I think the whole motivation was based on the fact that the truth must come out. If I want amnesty, you have to tell the truth.

MR LAX: Your moving to the back of the vehicle and then opening fire with what was left in your magazine, was that a planned thing or was that just a spur of the moment decision or ...

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was a spur of the moment decision.

MR LAX: You people weren't sure how many people would be in that vehicle?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, as far as I can remember.

MR LAX: Now, there could just as easily have been people sitting in the canopy, armed, ready to shoot you?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It would have been possible, yes.

MR LAX: Did you not consider that as a possibility in your own thinking?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: To be honest, at that stage, no, I did not think of it, when I moved behind the bakkie and started to shoot.

MR LAX: This was, this incident happened as far as we are led to understand, on the 14th of August 1986?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR LAX: And at approximately half past nine in the evening?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that could have been the time.

MR LAX: That is mid-winter, or thereabouts?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR LAX: Where did the light come from, for you to be able to see through the windows of the vehicle, in the dark?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was not a dark night, it wasn't pitch dark. I cannot remember if it was full moon, half moon, but we could see, or I could see quite clearly.

CHAIRPERSON: Were the lights of the vehicle turned off?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I cannot remember Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: No other artificial light was used by any of you people?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR LAX: Did anyone have nightsight?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR LAX: And you are quite sure that you had tracer bullets in your firearm?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct, yes.

MR LAX: And what about your other colleagues?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: They also had tracer rounds that was used, I cannot say if it was in all the weapons, but some of them.

MR LAX: Well, when you were at the farm, did you all load up your weapons together, did you sit down and - you see the obtaining of tracer bullets, requires, you don't just normally have them lurking around? They would have had to be obtained from somewhere?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I can remember correctly, I received it just like that, I did not load the magazine.

MR LAX: So you didn't specifically load tracer bullets into the magazine?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I did not. I received the weapon from Piet Retief's people for this specific operation, it was not my issued rifle or weapon.

MR LAX: Do you remember who gave you your weapon, did somebody arrive with a whole stash of weapons and start distributing them?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I cannot remember specifically who gave me my weapon.

MR LAX: How did you even know there were tracer bullets in the magazine?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: When I fired it, I saw that it was tracer bullets.

MR LAX: So you weren't even expecting that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Mr Chairperson, I cannot remember whether it was told to me that I had tracers, but there were definitely tracers in the weapon that I fired.

MR LAX: And besides your weapon, you saw other tracer bullets going off?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR LAX: Because they leave a very distinctive mark in the sky as they go off?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR LAX: If you will just bear with me a moment, Chairperson. Thank you Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: You have told us you were on the extreme right of the firing line?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you choose this place or were you told to go there?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I can recall, after it was decided, it was because of that decision that I had to shoot the informer, I was placed at that specific point.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Re-examination?

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

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, the next amnesty applicant is Mr Eugene Fourie.

MR LAX: Mr Fourie, your full names for the record please.

MR FOURIE: Eugene Fourie.

EUGENE FOURIE: (sworn states)

MR LAX: Sworn in Chairperson, you may sit down.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just enquire, may Mr Labuschagne be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: No objection.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chair.

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Fourie, you have applied for various incidents where you also as a member of the Security Police was involved, is that correct?

MR FOURIE: That is correct yes.

MR LAMEY: In the bundle in front of the Committee, there is an initial application that you yourself completed, it is in your handwriting?

MR FOURIE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: It begins on page 80 and the form section would be up to page 82?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And on the 1st of December 1996 you signed it at Groblershoop?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then on page 83 and 84 there is a typed version, it seems as if it was done by the TRC, typed from your handwriting?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And the further explanation we find on page 85 up unto page 88, is that correct?

MR FOURIE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: If we look at the typed version, it seems as if it was ...

CHAIRPERSON: 85 to 88 is what appears at 83 to 84, isn't it?

MR LAMEY: Yes, that is the typed version thereof Chairperson. If we look at the typed version, paragraph 6 on page 84, mention is made of this incident, is that correct?

MR FOURIE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You were also a State witness in the de Kock case?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you have also appeared before this Committee concerning the Japie Maponya case?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: After you had obtained legal representation, is that correct, that supplementary statements were written where you signed it in 1998, is that correct?

MR FOURIE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: I am referring to page 84?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then on page 85 up to page 101, there is an overview of your ...

MR LAX: Sorry, are you talking about 95?

MR LAMEY: Yes, signed on page 94 Chairperson.

MR LAX: No, it just came over as 85.

MR LAMEY: Sorry, I apologise. From page 95 in the bundle, it is the overview of your background and training, you were also involved at that time in the conflict in South-West Africa before you joined C1?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that you were one of the earlier members of Vlakplaas?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you were there until you were transferred to Unit C2?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Unit C2 is also a section of Head Office?

MR FOURIE: That is correct yes.

MR LAMEY: Can you just in short tell me what was the main tasks of C2?

MR FOURIE: Unit C2's function was the identification of terrorists by means of photographs and a photo album as well as the research of terrorism including APLA and MK.

MR LAMEY: During this incident, the Nersden shooting, were you then a member of C2?

MR FOURIE: That is correct yes.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that you were under the command, I do not know what his rank was at that stage, Col Martin Naude?

MR FOURIE: That is correct yes, at Head Office, I was under Col Martin Naude.

MR LAMEY: Is it also so that after you were transferred to C2, you also sometimes when they needed the manpower, assisted C1 where you were before?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now, before this specific incident, is it true that you were working in Piet Retief?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: From C2, to Piet Retief?

MR FOURIE: That is correct, under the command of Freek Pienaar.

MR LAMEY: He was the Commander of Piet Retief Security Branch which was a sub Branch of the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is from Ermelo.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that Col Deetlefts was the Commander of the Ermelo Branch at that stage?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: When you were working in Piet Retief, did you generally work with C2 related functions, namely assistance to the Branch with regard to photo albums, identifications and so forth when it came to terrorists?

MR FOURIE: Yes, I was busy with photo identifications, with two terrorists that had been captured and detained at Piet Retief.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall who they were?

MR FOURIE: I have heard there names here again, it was Dladla, the other was Maseko.

MR LAMEY: And you recalled during the hearing that these were the two persons that you interrogated whilst they were in detention with regard to photo identification, by the use of photo albums?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: If we just look further, the particulars of this matter can be found on page 101, there is a statement about it, up to and including page 115, is that correct?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Mr Fourie, when you provided the further particulars in your amnesty application, as it is set out in these pages which I have just referred to, did you do so independently and did you have to rely on your independent recollection or did you enjoy the advantage or the opportunity of discussing it with any of the other applicants beforehand?

MR FOURIE: No, this was the first time after 12 years that I had once again been confronted with the incident.

MR LAMEY: Very well.

MR LAX: Just to help you there, it wasn't the first time, because you had already done so prior to that, in your amnesty application, where you at least thought about it. It may have been the first time that you did it in detail?

MR FOURIE: Yes Chairperson, it was the first time that a statement, the first time a statement was taken from me at Groblershoop and then a further more thorough statement was taken from me in 1998 by my legal representative, but I was alone both times.

MR LAMEY: If we can then just proceed to the run up to the incident, you refer to a person by the name of Shadrack Mopolopo in paragraph 2, who one day according to your recollection, arrived at the Security Branch offices?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: If we can just pause at the name, this name Shadrack Mopolopo, what is your ...

MR LAX: Sorry, just one second, it is not Mopolopo, it is Mopolopo.

INTERPRETER: Thank you.

MR LAMEY: Could you just discuss the name?

MR FOURIE: The day that I took the statement I recalled the name Shadrack, but why I linked the surname to him, is unknown to me, there was quite a well known person in Swaziland by the name of Shadrack Mopolopo, that is why I must have linked the name automatically, because I worked with so many different names. I couldn't really distinguish all the time.

MR LAMEY: The person who was the driver or the informer, was Shadrack Sithole?

MR FOURIE: Yes, I assume so.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that - Mr Pienaar gave evidence here that he had previously known about the movements of Shadrack Sithole, pertaining to the transportation of persons into the country, did you know at that stage before you saw him at Security Branch offices?

MR FOURIE: No, I did not know.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that it was there for the first time, that you heard that he was bringing persons in through the border?

MR FOURIE: After Shadrack had come to the Security offices and once again departed, I heard from Mr Pienaar that he was known to Mr Pienaar and that he had previously infiltrated terrorists into the RSA from Swaziland.

MR LAMEY: Very well, can we just pause at the point when he arrived there and you heard about this for the first time. Is it correct that you heard that he had to bring MK persons through across the border?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: The first that you heard, did you know at that stage, how many persons he would be infiltrating, was there any discussion in that regard?

MR FOURIE: There was a discussion with him at the Security Branch offices, in Pienaar's offices to the effect that he said that he had been contacted by the ANC to transport armed terrorists to the East Rand, but that he wasn't certain precisely how many persons these would be. He also wasn't certain about precisely whom would take them to the RSA border, furthermore he wasn't quite sure what sort of weaponry they would have and how much weaponry there would be in the vehicle, but it was tentatively stated in Swaziland that he had to assist with the transportation of these persons to the East Rand.

MR LAMEY: Very well, and were there any further statements to him by Mr Pienaar, in order to obtain any further information?

MR FOURIE: Mr Pienaar then asked him to return once again to Swaziland and then to find out more about how many people he was supposed to infiltrate, whether or not they would be armed, where precisely they were going, he was supposed to make an attempt to determine this information in Swaziland and then report back to the Piet Retief Security Branch.

MR LAMEY: Did you see him again after that?

MR FOURIE: I am not certain whether it was a day or two, three later, but I saw him again at the Piet Retief Security Branch.

MR LAMEY: Were you present when he provided further information?

MR FOURIE: Yes, I was present.

MR LAMEY: And did he then say how many persons he was supposed to infiltrate?

MR FOURIE: He wasn't certain either, he said that it would be three or four and that he knew that he had to take them to the East Rand, but he also stated that in Swaziland they weren't entirely certain how many persons would be infiltrating in the unit.

MR LAMEY: And the second time when he made these statements, did he give any indication of when he was supposed to infiltrate these persons?

MR FOURIE: As far as I can recall, he said that that very same evening still, he would have to infiltrate or transport these persons from the Swaziland border to the East Rand.

MR LAMEY: Was any mention made of a reward that would be paid to him for his information, in your presence?

MR FOURIE: Yes, he was told that he would receive a reward if he were to provide information to the Security Branch.

MR LAMEY: And what else happened that you can recall, after he had provided this further information that he was to bring these persons through and that they would be armed, what else happened?

MR FOURIE: As far as I can recall, Warrant Officer Pienaar, another person and I, I cannot recall this other person, it is possible that it may have been Col de Kock, I thought that it could have been Warrant Officer Botha, the three of us drove to a point along the Nersden/Amsterdam Road where we went to show him where he was supposed to stop that evening, when he had picked up the persons on the RSA border, he was to tell the persons that he needed to urinate and that he was suppose to stop at a certain point where we would be laying in position, and then we would act further once he had stopped.

MR LAMEY: Very well, did you tell him that an ambush would be set up and that the persons would be shot dead in the ambush? What I mean is, from the initial point they would be shot dead?

MR FOURIE: We told him that at that point, we would take up position, we being the Security Forces, and then he was to move away to the back, to the right back direction of the bakkie to urinate, and we explained to him that he had to understand that if these persons were armed, there may be a shooting and that we would ensure that he would be out of the line of fire, before we took action in shooting these persons dead. That is what we explained to him. We didn't tell him that we were not going to shoot these persons, or that we were going to shoot them. We told him that there may or may not be a shooting, depending on what would happen from the side of the terrorists.

MR LAMEY: Mr Fourie, was there any talk at that stage among you and Pienaar and possibly some of the other members, I mean underlying discussions, that he could be shot?

MR FOURIE: Not at that stage, Mr Pienaar said that he did not trust this person due to the fact that he had previously infiltrated persons and had not reported this, but it was never mentioned in my presence that he specifically would be shot dead because the informer was also present when we had discussions. But at no other stage in my presence was it specifically said that Shadrack would be shot dead.

MR LAMEY: Is it also so, this is on paragraph 5 on page 103, that there were Vlakplaas members who were working in the area at that stage?

MR FOURIE: That is correct, I know that there were Vlakplaas members in the vicinity at that stage with regard to the Nersden incident, but my memory has been refreshed here, and I recall that this was also at the same time that the Glory Sidebe incident took place. I had forgotten that when I compiled my statement, and that is the primary reason why Vlakplaas members were present in that environment.

MR LAMEY: Very well, and they were also involved in the operation with regard to the ambush?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you know that there would be a group of members, you mentioned Paul van Dyk, you say Eugene de Kock but that you may be mistaken about that, Douw Willemse, Nofomela, that these persons would be involved in the operation?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then Col Deetlefts and Lappies Labuschagne you also mentioned?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Very well. With regard, is it also correct that some of the members would also have been stationed at another point, at a so-called T-junction where the road from the Nersden border post turned off to Amsterdam?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is that the point where Shadrack would then be picking up the persons?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You state here that the purpose with the presence of members at this point would be to determine the route that the MKs would be using and the guide that they would also be using?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: What did you mean when you mentioned the guide?

MR FOURIE: I understood that there would be a guide with the trained MK terrorists, who would infiltrate with them in order to point out the route to them because usually they would have just returned from Angola or Zambia and they wouldn't be very familiar with the routes. So they would make use of a guide, so that they could cross the border where a vehicle would be waiting to pick them up. But even Shadrack didn't know which guide would be used, or whether only a guide would be used or whether there would be someone accompanying the guide, we really didn't know what was going to happen that night.

MR LAMEY: Did you yourself know who the guide would be?

MR FOURIE: No, I didn't.

MR LAMEY: What did you understand would the members have to do with the guide there at the T-junction?

MR FOURIE: I understood that the guide would primarily have to be arrested, so that further information could be extracted from him, because the guide would usually accompany the armed terrorists to the vehicle and assist them in carrying their weapons especially if they had quite a lot of weapons on them, then he would return alone and unarmed to Swaziland, that is usually how things operated.

I assumed on that evening, that the guide would have returned alone to Swaziland and that an attempt would have been made to arrest him so that further information could be obtained from him pertaining to infiltrations into the RSA, because during those years, the onslaught on the Republic was quite tremendous.

MR LAMEY: And before this incident, had you worked previously in Swaziland and had you had anything to do with the modus operandi when it came to infiltrations from Swaziland?

MR FOURIE: Yes, I had. I had worked in Swaziland and also conducted research on terrorism.

MR LAMEY: Then in paragraph 7 on page 104 you state that before the execution of the operation, according to your recollection, there was a planning session, which was conducted at the Security offices in Piet Retief?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And that you were present there and that some of the other members were also present there, you stated that Col Deetlefts was there, but you have heard Col Deetlefts state that he was not at the Security Branch offices at that meeting itself, but that he was on the farm just outside Piet Retief?

MR FOURIE: I would concede to that, because I forgot about the Sidebe matter and that Sidebe was detained on a smallholding outside Piet Retief, and because I was busy with photo identifications of the two arrested terrorists, I simultaneously conducted photo identifications with Sidebe on the smallholding. I had forgotten completely about the Sidebe matter, due to the Nersden incident, that is why I thought that meeting took place at the Branch itself.

MR LAX: Sorry, are you conceding that the meeting could well have taken place on the farm?

MR FOURIE: Yes, it could have taken place on the farm.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MR LAMEY: Mr Fourie, what I want to ask you is, whether during your presence at a meeting or any meeting or any discussion, before you departed for the place where you were also a participant in the ambush operation, ever heard of a decision that the driver or the informer or Shadrack then, would also be eliminated?

MR FOURIE: No. I was never present at any such meeting. If I could just tell the Committee, during Col de Kock's evidence I heard that he said that he and Col Deetlefts had issued this instruction to Lappies, but I wasn't present when this took place.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Did you also receive a weapon and can you recall what sort of weapon this was?

MR FOURIE: Yes, I received an R1, 7,26mm firearm, a gun.

MR LAMEY: And you were then a member of the group which took up position next to the Nersden/Amsterdam Road? You state in paragraph 10 approximately 10 km's from the point where the other members were, you were there with that group and you took up position next to the road where you waited for the vehicle?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct, with the large group.

MR LAMEY: Could you just tell the Committee where did you take up position?

MR FOURIE: If we look Chairperson, at Exhibit B, the sketch of the vehicle and the road which was put together by Col de Kock. All of us were on the southerly side of the road, we were positioned in one single file, line. I was either on the extreme left or second from left, but as the dots end there on the left side, one could move two dots along, so I was positioned diagonally opposite the cabin of the bakkie.

MR LAMEY: If the bakkie stopped and you were on the left side, if one orientates oneself from the southerly side, you were either on the extreme left or second from the left in the line?

MR FOURIE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: On the western side, on the Amsterdam side of the road?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then where the bakkie stopped, its cabin section was diagonally to your right?

MR FOURIE: Yes. It came to a standstill to the eastern side of me.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Were any of the members positioned on the opposite side of the road as far as you can recall?

MR FOURIE: No.

MR LAMEY: Did you at any stage hear with regard to the driver, Shadrack Sithole, that he would also be shot?

MR FOURIE: At the scene itself, we arrived at the scene a reasonable time before the shooting itself, and we stood around there first before we formed the straight line, and that is when I heard from Lappies that he had been instructed that he was supposed to shoot the informer. He either said "I am going to shoot the informer" or "I have to shoot the informer", I cannot recall precisely what he said, but something to that effect, and that is when I heard that there had been another meeting or another plan and that I had not been present during such discussion, but that it was there that the decision was taken to kill the informer.

MR LAMEY: Very well, in this regard, can you say whether Mr Pienaar told you anything at any stage regarding Shadrack pertaining to his reliability?

MR FOURIE: Yes, Mr Pienaar told me that after the first meeting with Shadrack at the office, he told me that he didn't really trust Shadrack because when he heard the name Shadrack Sithole, it rang a bell in his mind, that he knew this name from somewhere and after he made enquiries, I don't know whether he had a file on him at the office, he said that this man had previously infiltrated to the RSA and had transported terrorists to the RSA, and that he was used by the ANC in Swaziland as a courier.

MR LAMEY: Did you know at that stage that Mr Labuschagne had worked particularly in Swaziland?

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

MR LAMEY: Did you think that he also would possess further information regarding Shadrack?

MR FOURIE: Well, he had testified that he didn't.

MR LAMEY: But the question is what you thought at that stage?

MR FOURIE: Yes, I believed so because Lappies and Col Deetlefts knew Swaziland very well and had dealt with many informers in Swaziland and for this reason I thought that he possessed more information about Shadrack.

MR LAMEY: Very well. But you then accepted that there had been an amendment to the arrangements or the plan with regard to Shadrack Sithole?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: At the scene after the bakkie had come to a standstill, can you briefly relate your recollection with regard to the observation that you had from your vantage point?

MR FOURIE: When the bakkie came to a standstill, diagonally to the right in front of me, and shots were fired, I fired directly at the cabin of the bakkie.

MR LAMEY: May I just ask you, where was the driver, Shadrack, at that stage?

MR FOURIE: Shadrack opened his door and climbed out and moved quickly to the right back, then the first shots were fired and I also opened fire.

MR LAMEY: So did you commence shooting after the first shots were fired?

MR FOURIE: When I heard the first shot being fired, I pulled my trigger and opened fire in the direction of the cabin.

MR LAMEY: Could you see what the position of Shadrack was when the first shots were fired?

MR FOURIE: No, I could not really see where he was, but I saw when he opened the door and got out and he turned right and immediately moved to the back of the vehicle.

MR LAMEY: This movement of his, the way you saw it from your vantage point, would you say there is a difference in what was discussed with him when you were present with him and Pienaar before the place that was indicated where he had to stop?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct. I do not know if it was indicated where he had to stop, more than once, but I was with Warrant Officer Pienaar and Col Deetlefts, or Warrant Officer Botha, it was said to him that if he told the passengers that he had to go and urinate, he had to stop, get out and diagonally move across the road to get to safety, if a shooting would ensue. It was strange for me that that night when he stopped there, he got out and then directly turned right and moved alongside the bakkie to the back, and that was strange to me, because we did not discuss this, because then I thought maybe other arrangements were made with him where I was not present.

MR LAX: Sorry, you are going quite quickly and I am missing some of the stuff as I am trying to make my notes.

Did I hear you correctly to say that he should have got out of the car and gone to your left?

CHAIRPERSON: No, diagonally across.

MR FOURIE: No.

MR LAX: Diagonally across where?

MR FOURIE: To the right hand side, across the road, that is how it was explained to him, then he would be in a safe place if shooting would ensue and if there were armed people in the bakkie, that was discussed in front of him.

MR LAX: And you are sure about that?

MR FOURIE: Yes, I am sure. He had to turn right to the back of the bakkie.

MR LAX: But go off at a diagonal?

MR FOURIE: Yes, at a diagonal angle.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Who did you fire at?

MR FOURIE: I fired mostly, or the whole time I fired at the front of the bakkie where there were two passengers and I emptied my whole magazine, 20 rounds.

MR LAMEY: Can I just ask you this one aspect, or let me put it this way, the question concerning the tracer bullets came to the fore in this evidence led here, do you know about it?

MR FOURIE: Yes, I do, from Ovamboland in the war situation, we also used tracer bullets.

MR LAMEY: If you think back today and independently we ask you, if you think of your recollection of it, what is your recollection concerning or can you remember if you had such rounds that evening?

MR FOURIE: Yes, definitely, it gives you an indication of the direction in which you are shooting.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Of previous experience, do you know if the Security Branches also had such rounds in their ammunition storage places?

MR FOURIE: Yes, it was common use.

MR LAMEY: Very well, then you mention in your statement, you say that, in paragraph 15, immediately after he opened the canopy, that is now the driver, -

and then paragraph 21 you say, on page 109 if I can just jump in your statement concerning the specific aspect, you say -

Was there such a discussion afterwards at the scene or do you have an independent recollection concerning this?

MR FOURIE: After the shooting, I did hear a discussion at the scene, but as far as I can remember those words were uttered after the Casspir vehicle arrived at the scene. I heard a discussion or the words, although I did not see it, but somebody did say that at the scene.

MR LAMEY: You also say in your statement ... (tape ends) ... then just to come back to the amount of people who were at the scene, who were shot at the scene, if we can just make another jump to page 110, you say -

It seems, Mr Fourie, that during the taking of this statement, you were under the impression that more people were shot in comparison with what we heard here?

MR FOURIE: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: Also at one stage, you also mention in your statement, you thought that somebody was in the canopy section of the car?

MR FOURIE: Yes, I thought so when the statement was taken.

MR LAMEY: We also heard during this hearing, that some of the other applicants thought that there were two people with Shadrack in the vehicle?

MR FOURIE: Yes, a body was brought to the scene later on.

MR LAMEY: So in the end, there were then four bodies at the scene?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: What is your comment concerning what the evidence of the other witnesses or applicants, do you think that maybe you made a mistake or that you could not remember concerning the members that were shot at the scene?

MR FOURIE: I made the wrong assumption, I believe that there were only three people killed at our scene, but the fact they dropped another body at the scene, it confused me and I may have thought that there were four people in the bakkie, because there were four bodies.

Because after the shooting, Col Deetlefts and myself went to the front of the bakkie and looked at the two bodies, where we found a pistol between one of them's legs, as well as a hand grenade. We first searched that part of the vehicle and then only later, went to the back of the bakkie, because we were laying at the front of the bakkie. I assumed that there were four people because there were four bodies, but as I heard now that a body was brought from the T-junction to our scene ...

MR LAMEY: Very well, and you do not have reason to dispute this?

MR FOURIE: No.

MR LAMEY: You already made mention of a hand weapon or a pistol that was found in the front cabin?

MR FOURIE: Yes, it was a pistol with an Eastern background.

MR LAMEY: If you talk about an Eastern background, can you remember the name?

MR FOURIE: It was a Makarov or a Tokarev.

MR LAMEY: Very well, and then you also say in paragraph 16 on page 117 that there were other weapons, for example a rocket launcher, a PG7 as well as AK47 and handgrenades in the back of the vehicle?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then you also heard that one of the people who were at the T-junction, who were shot at the T-junction, was wounded?

MR FOURIE: Yes, I heard this after the incident.

MR LAMEY: And that this person was arrested the following day, is that correct?

MR FOURIE: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: You also mention in paragraph 18 that the person who was arrested the following day, was an MK member?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: It seems as if it was Mr Sandani?

MR FOURIE: That is correct yes.

MR LAMEY: You also say that this person was also detained then later at the Bethal prison?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Were you involved in the interrogation?

MR FOURIE: Yes. I was involved in the photo identification, we had a set of about 5 000 photographs that we went through after every arrest of a terrorist, where he identified all the photographs he could. Then he told us his history, when he left the country, where he got his training, where he last saw this person he identified, so we compiled information about the people of his movements outside of the country.

MR LAMEY: If you say that he was an MK member, how do you know that?

MR FOURIE: Was this now Sandani?

MR LAMEY: Yes, the person that you interrogated?

MR FOURIE: Well, he said that he was trained outside of the country in Angola or in Russia or in Eastern Germany, but he had undergone training besides in Angola ... (transcriber's own interpretation)

MR LAMEY: Did he mention that he had further training?

MR FOURIE: Yes, military training outside of the country.

MR LAMEY: Did you assault him at any stage during the interrogation?

MR FOURIE: No, I did not.

MR LAMEY: Did he give his co-operation?

MR FOURIE: Yes, he gave his full co-operation.

MR LAMEY: Then further in your statement, do you confirm that this is what your conclusion was concerning Shadrack Mopolopo, is that correct?

MR FOURIE: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: And then furthermore, paragraph 21, 22 and 23, is that according to you, what your recollection was, as it is stated there?

MR FOURIE: That is correct yes.

MR LAMEY: Very well. And then we will also have to amend the amount of people for which you then ask amnesty, is that correct?

MR FOURIE: Yes, because it seems as if I asked amnesty for more than ...

MR LAMEY: Concerning the guide who was shot at another scene, who was killed, you were not represented there, you do not know what the circumstances were and what happened there and why he was shot?

MR FOURIE: No, I do not know at all.

MR LAMEY: What you know about it is what you had heard?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Very well. You also say then in paragraph 112 that the fourth member was MK Zakes?

MR FOURIE: I am not quite sure about that, but Vusi Sandani was his real name, but I do not know about the other name, I could have been mistaken.

MR LAMEY: And the political motive as on page 113 and 114 and the command that you received and the approval that you got, do you confirm that?

MR FOURIE: Yes, I do.

MR LAMEY: Mr Fourie, then there is just another aspect that I forgot about and I would like to ask you something about this. Do you have a recollection about the way in which the bodies were transported from the scene, can you remember? Was it an ambulance?

MR FOURIE: No, as far as I can remember, they were placed at the back of an open bakkie, as far as I can remember, because I again saw them at the Piet Retief police station, when the bakkie stopped in front of the mortuary, the bodies were still at the back of the open bakkie.

MR LAMEY: Was this a police bakkie?

MR FOURIE: It was an unmarked bakkie, it was a Security Branch bakkie.

MR LAMEY: Were any of the deceased killed from a short distance at the scene?

MR FOURIE: No, the shortest distance was the people sitting in front, and that was myself and Col Deetlefts, and that was approximately two metres.

MR LAMEY: Did you receive any benefits apart from your normal salary as a policeman in this incident?

MR FOURIE: No, not at all.

MR LAMEY: Can you remember what your rank was at that stage?

MR FOURIE: I was a Sergeant or Warrant Officer, I think it was Sergeant.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Fourie, you were involved at C1 at Vlakplaas before Mr de Kock took over the command there?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You were there even before he arrived at Vlakplaas?

MR FOURIE: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Vlakplaas was known as the police, or the Security Police's operational Headquarters?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And ammunition and weaponry was easily obtainable there?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And rules concerning the issuing of ammunition for other police units, did not, Vlakplaas did not have to follow that?

MR FOURIE: No, we had no disciplinary rules concerning that.

MR HATTINGH: But in the rules of the South African Police it was that if a certain amount of bullets were issued, it was written down in a book, and if you used some of those bullets, you had to apply and had to replace them?

MR FOURIE: Yes, you had to give a report for every single round that was used.

MR HATTINGH: Or rounds that disappeared or that was used, it had to be done in writing?

MR FOURIE: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: But that was not the case at Vlakplaas?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: At Vlakplaas you could not only get ammunition, but you could also get Eastern block weapons and ammunition?

MR FOURIE: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you could freely have access to tracer ammunition?

MR FOURIE: Yes, everything was available at Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: And it was also generally, or tracer bullets were also used generally, especially in night operations?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is it also true that it came after Mr de Kock's evidence and he mentioned that it was his custom to leave the last three rounds in his magazine and they would then be the tracer bullets, and that was to enable him to know when his magazine would empty?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that was in Ovamboland in the war against SWAPO, I personally put my first round, it would be an ordinary round, the second one would be a tracer one, because if I do not hit the first time, I could see where I am shooting and the second one, and then the last two, I never counted the rounds in my magazine, but the last two rounds in my magazine would also be a tracer bullet, so that I would know then to re-load my magazine.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, was that also the position in this instance?

MR FOURIE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you said that you emptied the whole magazine?

MR FOURIE: Yes, I did, I shot all 20 rounds.

MR HATTINGH: You heard what I put to Mr Labuschagne concerning the quality of the tracer bullets, he could not really help me. Do you have more knowledge concerning the workings of a tracer round?

MR FOURIE: Mr Chairperson, all that I know is that it has phosphor and that it moves very fast, you can determine the direction in which you are shooting, so you can then adjust to your target in order to hit the target better.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can I interrupt you for a moment, do I understand from what you have just told Mr Hattingh, that you loaded your own magazine on this night?

MR FOURIE: Chairperson, I cannot recall, as I have said my custom was to make the second round a tracer bullet and then the final two as well. I know that I had tracer bullets in the magazine that night, but I received my weapon in that condition from the Piet Retief Security Branch, it was loaded with tracer bullets, it was custom among us, particularly those members who had come from Ovamboland. It was our custom to load with tracer bullets, because we had often had contacts at night.

MR LAX: The question was did you load your weapon yourself that night?

MR FOURIE: As I have just stated, I cannot recall whether I received it as such in that precise condition from the Security Branch or whether we loaded them, I am not sure, but I know that there were tracer bullets in the firearm that I used. All that I did before I inserted the magazine, was to ensure that it was full.

MR HATTINGH: And you could see that there were tracer bullets in the magazine, due to the fact that you could see the bullet as it was fired?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know that a tracer bullet even after its energy has waned, could still be warm enough to set a field alight?

MR FOURIE: Yes, we had often had to extinguish quite a number of fires on Vlakplaas due to tracer bullets.

MR HATTINGH: Is this because of tracer ammunition, the use of tracer ammunition?

MR FOURIE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you often undertake shooting exercises at Vlakplaas?

MR FOURIE: Yes, we had a shooting range on the farm where we regularly conducted shooting exercises and sometimes it would happen that from the fire, the field would be set on fire due to this ammunition.

MR HATTINGH: So you used tracer ammunition during these exercises as well?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I proceed? Thank you. Mr Fourie, these words that you uttered, you cannot recall where you heard these words subsequently about Sithole which had opened the canopy, you cannot recall from whom or where you heard this?

MR FOURIE: I cannot recall it, I just know that the words were uttered at the scene, but I cannot recall who uttered the words.

MR DU PLESSIS: Would you think that it would be a possibility that it was uttered to the members of the TIN unit who arrived there?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is my suspicion.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Fourie, you heard that there was mention in some of the applications that somebody jumped out of the left passenger door, wielding a firearm and Mr Labuschagne has testified that he never saw any such person. Then there have also been persons who said that the left passenger door was only slightly ajar, what is your recollection about this?

MR FOURIE: My recollection is that no one disembarked with both of his feet on the ground, it is possible that the door may have been slightly ajar before they were shot dead inside the bakkie, but no other person than the driver disembarked completely from the bakkie, and nobody disembarked from the left door of the bakkie.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall whether you saw whether the person in the left front, had a pistol in his hands?

MR FOURIE: No, I cannot recall anything like that.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then Mr Fourie, you heard what Mr Labuschagne said about the place where Mr Sithole lay after Mr Labuschagne had shot him, do you agree with that evidence?

MR FOURIE: Yes, I agree with the evidence, although I did not see him collapse because I was on the other side of the bakkie, but after the incident, I saw where his corpse was positioned.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, and then the last question, as I understand you, you do not dispute Mr Labuschagne or Mr de Kock in their evidence, that an order was issued for the informer also to be eliminated. You simply stated that you were not present and that you cannot recall the issue of such an order? It was not issued when you were present?

MR FOURIE: That is correct, but I do not dispute the fact that such an order was ever issued.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Chairperson, nothing further.

MR ROSSOUW: I have no questions, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAMAWELE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Fourie, I just want to refer you to your typed statement, page 103 paragraph 6, where you say that the -

Then you say that the, that is actually where the black members had taken up position?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR RAMAWELE: Can you remember how many black members were involved in this operation?

MR FOURIE: No, I cannot recall, I was not at that point, and I was also not involved in the planning of the persons who were positioned at that point. I simply know that Paul van Dyk had to take his own decision at that point, depending on the circumstances, because nobody knew that a trained terrorist would return with the guide to Swaziland, an armed person. We expected that an unarmed guide would return to Swaziland.

MR RAMAWELE: But in your statement you say specifically that the black members and Douw Willemse had taken up position four kilometres from the Nersden border gate?

MR FOURIE: Yes, I can only recall Almond Nofomela, but I don't know who were the other persons who were also present.

MR RAMAWELE: Do you remember Mngadi, Mr Mngadi?

MR FOURIE: No, I heard here that he was there, I cannot recall him.

MR RAMAWELE: You see the reason why I am asking you this is because Mr Paul van Dyk I think, says that he was at the particular T-junction where you say that Douw Willemse was at, but you say it was actually Douw Willemse and the black members?

MR FOURIE: No, I do not know at all where they were positioned, all I knew is that that group had to go to the T-junction, where precisely every person had to take up position, is something that I was not involved in. All I knew is that they had to be in the vicinity of the T-junction, I wasn't there when they were pointed out which positions they should take up, I didn't drop them off there.

MR RAMAWELE: So in short, what you are saying is that except for your group where Mr de Kock was, your group where the bakkie was shot at, you don't know the others, Douw Willemse, Paul van Dyk, Nofomela, Mngadi, you don't know where precisely they stood?

MR FOURIE: No, I don't know. All I know is that they had to take up position at the T-junction.

MR RAMAWELE: You wouldn't dispute, because my instruction from Mr Nofomela is that he was actually at the T-junction together with two white members and Mr van Dyk wasn't there. You wouldn't dispute that?

MR FOURIE: No, I wouldn't because I don't know about it, I was only aware of the one group. One at the T-junction and one at the place where we were, where we set up the ambush.

MR RAMAWELE: And you further say that -

Where did you hear this?

MR FOURIE: I heard this at the Security Branch from Warrant Officer Pienaar, because it was his region, he would have wanted to know who the persons were who were infiltrating the MK members and which persons were involved on the Swaziland side. It was for him a priority, should circumstances allow, and only an unarmed guide returned to Swaziland, to attempt to arrest the person, but Paul would have to be led by circumstances, because if there were armed persons returning along with this person, Paul would have to decide whether or not he would shoot or arrest. It was left to his discretion.

MR RAMAWELE: My instruction from Mr Nofomela is that he was given instructions by Mr de Kock to eliminate those coming from, to eliminate anybody coming back, going to Swaziland?

MR FOURIE: I wasn't present at that stage.

MR RAMAWELE: So you wouldn't dispute when Mr Nofomela puts it to you that his instruction was to eliminate anybody coming back?

MR FOURIE: I wouldn't dispute that.

MR RAMAWELE: I've got no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Fourie, you have heard the evidence of Mr Pienaar as well as Mr Deetlefts. Mr Pienaar states that he told the informer that they would arrest the persons at that scene, can you dispute this?

MR FOURIE: Chairperson, when I was present, we told the informer at the scene that we would attempt to arrest these persons, but that one could never be sure, because these persons could be armed, a shooting could ensue and due to this, we would shoot. We didn't simply say that we were only going to arrest them, we mentioned the possibility to him of a shooting, and that was the primary reason why he had to get away from the bakkie, if they were to open fire on us, we would open fire on them.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Fourie, just a singular aspect, you stated that Mr van Dyk had to take his own decisions at the position where he was, near the T-junction, and he will testify that it was his attention to arrest the person in order to identify the point where the other persons on the Swaziland side, were situated. Do you know anything about this?

MR FOURIE: I would not dispute that, because the first discussion I had with Freek Pienaar was that the group that had to be positioned there, had to aim, if circumstances permitted, to arrest this person, this guide, in order to determine where he was going in Swaziland, so that he could explain the route to them and so that he could also tell Freek who was assisting with the infiltration of MK members, but Paul would have to decide for himself, nobody knew that a trained MK member would return to Swaziland with this guide, we didn't know this before the time, so Paul had to be led by circumstances.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NTHAI: Tell me, did you make an affidavit for that inquest?

MR FOURIE: No, I did not.

MR NTHAI: Do you have any reason why you didn't do so?

MR FOURIE: I was never approached by any person to depose of a statement for a post-mortem inquest.

MR NTHAI: And you did not attend the meeting where the affidavits were discussed?

MR FOURIE: No, I did not.

MR NTHAI: And you were saying that you were very key at the identification of the photo's, is that correct?

MR FOURIE: Please repeat.

MR NTHAI: You were very key in identification of the photo's in the area?

MR FOURIE: Of defectors, yes, or dissidents.

MR NTHAI: Yes. You mentioned that the reason why you mentioned Shadrack Mopolopo was because you confused another person by that name?

MR FOURIE: That is correct, according to my knowledge there was also a Shadrack Mopolopo who had lived or operated in Swaziland and that is why the name rang a bell to me on that day, I knew the name Shadrack, but I wasn't certain of the surname, and that is why the name Shadrack Mopolopo emerged in my mind, but I accept today that I was mistaken.

MR NTHAI: Before, on the night of the 14th, you didn't know the name of the driver?

MR FOURIE: I knew his name, yes.

MR NTHAI: You knew it was Shadrack Sithole?

MR FOURIE: Yes, I knew that.

MR NTHAI: And later on when you put the name, you confused the two surnames?

MR FOURIE: Yes, it was 12 years later, I didn't liaise very regularly with those persons, I had only seen the man twice in my life.

MR NTHAI: And you are saying that these people, the people who were killed in the vehicle, you said they were going to the East Rand?

MR FOURIE: That is what Shadrack said, that he was to transport persons to the East Rand, Witwatersrand, and he specifically stated the East Rand.

MR NTHAI: So these people were not going to plant bombs around the Eastern Transvaal?

MR FOURIE: Not that I knew of, I also don't believe that he knew either.

MR NTHAI: Did you believe him, that these people were going to the East Rand?

MR FOURIE: Yes. Perhaps I can just explain to the Committee that the Transvaal Machinery consisted of the Rural Machinery as well as the Urban Machinery and this also fell under Paul Dikaledi who was the Overall Commander of the Transvaal Machinery, and these two had to form part of the Transvaal Urban Machinery.

MR NTHAI: Yes. And you are also saying that the issue of the killing of Sithole, you only heard it at the scene by Labuschagne, is that correct?

MR FOURIE: That is correct. While I was busy with interrogation and photo identification of the two arrested terrorists in detention in Piet Retief, I didn't attend everything that took place on the smallholding of the office, because my primary task was to undertake photo identification with the detainees, but it was for the first time at the scene that I heard from Lappies that he had to shoot the informer. I have heard here that Col de Kock gave the order to do so. As he testified, it was in the presence of Mr Deetlefts that de Kock told this to Labuschagne.

MR NTHAI: Were you not surprised about this?

MR FOURIE: I was.

MR NTHAI: Did you try to question him about that?

MR FOURIE: No.

MR NTHAI: Were you not now concerned about the plan which was made with the driver?

MR FOURIE: No, I wasn't, because I believed that because Lappies and Deetlefts and Freek operated in that area and had a lot of information about Swaziland, I believed that they had reason and information to justify Sithole's death.

MR NTHAI: No, I am talking about just the whole plan, the plan that you had. Isn't it that there was a plan that he was supposed to pretend as if he was going to urinate?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is why it was strange to me when he climbed out and walked directly along the bakkie.

MR NTHAI: This confusion about whether there were five people or four people, how did it come about, because you are not the only one mentioning it? It has been mentioned several times, almost most of the applicants are mentioning this, where did the confusion come from?

MR FOURIE: I think the fact that I became confused could be ascribed to the fact that I imagined that I saw someone in the back of the bakkie as I lay shooting from my position. In retrospect I could also have thought that it was the bags which protruded in the window which may have led me to believe that there was another person in the back of the bakkie, but what misled me completely, was the fourth body which was at the scene, and I didn't know that this had been brought from the T-junction to the scene of the shooting incident. That is why I assumed that there had been a fourth person in the bakkie, because there were four bodies at the scene of the incident. I wasn't aware of the fact that the corpse had been brought from the T-junction to the scene of our incident, because it was after the incident that the body was fetched from the T-junction and brought to our scene, that is why I assumed that there had to have been four persons, and that a fourth person had to have been seated in the canopy section of the bakkie, because that is what I saw. When I looked again, there were four bodies.

MR NTHAI: Okay. After how long were the other body from the other side, brought?

MR FOURIE: No, I don't know and I don't know who transported it there, I don't know who gave the order for it. I thought that Pienaar testified that he sent Botha to fetch the body, but I don't know, I am not aware of it.

MR NTHAI: But you saw it at the scene?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: I am saying at what stage, a number of things, there were other people who came there, the other people, at what stage ...

MR FOURIE: Yes, I don't know how long after our shooting incident, the body arrived there, because the TIN unit arrived there and Col de Kock and Freek examined the weapons and ammunition quite thoroughly. Many things took place, so I don't know at which stage the body arrived there at the scene of our incident.

MR NTHAI: Yes. You are talking about the transportation of the bodies at the back of the bakkie, who was driving this bakkie?

MR FOURIE: I don't know.

MR NTHAI: Who loaded these bodies?

MR FOURIE: It would probably have been all the persons who were there in the vicinity, who participated in the operation, our people who had participated in the operation. The bodies were transported from there to Piet Retief, to the mortuary.

MR NTHAI: I am with you, you were there, did you participate in the loading of the bodies?

MR FOURIE: It is entirely that I may have assisted in loading the bodies onto the vehicle.

MR NTHAI: And you cannot remember how these bodies were loaded, whether they were thrown in or they were just loaded normally?

MR FOURIE: Well, as we worked with the bodies, we would have tossed them onto the vehicle.

MR NTHAI: What do you mean by that?

MR FOURIE: We were conditioned since the age of 17 in the Police that these were communists, they were enemies of the State and one didn't have respect for anyone of them, didn't treat them accordingly. They were the enemy and they were the enemies of christianity, because communism aimed to destroy christianity. That was the way that we were indoctrinated by the National Party and the South African Police Commanders during every training session that we experienced, during every course it was drummed into our minds that the ANC were a bunch of communists who aimed to rob us of our christianity.

MR NTHAI: Would there be anybody at the back of the bakkie when you load the bodies?

MR FOURIE: Not necessarily, no.

MR NTHAI: I just want to bring you to the affidavit of Sandani. You realise that in paragraph 18, that is page 78, he talks about being assaulted.

MR FOURIE: I can see it in front of me, yes.

MR NTHAI: Yes, do you know whether he was assaulted or not?

MR FOURIE: No, not at all. The first time I saw Sandani was in the Bethal prison, maybe a month or six weeks later, then I did a photo identification with him.

MR NTHAI: So you wouldn't know if he was assaulted at that time?

MR FOURIE: I do not even know that area of camp.

MR LAX: The issue is not whether you know the camp, he makes several allegations of being assaulted. Do you know anything about whether he was assaulted, just yes or no?

MR FOURIE: No Mr Chairperson. The first time that I saw him again or that I saw him and worked with him, that was in the Bethal prison. I just heard that the next day he was arrested at a kraal and I do not know what happened to him.

MR LAX: That is fine, you don't need to explain further.

MR NTHAI: After how long did you see him?

MR FOURIE: Approximately six weeks.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Fourie, were you a member of C2 at this period when this incident occurred?

MR FOURIE: That is correct yes.

MS LOCKHAT: And how long were you in the Piet Retief area?

MR FOURIE: At that stage I had been there for a few weeks, because a photo identification took up to four weeks with a person, so I would have been there for about eight weeks, if I had to do two people's photo identifications.

MS LOCKHAT: So did your Commander, Mr Naude, send you to Piet Retief area?

MR FOURIE: Yes, to do the photo identifications.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you inform him of this incident?

MR FOURIE: Not as far as I can remember, no.

MS LOCKHAT: Why not, seeing that he was your Commander and he sent you out on instructions and on a different mission basically?

MR FOURIE: Yes, what would happen because I worked under Freek Pienaar, Freek would have told Col Deetlefts and Col Deetlefts would have known because he worked for the Section Head, Visser, he would have conveyed it to the Head Office and it would have reached him any way.

MS LOCKHAT: And how often did you report to Mr Naude? On a daily basis?

MR FOURIE: No.

MS LOCKHAT: When did you report to him when you were out in the field?

MR FOURIE: Just after I arrived from working in the field.

MS LOCKHAT: So did you report this to him after you had completed this, I mean as a normal course of events?

MR FOURIE: It is possible that I could have said to him that I took part in the shooting at Nersden.

MS LOCKHAT: Are you saying like normal course of events you would actually report this to him, because he was your Commander?

MR FOURIE: Yes.

MS LOCKHAT: What would he basically inform you after you had informed you of this, would he generally, would he just cover it up as well?

MR FOURIE: No, because he did not make a decision concerning it and because he is C2, he just informed, C1 and C2 had the same Commander and that was Brig Schoon. C1 was Col de Kock and C2 was Naude, so Brig Schoon would then inform both of them about what happened during their morning conferences or meetings.

MS LOCKHAT: And then just one last aspect, Shadrack Sithole, was he a registered informer? I see in the papers you mentioned that he was a registered informer?

MR FOURIE: I do not believe that he was registered earlier on, the first time I saw him, but when Pienaar spoke to him then, then I think Warrant Officer Pienaar said that he will pay him if he brings him information concerning ANC members that wanted to infiltrate or whatever happened in Swaziland, and that is where he recruited him as an informer. That is how it worked.

MS LOCKHAT: Because if I can recall Mr Pienaar's evidence, he said that he wasn't a registered informer?

MR FOURIE: Yes, but if you promise somebody money or if you say you will give them money, he would be a registered informer.

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

MR SIBANYONI: The fact that you were indoctrinated to say that the ANC are communist, they are trying to rob you of christianity, did that make you to hate them?

MR FOURIE: We were indoctrinated and taught to hate the ANC and the PAC because they are communist and they want to take over our country and wanted to burn our churches and to expel all christianity from the country. The ANC was similar to a communist, the PAC was communist and we had to fight against communism, that was our biggest threat and that was given to us by the National Party or the government, in all the courses that I attended.

MR SIBANYONI: When one looks at the bakkie, it would appear all the windows are shattered of the canopy as well as of the bakkie, is that so?

MR FOURIE: That is correct yes.

MR SIBANYONI: Wouldn't one think that maybe more force was used than necessary to kill these people, in other words you people were just emptying your bullets into these people?

MR FOURIE: Because we didn't know how many people were going to infiltrate, there was the possibility that there could have been people laying flat at the back of the bakkie, we didn't want to take chances, we just shot everything we had, and made sure that they were dead.

MR SIBANYONI: How long did the shooting take place approximately?

MR FOURIE: It takes a few seconds, it feels like seven minutes, but a contact only lasts for a few seconds ... (transcriber's own interpretation)

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, no further questions.

MR RAMAWELE: There was no interpretation.

INTERPRETER: Of what?

MR RAMAWELE: Of the last answer.

MR LAX: We cannot hear you.

INTERPRETER: Could you just repeat the question, and then I will translate the answer.

MR SIBANYONI: The question was how long did the shooting take place, we didn't get the translation of your answer?

MR FOURIE: Although it seems as if it was seven minutes, it is about a few seconds.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, no further questions.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I request you to allow Mr de Kock to be excused at this stage, the Correctional Services say that they find it difficult if they arrive there late. I am satisfied that he won't be prejudiced if we continue in his absence, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Have we finished, let's just finish with this, it will take a minute I think. Have you got any questions?

MR LAX: Yes, I have a few. Do I understand correctly that you don't know anything about the shooting that took place at the T-junction and you don't associate yourself with that?

MR FOURIE: No, I was not involved, I was not present when they were shot, so I do not know what happened there, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Yes, do you associate yourself with that shooting, though?

MR FOURIE: Yes, I have to because I was part of the operation, it was part of the same operation.

MR LAX: And then, did I understand you correctly to be saying that the reason you were on the farm was to do with Glory Sidebe?

MR FOURIE: That is correct, yes.

MR LAX: And you were busy with photo ID with him there?

MR FOURIE: Not a full photo identification, I was busy with the 5 000 photo identification with the two detainees at the Security Branch, but photographs, or there were loose photographs available that we would go and show to Glory, but we didn't do a full photo identification at that stage.

MR LAX: My simple question is, did you go there as part of an interrogation, show him photographs and request information from him that afternoon?

MR FOURIE: I am not sure if it was that same afternoon, but yes, in that period while I was there. I do not know how long he was detained at the smallholding.

MR LAX: Yes, so you cannot say whether it was that day or not?

MR FOURIE: No, I cannot.

MR LAX: What other reason would you have had for going to the farm?

MR FOURIE: It would have been just to see Sidebe.

MR LAX: Because your earlier evidence was that that is why you would have gone there to ask him questions?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: Sorry, and to be part of an photo ID with him?

MR FOURIE: Yes.

MR LAX: You see the problem that I have with that, that is what I thought I had understood from your earlier evidence, but the problem that I have with that is that Mr Deetlefts made it clear that no questioning of Sidebe took place at all that day, no information was got from him on that day?

MR FOURIE: Yes, I won't know about that, but it is possible that at that day I showed him photographs, maybe photographs that we needed urgent information about, but I don't know if it was that same day, I cannot remember.

MR LAX: He was clear that the man wasn't ready to be asked any questions, that would have still taken some time?

MR FOURIE: Yes, although he did give his co-operation from the beginning, but I cannot remember if it was that specific day that I showed him the photographs.

MR LAX: Just one last thing, the issue of tracer bullets, one accepts that as part of your training you are involved with tracer bullets, you practise with them from time to time and there is good reason for that, because if you use too many tracer bullets, you can damage the "loop", I cannot think of the English word suddenly ...

MR FOURIE: Yes, the barrel.

MR LAX: The barrel, precisely, and so one needs to know carefully how to use them and you practise that quite a lot, but the simple question is this, you went out there on operations, you yourself, you didn't carry tracer bullets around with you as a matter of course?

MR FOURIE: No, I did not.

MR LAX: Yes. And normal Security Branch people don't carry tracer bullets around with them as a matter of course in their normal daily activities, correct?

MR FOURIE: I think that every Security Branch do have tracer bullets.

MR LAX: Yes, but that is not the issue. As a matter of course, the average Security Policeman doesn't load his 9mm firearm with tracer bullets, or his R1 rifle with tracer bullets, not so?

MR FOURIE: But we knew that we were going to execute this operation in the night, so we had to ensure that we had tracer bullets. If it was in the day, you wouldn't mind, but because it was in the evening, it will give you assistance in targeting the target.

MR LAX: My point is this, and I am agreeing with you and you are precisely making my point for me, that somebody would have specifically requisitioned tracer bullets to ensure that they were loaded correctly in the magazines so that those rifles and whatever other firearms you were going to use, would be in a proper condition for that operation. It is something that somebody must have instructed somebody to do, so that when the firearms arrived on the farm, they were ready for use in that manner?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct, I believe that, but I don't know who did that.

MR LAX: Because neither you nor Mr Labuschagne, and you are the only two who have been asked about this, remember loading tracers into your magazines at all?

CHAIRPERSON: No, Labuschagne didn't, he said he just saw it in the magazine ...

MR FOURIE: He said his was already loaded.

MR LAX: Yes, precisely. And you don't remember it either?

MR FOURIE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: You got, you were issued with loaded weapons?

MR FOURIE: That is correct yes.

MR LAX: That is my point.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, they didn't load them.

MR LAX: That is my point.

CHAIRPERSON: But you just put to him that they made sure they were loaded?

MR LAX: I haven't. No.

CHAIRPERSON: You have.

MR LAX: No, you misunderstood. Any way, sorry, just to - in case there is any doubt in the matter, my question to you was that neither of you loaded those weapons yourselves, somebody else must have done it for you?

MR FOURIE: That is correct yes. I assume that it would have been at the Security Branch at Piet Retief or at the smallholding where somebody was told to get all the weapons ready, but I cannot say who it was, I was not present.

MR LAX: And if you had been part of it, it is something that you would probably remember?

MR FOURIE: Yes.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, Mr de Kock can go.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I am quite happy to sit later gentlemen, if you think that there is a realistic change of us finishing tomorrow.

MR HATTINGH: Quite frankly Mr Chairman, I don't see us finishing tomorrow having regard to the fact that Mr Sandani has also got to give evidence, and I think that some of us might be some time with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, there are six more applicants if Willemse is giving evidence, no, five more applicants. Mr Sandani, I think you are right, well in that case, I don't, as I indicated earlier, I don't want to make people work longer hours than normal if it is not going to achieve anything realistic, and I have also indicated, I make it quite clear, it does not effect me to any large extent, but it may effect others, as to what time we stop tomorrow. In the light of the fact that you are all agreed that we are not able to finish tomorrow and will have to have adjourn part-heard, that we may finish reasonably early tomorrow, to enable people to get away.

MS VAN DER WALT: May I just raise one aspect, it was not discussed with us the date which Ms Lockhat has proposed, the 7th of February. We are part of a partially heard criminal matter which was postponed from this year February to next year February for seven weeks, so that has to be taken into consideration. I don't know, isn't it possible that, because my people will go very quickly from this point onwards, I don't really have such a great problem, we could be finished by tomorrow twelve o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, everyone else says we don't, but are you now asking that we should take your people tomorrow?

MS VAN DER WALT: It wouldn't really help because I would have to be here for the rest of the hearing, I am just hearing it for the sake of the dates, that Ms Lockhat is just aware of this. It doesn't really matter, I would still have ...

CHAIRPERSON: I was not consulted about the dates, I have nothing to do with the dates, talk to Ms Lockhat about that.

MS VAN DER WALT: I accept that.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you think we can finish tomorrow by midday you say?

MS VAN DER WALT: I had not taken into consideration Mr Sandani.

CHAIRPERSON: Sandani, and we have so far dealt with five applicants? We've got another six to do? I don't think we should sit any longer in that circumstances.

What time tomorrow? Nine o'clock would suit me, but ...

MS VAN DER WALT: Nine o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Nine o'clock tomorrow.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I make sure, are we done with Mr Fourie or are we ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, re-examination, I keep forgetting after we talked, that there may be re-examination. Is there any?

MR LAMEY: No Chairperson, there is no re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: We are done, Mr Lamey.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you applying as the others have?

MR LAX: Yes, if he may be excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Provided you are able to assure us that should he be required, you can make arrangements.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: All rise.