MR RICHARD: Who gave the order to shoot, was it your own decision or somebody else's order?

MR HALL: The firing order came up from our senior rank officer, Lieut Cowboy Ferreira.

CHAIRPERSON: What did he tell you?

MR HALL: Judge, he gave the order to fire and to respond when the enemy came into the "doodsakker". So he gave the command to fire.

MR RICHARD: Now did anyone else besides you shoot?

MR HALL: Yes, there was other people firing as well to the command within the platoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that before you - now who did you shoot at, with the platoon now, when the other people in the platoon also shot? Who were those shots directed at?

MR HALL: Those shots were directed at the people who walked into the "doodsakker". In other words, the enemy.

MR RICHARD: In other words they were the wounded terrorists or enemy that you saw there?

MR HALL: Correct.

MR RICHARD: Now did you have any option but to comply with the order?

MR HALL: Correct, I had not option than to comply with the order.

MR RICHARD: Now we turn the page and there's a description of a big hole, now could you describe this hole? Paragraph 15 on page 16.

MR HALL: Yes, I can describe this situation circumstance. In the centre of the base was a hole approximately eight foot by square by seven foot deep. This hole was ...(indistinct) place of safekeeping of arrested persons for interrogation purposes.

MR RICHARD: Now what were you doing at the hole?

MR HALL: I was put on duty to safeguard the issue on concerns.

MR RICHARD: Were you alone or were there others with you?

MR HALL: There was two of us.

MR RICHARD: Now you then carry on to say at paragraph 16:

Now could you have done anything to stop what was happening?

MR HALL: No, unfortunately not, it was most probably a terrifying issue because being - the base being a big base and different units were covering within the base and people were just doing what they wished at time periods.

MR RICHARD: Wasn't your function there to safeguard the prisoners?

MR HALL: Correct. My function was there, but with the uncontrol of these same racial issues and ethnic groupings, it was really difficult.

MR RICHARD: Did you participate in the pouring of hot water or the mutilation of the dead bodies?

MR HALL: No, I had nothing to do with that.

MR RICHARD: Now at page 17 you describe a trip you made on behalf of your employers, to Pinetown, do you recall that?

MR HALL: Yes, I do.

MR RICHARD: Now when you collected that truck, did you have any idea what was in the back?

MR HALL: No, nothing at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just repeat that Mr Richard, I didn't get it.

MR RICHARD: The question is, he collected a truck from the police ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: When was that?

MR RICHARD: At John Vorster Square, and that was in July 1986.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja. You collected that truck, why did you collect it? How did it come that you collected it?

MR HALL: Well I was on duty unfortunately that day and I was just - I was an available driver at the time and I was asked if I could do delivery duties on that specific date.

MR RICHARD: Who told you to do that?

MR HALL: Well that was requested of my Unit Commander at the time, if I did mind to take the vehicle.

MR RICHARD: Now did anyone explain what the purpose of your journey was?

MR HALL: Nothing was explained officially to me, I didn't know at the time what was going on.

MR RICHARD: Now my question was, did you have any idea of what was in the truck that you were taking to Pinetown?

MR HALL: Nothing, I had no clue.

MR RICHARD: Now to whom did you take them in Pinetown?

MR HALL: I delivered this stuff to a Mr Strydom, a person, Mr Strydom.

MR RICHARD: And what was Mr Strydom?

MR HALL: I don't know if he was the Commander or what or who he was of any unit or whatever.

MR RICHARD: Now how was ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is this the same person that you delivered the envelope to?

MR HALL: Sorry, Judge? Could you repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: On your delivery you delivered whatever you had to in Pinetown, is that not so?

MR HALL: Correct. Mr Strydom.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you give the envelope to Mr Strydom as well?

MR HALL: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: According to your application you gave it to a Mr Smit. Is that a mistake?

MR HALL: Well Mr Strydom was there when I arrived, but he - the envelope was for Mr Smit.

CHAIRPERSON: Whom you gave it to?

MR HALL: I gave it to him, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: To who?

MR HALL: Mr Strydom to give it to Mr Smit.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but you see at paragraph 22 on page 17, it says:

So is Mr Smit the actual person to whom you handed the envelope, or Mr Strydom?

MR HALL: I gave the envelope to Mr Smit.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Now what did you hand to Mr Strydom then?

MR HALL: Mr Strydom was supposed to have got the stuff in the vehicle and the envelope, but I didn't see him. I was ...(indistinct) the impression what was envelope, written on the envelope.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh I see, okay. Carry on.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.

Now who was Mr Anderson?

MR HALL: Mr Anderson was the sole Director of SACPS at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: SA?

MR HALL: SACPS.

CHAIRPERSON: What's that?

MR HALL: South African Community Protection Services.

MR RICHARD: Now how do you know he was a supporter of the IFP?

MR HALL: Well what I witnessed at the time during my service is that I saw Mr Anderson walking with the leader, Gatcha Buthelezi, under the banner "IFP" in Main Street in Johannesburg.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, maybe you know more than is contained in the documents, but what I need to know is, the incident involving the delivery of what may have been, or what turned out to be rifles, was that a crime?

MR RICHARD: I believe that what I've led is sufficient to exclude that it's not a crime and it should not be in the papers, he didn't know anything about it at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Well aside from that I mean it may have been a legal consignment.

MR RICHARD: Yes, it hangs in mid air, it doesn't take us anywhere. He didn't know what was in it and I thought that for the purposes of this morning, to completeness, just to record that he knew nothing about it.

MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Richard, and from paragraph 19 it also appears that he was privately employed.

MR RICHARD: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Whether he committed a crime or not, the political objective may be something that one has to consider.

MR RICHARD: I've finished that point, I really don't believe it takes it further. The witness says he didn't know what was in the truck, so ... And he's confirmed what he said.

Now when you joined the South African Defence Force, did you do so voluntarily or were you conscripted?

MR HALL: I was conscripted by law under the Defence Act, and being called up under the defence situation to do military services.

MR RICHARD: Did you ever query whether it was correct or incorrect to serve within the South African Defence Force?

MR HALL: No, I didn't query it at the time. Being my age I had no clue in the ...(indistinct) what the circumstances were going to be - outcome.

MR RICHARD: How old were you at the time?

MR HALL: I was 17 years of age.

MR RICHARD: Did you have any political thoughts at the time?

MR HALL: No, unfortunately not, no.

MR RICHARD: No further questions.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hall, you found these three badly injured people?

MR HALL: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you shot them thereafter.

MR HALL: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you the only one that shot them?

MR HALL: Who?

CHAIRPERSON: Them.

MR HALL: The three what are you talking about?

CHAIRPERSON: Ja. After you discovered that they were injured, severed limbs, were you the only one that shot at them? At that stage.

MR HALL: No, no, I'm talking of when ...(indistinct) came into the ...(indistinct) the fifteen men shoot-out.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I'm talking about after that. Look there was a shoot-out, the rest of the night proceeded ...(intervention)

MR HALL: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: ... and then in the morning there was a sifting of the area.

MR HALL: Correct, correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you discovered these three.

MR HALL: Correct, I discovered ...

CHAIRPERSON: You're the only one that shot then?

MR HALL: There you're correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you ordered to shoot them or did you do that on your own?

MR HALL: Well the order came from command that you do not return an enemy back to base.

CHAIRPERSON: Good, but why did you kill them yourself?

MR HALL: Because Your Honour, as I've stated in my statement they were badly suffering and at this time I could see the people were - circumstances that I don't think any medical circumstances would have, at the time, saved these people. Even medical help at the time would have maybe not survived the people, Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you killed them for human reasons?

MR HALL: That's correct, the suffering what I saw going on and what had happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Any other reasons?

MR HALL: I had no other reasons, Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: What interests me is the order that you had to return no live people. When you shot them, did you perhaps have that in mind, or was only the fact that they were suffering and that you needed to put them out of their misery? Was that the only reason you shot them, or was it a combination of both, or one of them?

MR HALL: No Your Honour, what I saw, for the suffering that was going on and the re-thought that was going through my mind what I had recollected of myself to help what was going to be the outcome in the end if the people had to carry on with their lives. There would be abnormal situations and suffering further for family and circumstances. It was terrible, it was this thing what you don't ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: How did they land up like that, was there a bomb or just shooting?

MR HALL: No, there was a shoot-out at the time of the contact, Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: And as a result of the shoot-out they lost limbs like this?

MR HALL: Correct, 'cause I can imagine Your Honour, the fifteen people are shooting, what would be the outcome on the end, especially when you've got heavy calibre weaponry in your possession as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Capable of taking off limbs of people?

MR HALL: Yes, sure Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: How many people died in that incident, aside from the three you shot?

MR HALL: Only the three what I shot and the others did get away. There was others who got away.

CHAIRPERSON: And when the shooting occurred earlier, in the middle of the night, before you discovered this three, did you shoot yourself?

MR HALL: Yes, in ...(indistinct) we were all shooting by orders.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, as a result of being told to do so?

MR HALL: Correct, Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: Now the incident for which there can hardly be an application, but I need some information on that. Where about in Pinetown did you deliver these firearms?

MR HALL: It was just this side of Pinetown, it was a home which I took these things to.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember the address?

MR HALL: Excuse me?

CHAIRPERSON: The address, can you remember it?

MR HALL: Now today? Maybe, maybe not, depending how big the place has been built up and so on.

CHAIRPERSON: No but I mean, would you not able to give us an address now?

MR HALL: Not unfortunately now.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see any of those Directors again after this incident?

MR HALL: No, I only heard through talk of our fellow people that I was in contact again with, that Mr Marsh, Vic Marsh was dead, passed away and Mr Bruce Anderson has left the country.

CHAIRPERSON: When you returned after making delivery, did you speak to one of them again?

MR HALL: No, I haven't seen them ever again.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you go to after you made the delivery?

MR HALL: After I made the delivery I came back and I went home after that.

CHAIRPERSON: But didn't you go back to work again?

MR HALL: No, I didn't go back after work, it was late when I had returned.

CHAIRPERSON: No, the next day, did you not report for duty?

MR HALL: No, I didn't report for duty, it was my day off on that day.

CHAIRPERSON: And then? Okay, never mind - did you ever report for duty again after that?

MR HALL: Yes, I did report when I came onto duty.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja.

MR HALL: I did report back.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not see Mr Anderson or Mr Marsh again?

MR HALL: No, I didn't see Mr Marsh or Mr Anderson after that, I only saw my junior level fellow workers.

CHAIRPERSON: Who did you report to?

MR HALL: My OPM Manager, Mr Thys Lourens.

CHAIRPERSON: Now who is the person that asked you to make those deliveries?

MR HALL: I was put through Mr Vic Marsh who spoke to me about it and he asked me if I could do the trip.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Now, when this box fell and it opened, were you not surprised to see what it contained?

MR HALL: Correct, when I saw the box I was very surprised.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you worried?

MR HALL: I was very worried at the circumstance.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR HALL: Because I realised when I saw what I saw, then I realised with the contents what was happening.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you think was happening?

MR HALL: Well I was under the impression that ...(indistinct) doing the wrong thing supplying weapons out for the wrong situations.

CHAIRPERSON: What situation did you suspect you were providing arms for?

MR HALL: I was suspecting that these weapons were going to be used in a political situation and a non-political situation.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were worried about this?

MR HALL: Correct, Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: And were you worried that you were being used to transport these things and you didn't even know what you were transporting?

MR HALL: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when you got back to your workplace, why didn't you then ask to see Mr Marsh or Mr Anderson, to ask them "You used me to transport these things, what's happening here"?

MR HALL: Well I actually ...(indistinct) well that should I approach them the thing would have grown into a bigger problem and I thought I would keep it to myself, to the circumstance, because should they have known what was going on, they should have told me out of their own circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: What would you do then if they sent you on another of these trips?

MR HALL: Well after the first instance I wouldn't have done the next one.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but then you'd be in the same problems, isn't it?

MR HALL: Correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So hence I ask you, why didn't you then question your abuse, or their abuse of you by sending you on a trip and not warning you of what the possible consequences of it were?

MR HALL: Well this is the thing, Your Honour, being the elder persons in a higher ranked official capacity of my employee, they should have known better and told me in the beginning. If they didn't tell it to me in the beginning I wouldn't have known.

CHAIRPERSON: And you never reported this to anybody thereafter?

MR HALL: Yes of course, due to my statements that I've made to the TRC, in the official capacity I did discuss it.

CHAIRPERSON: But before then, I mean this happened in 1986, the TRC was only established in 1995.

MR HALL: Ja, but I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: In-between that, those more-or-less 10 years, did you not report what you had done to anybody?

MR HALL: Well I did discuss it with Mr Thys Lourens. Once upon a time we did have a discussion, the OPM, but it didn't go further than that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.

ADV SIGODI: In regard to the second incident, what exactly was your crime as far as you are concerned, when the people poured the water and cut off the ear and finger?

MR HALL: ...(indistinct) what was the crime?

ADV SIGODI: What was your crime?

CHAIRPERSON: What were you guilty of?

ADV SIGODI: What were you guilty of?

MR HALL: I was guilty of nothing, I was just doing my job because doing what I was employed to do and what had to be carried out, I did under the prospective of the law, nothing else.

ADV SIGODI: In other words - and you had no control over the people who were doing that, who were pouring the boiling water and cutting of the ear and chopping the finger?

MR HALL: No, there was no control because as I stated in my statement, the bases are big and there was a lot of different units and that concerned, and a lot of people were curious and they'd come around there - and there was a lot of people, not only one, ten, twenty, it could have been more and they just jumped in and just did things and it was uncontrollable.

ADV SIGODI: So your duty to protect, you couldn't exercise that?

MR HALL: No, there was no way of exercising - I mean it was the same culture issue, ethic grouping, white to white and I could imagine if I had approached the whole issue what would have happened.

ADV SIGODI: Did you agree with what they were doing?

MR HALL: No, I didn't agree with what they were doing.

ADV SIGODI: So in other words you did not consider yourself part of that crime and you are not guilty of any crime insofar as that incident is concerned?

MR HALL: Correct, I was not guilty of a crime, I wasn't involved with it neither.

ADV SIGODI: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: No further questions and no further witnesses.

ADV STEENKAMP: No further witness, except maybe Mr Chairman, if I may just at this stage just inform you that the Namibian Government was - the Embassy was informed about this incident and the application of Mr Hall, on the 29th of May 2000. The office of the Ambassador was informed by the CEO and the Legal Department of the Truth Commission. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Who were the victims of the shooting? They were Namibians, isn't it?

MR HALL: Your Honour, it's for me hard to answer that because they could have been also other citizenship, or maybe they could have also been Namibians at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when you were told to shoot at them, that's an earlier stage, you were part of a platoon under the auspices of the South African Defence Force.

MR HALL: Correct, Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: At that time as I recall, and I speak under correction, Namibia had its own political problems at the time, not so?

MR HALL: That I couldn't answer, maybe they would have had their own political problems at the time as well, but I know the South African Defence Force was involved in South West and Angola at the time period of - the same time.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know of what benefit shooting up those people in Namibia would have been to South Africa?

MR HALL: Your Honour, I have thought about it and I recollect it now to the circumstances what we are in now at the moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Now I'm talking about then. Of what benefit could killing those people have been to South Africa, the South African Government of the time maybe?

MR HALL: No, I had no clue then.

CHAIRPERSON: So when you shot you shot purely because of the instruction you had?

MR HALL: Correct, I carried out orders.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes we'll reserve this judgment. You're excused. We will deliver it in due course.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson. No address.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, there's not need for an address, I think it speaks for itself.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR RICHARD IN ARGUMENT: His reasons, as I hear his evidence, were twofold. Firstly he had received the instruction, the command to take no prisoners ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, I've got no problem with the initial shooting, he did that as a result of an order, but I'm talking about shooting the three injured people.

MR RICHARD: As I heard the applicant's evidence, he had received an order, "Take no prisoners" and they were very badly wounded and the humanitarian reasons then interceded.

CHAIRPERSON: He did it purely for humanitarian reasons?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, he did say that he did it for humanitarian reasons. That is ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR RICHARD: I would argue that against the backdrop, that he saw the humanitarian position and he also had the order not to take prisoners and made the decision for humanitarian reasons that killing them was the better option than leaving them suffering in the bush.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I gave him the options specifically, to tell us exactly why he did it, one or the other or both, and he chose humanitarian reasons only.

MR RICHARD: That is correct, Chairperson, that was his answer, but I don't believe that it would be correct to exclude the fact that he had the orders as well, because he in fact did what he was told to do. He might have in addition, decided that in the situation, for humanitarian reasons, he would leave the orders aside and still shoot, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We're not talking about motion papers here, we're talking about actual evidence under oath.

MR RICHARD: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Press that thing please, put on your ...

MR RICHARD: Sorry, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We are talking about actual evidence in which the applicant was given all the opportunity, I think, to say what he wanted to say to indicate why he shot these three people. Now with all the good intentions that he may have had - and I feel for him on that score, we've got to apply the law. That's why I'm asking the question. Can we assume anything in his favour, in the light of the evidence that he has given?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, I cannot avoid the answer that he gave to the question put by the Chairperson, and that was:

but in addition, I don't think we can ignore the fact that he had been given an order not to take prisoners.

ADV SIGODI: But is it not true that he realised that they were going to die anyway? They were in such a bad state that he need not have shot them?

MR RICHARD: It is quite correct, he could have made the decision to do nothing at all, to just leave the situation to take its natural course. However, he made a decision to shoot for humanitarian reasons, as his evidence bears out.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you arguing that he pre-empted eventualities in any event?

MR RICHARD: I don't believe it would be fair to speculate as to exactly what was thought in the minutes or seconds before the decision was made. He knew that his platoon would take no prisoners, he knew that the people before him were so severely injured that they would not survive, and decided that would intercede and pre-empt whatever else might happen by putting an end to the situation, for humanitarian reasons, with the authority of the order behind him.

Sorry, the applicant indicates he would like to say something. I don't believe I should preclude him.

MR HALL ADDRESSES: Your Honour, I would just like to come back to that incident. I've looked at it in further factors as I did mention it, that I'm not looking at the suffering and the circumstances of those people, it was terrible for me at a young age to experience and see that and not only that, coming back to those people, the family should have been outside of the South West people, citizens or people out of other organisations coming back and to be hospitalised and to be treated and to find that suffering still to the last end for their families and the country and whatever at tax payer's cost, hospitalisation, taking professional people to look after these people and to see them going through the hell and the suffering and to be most probably vegetables for the rest of their lives, to me it was a real thinkable issue and I clarified them as already within the next five/ten minutes they would have already been dead already. So that's why I came into the incident or the thing incident where I got involved to taking their lives and shooting them.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: He's only applying for the murder of these three unknown people?

MR RICHARD: On the other scores there is no act for which application can be made. The ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR RICHARD: If one looks at paragraph 9(a):

and then it says:

Now the attached statement does not say "I apply for amnesty for murder", it simply narrates a sequence of events.

CHAIRPERSON: On that score, in my view, would you agree that he is only capable of, on his own statement, making an application on murder on three people?

MR RICHARD: I agree with that proposition.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the only three crimes that we have to consider?

MR RICHARD: There is no evidence of any other act. The evidence does not establish any other actus reus ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So would you be satisfied if we said that he's applied for three counts of murder of unknown people?

MR RICHARD: I believe that would be correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And we make a decision on that only?

MR RICHARD: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: May I just ask you, Mr Richard, in terms of the pouring of the hot water "we had a duty to guard those people", wouldn't you argue that he also had a duty to protect them, and that he could at least be guilty of some offence, standing by and not acting and becoming an accomplice through his omission?

MR RICHARD: I did contemplate and think about the situation. The applicant was then a soldier put to guard the prisoners, however his comrades who he describes as many in number and out of control, interfere with the situation ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Yes we heard all that, Mr Richard, but did he not at least have a duty to report it and to complain?

MR RICHARD: I believe, as the papers bear out, it was reported and the matter was carried through. It wasn't through his agency though, he wasn't the instrument by which the matter was taken further. Those are the facts.

MR MALAN: Where do you get that information from that it was investigated? It's not in the papers. In fact, paragraph 17 probably refers, as I read it, to those who were in custody that were removed by Intelligence for interrogation. It wasn't the perpetrators of these deeds. Let me put it differently. Do you have the mandate from your client to drop an application for amnesty on the second incident? Or do you leave that to the Panel?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, the question before the Panel is whether an act which constitutes a crime or a delict was committed. The only act which might be considered is his failure to discharge his duty as a guard in relation to the prisoners. Now on the evidence, the applicant says there was nothing he could do to stop the situation. That evidence stands uncontroverted. The question is, is there an act? I believe for me to argue that there was an act which constituted an offence, would be stretching imagination.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr Richard.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: For the purposes of the record, I'm Judge Pillay, I'm going to ask my colleagues to announce themselves for the same purpose and thereafter the various legal representatives.

MR MALAN: Wynand Malan.

ADV SIGODI: Adv Sigodi.

ADV STEENKAMP: Andre Steenkamp, I'm the Evidence Leader. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR VICTOR: Andre Victor.

CHAIRPERSON: For whom do you appear?

MR VICTOR: Chairperson, I am appearing on behalf of Nicolaas Jacobus Janse van Rensburg.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Chair. I am Francois van der Merwe and I'm appearing on behalf of Wybrand Andreas Lodewikus du Toit. He's not in the first bundle, he is the applicant whose name appears on the second bundle, that is why we are here on short notice. Thank you.

MS VAN DER WALT: Louisa van der Walt, on behalf of Mr C S Rorich. I beg your pardon, and Mr van Dyk. Sorry, I almost forgot one of my clients.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe, you are here on short notice.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Yes, that is indeed correct, Chairperson.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR VAN DER MERWE: DHL can perform miracles these days.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I am appearing on behalf of the fourth applicant, Mr Hattingh.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there no appearance for Mr D J Coetzee?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, Mr Coetzee's representative is Mr Julian Knight. I've spoken to Mr Knight last on the 29th, in the pre-hearing conference. I phoned him and I spoke to him about this. He was also present there where we discussed this specific issue. Subsequently I also contacted him two days ago and I also spoke to his counsel last night and again this morning. He just now sent me one of his colleagues from his office. His position is this and he's asked me to convey it to you, Mr Chairman, Honourable Members. He is of the view ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Knight?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Knight, Mr Chairman, on behalf of Mr Coetzee. ... that Mr Coetzee has already testified in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: What he means is he's already testified about this matter perhaps, but he hasn't testified in this hearing yet.

ADV STEENKAMP: That's correct, Mr Chairman. As far as he's concerned, he's only an implicated party now in this matter. I mean for today. Just for the record, Mr Chairman, I've read through all the testimony of Mr Coetzee personally, and the only section I could get referring to this specific incident was included in the bundle. It's in the bundle, there's specific reference to this specific incident, Mr Chairman.

As far as Mr Knight is concerned, he's only awaiting a decision in this matter. He's an applicant but now he's awaiting his decision. He says he's already been heard on this matter by a previous Committee, has heard his testimony in this specific incident and there's no reason for him to be present here today.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, in that other hearing before a different Panel, was the application made in respect of this incident?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, there was an application by Mr Coetzee, there is reference to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) my question. When he appeared in that other matter and when he made his application, was one of his applications in respect of this incident that we are about to discuss?

ADV STEENKAMP: That's correct, Mr Chairman, it was heard with other incidents, together with other incidents.

CHAIRPERSON: And he led evidence on this incident?

ADV STEENKAMP: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Then surely it is a matter for that Committee to make a decision on it.

ADV STEENKAMP: That's correct, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well in that case then I'll accept your word for it and we won't deal with the matter then.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, just for the record, I've asked Mr Knight specifically to forward a letter in this regard to the Committee, that could be handed in to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Please, that - well you may as well get hold of him and ask him to also include in that letter that the application in respect of this incident has already been heard by a specific Panel, I don't know who the Panel was, on a specific date and that they're quite happy if we remove that application from this roll.

ADV STEENKAMP: I'll do so, Mr Chairman. I can just also say for the record, Mr Knight has indicated at the pre-hearing conference that such a letter will be forwarded to the Committee. I have not received such a letter and I have just phoned him again asking for such a letter.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he may not have given a date, please tell him that, hopefully, our time is limited and we hope to receive the letter before the State President tells to finish.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Have the representatives decided who will proceed?

MR VICTOR: Chairperson, we will commence, with your leave. I then call Mr Nicolaas Jacobus Janse van Rensburg to testify.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Janse van Rensburg, which language do you prefer to use?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Afrikaans, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any objection to taking the oath?

NICOLAAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR VICTOR: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr van Rensburg, is it correct that you are the applicant in this application for amnesty which has specific relation to incidents which took place in Swaziland during the late '70s?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: For what is he applying? Which charges, so to speak?

MR VICTOR: Chairperson, you will note from the evidence which will be presented and which is embodied in the documents, that Mr van Rensburg was a member of the command group which gave the instruction for the attack on the two transit houses and that there was a loss of life during these attacks and therefore he is applying for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: You would be in a position to tell us then whether he is applying for murder or a number of murders, arson or whatever the charge may be.

MR VICTOR: Chairperson, it will be for murder, in this case two murders and then the decisions regarding this, which will then include malicious damage to property.

CHAIRPERSON: How was the building damaged?

MR VICTOR: If I understand the affidavits correctly, the buildings were destroyed. The buildings were damaged by means of explosives.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that not include arson? I'm not certain that is why I'm asking.

MR VICTOR: I don't think it is arson. We don't really know whether or not there was a fire. We do know that there was an explosion and that this explosion destroyed the houses.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm assuming that that is the best that we can do under the circumstances.

MR VICTOR: I concur.

CHAIRPERSON: Two murders, one charge of malicious intent to damage property?

MR VICTOR: Yes, that would be two.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything else?

MR VICTOR: And then if there may be any other decision regarding the murder charge.

Very well. Mr van Rensburg, is it correct that you are the applicant in this matter? What are you doing currently, have you retired?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I have retired.

MR VICTOR: Where do you reside?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Hartenbos.

MR VICTOR: During your application you filed an affidavit, is that correct?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

MR VICTOR: And this affidavit is embodied in the bundle of documents from page 1 to 11.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VICTOR: I am showing the affidavit to you, is this the affidavit that you made?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it is the affidavit that I deposed.

MR VICTOR: Is it also correct that it was signed and attested to on the 7th of May 1997, in Port Elizabeth?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

MR VICTOR: Is the content of the affidavit correct and did you depose of this affidavit voluntarily?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VICTOR: Are there any aspects in this affidavit that you wish to clarify?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson. I think that there is one small aspect.

MR VICTOR: Are you referring to page 3 of your affidavit?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Page 3, point number 9.A.(2). You will see ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What page is this?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Page 3.

CHAIRPERSON: No, you testified that it was page 3 of your affidavit.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: There is a number at the top of the page, which number would it be?

MR VICTOR: There's a typed 3 and then there is a 0000003 which is printed. It would be that.

CHAIRPERSON: From now on we will refer to pages as they have been indicated in the large print.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Is that at the top on the right?

CHAIRPERSON: The number of zeros and the three. If it was a monetary amount the zeros would be on the wrong side of the three.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Very well. Chairperson, I'm referring here to paragraph 9.A.(2), where it appears:

According to my recollection, I would say that it was in 1980, approximately in the middle of 1980.

CHAIRPERSON: I am lost. You have said that you wish to amend something.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Then where do you want to amend this?

MR VAN RENSBURG: At 9.2 on that page - I beg your pardon, it is 9.A.(2). The two in brackets.

CHAIRPERSON: Where it now states:

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, where it now states unknown. I would say that according to my recollection now, it should have been 1980, mid-1980 approximately.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR VICTOR: Then I also refer you to page 6 of your affidavit and specifically in the middle of the page, point number 1. Do you want to say anything about that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I would like to say that it says:

according to my recollection it should be Vlakplaas. That at that stage he was at Vlakplaas and not Middelburg.

MR VICTOR: Chairperson, then I would also request leave that this affidavit be submitted to you and that you would mark it as an exhibit. This is then the evidence which my client wants to submit to you. I thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Janse van Rensburg please tell us, are you the person who decided to enter Swaziland - that Swaziland should be entered, in order to blow up these two houses?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, upon various occasions during that period in time, I and the Divisional Commander of the Security Branch at Middelburg, Brig van der Hover, discussed these matters regarding the insurgency of persons who were coming to commit acts of terror, then returning to Swaziland and residing in transit houses, moving back and forth to Mozambique and then returning once again to commit acts of terrorism, and both of us were of the opinion that the only manner in which we could attempt to put a halt to this, would be to attack the transit houses and we decided collectively that it would be a viable option to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: That would be you and?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Brig van der Hover.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Brig van der Hover then told me that he would notify me in terms of whether or not we would go over into such an operation and subsequently he informed me that it had been approved and that we could go ahead and do it. That we could take such action.

CHAIRPERSON: So then you assumed control of all of this?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you began to put it into operation?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And when this took place you knew that it was possible that persons could be killed?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you know of the manner in which the houses would be blown up?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I knew.

CHAIRPERSON: You were informed from time to time?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I was informed.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. And you have knowledge of your fellow applicants?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you must certainly have studied the affidavits?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Not all of them, some of them, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose did you study?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Rorich's and Mr Hattingh's.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. In as far as it affects you, with regard to those two affidavits, do you agree with the content?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, with the exception of their times. I have a problem with times at which they said it took place.

CHAIRPERSON: Then we'll have to wait and see what they say about it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But with the exception of the times, do you agree with the other facets, in as far as it affects you?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I do agree with it.

CHAIRPERSON: And who liaised with you regarding this incident?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, could you assist me, I don't really understand? You say who approached me?

CHAIRPERSON: No. You had the order, van der Hover told you that everything was approved and that you could begin.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly then you must have informed somebody below you and requested for this thing to be put into operation.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is that person?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Rorich.

CHAIRPERSON: And from time to time he kept you up to date regarding the preparations for this and how the preparations were coming along.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: He must also have informed you how it was to be executed and for which period it was planned.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, we discussed that.

CHAIRPERSON: And who all the persons would be who would be involved in the incident.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Therefore he liaised with you after certain preparations had been completed and he also informed you that this was the progress, this was what had been done, this was what still had to be done and so forth.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And how things looked at the houses which were planned for explosion and what they were going to do regarding the persons who were the targets, is that what he informed you about?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, in as far as it affects the time period in which it would have been executed, the aim was geared towards information that I had collected from Swaziland and we also regarded the action as a form of a raid, because shortly beforehand Sasol had been bombed with limpet mines and at that stage there was quite a movement of trained persons ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I am aware of that, but what I want to establish is that you were in a position of power and you were in the position to say whether or not you could continue or not.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And I'm certain that one of the things that your people must have done was reconnaissance, to determine whether or not there would be any other strangers or strange persons in that house, so that they could guard against the unnecessary loss of life.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That wasn't possible, Chairperson, these targets were from another country where we didn't have any jurisdiction, we had to rely on agents and informers.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that may be so. I am not asking how you obtained your information, the fact remains that you received the information.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And I want to determine whether or not you were satisfied that you could continue with the operation and that in as far as possible innocent persons would be left out of it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes definitely, it wasn't our objective to kill innocent people.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is the point. Were any reports made to you containing such information?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mrs van der Walt, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr van Rensburg, just regarding the final answer between you and the Chairperson, according to Mr Rorich and Mr van Dyk and their applications, Mr Rorich and Mr van Dyk both state that the target was selected and that the target would comprise two prominent houses in Manzini, which served as houses for trained terrorists. It was their order that the information indicated that there were trained terrorists in that house. They didn't have any other information.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Mr Rorich, after we had consulted among one another this morning, confirmed that the date could have been June 1980. He maintains that it is a long time ago, but similarly to you he maintains that it was shortly after the Sasol attack.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I have no questions, thank you. Francois van der Merwe on record.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr van Rensburg, as my colleague Ms van der Walt has put it to you, it is also my instruction from Mr Hattingh that the specific targets were selected and particularly aimed at trained persons.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Hattingh also concurs with you that the date was indeed after the Sasol attack in June 1980, according to his calculations. We would also then request a similar amendment from the Committee at a suitable time. Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you, Chairperson. I'm Adv T A Makhubele from the Pretoria Bar. I'm representing the victims in this matter. The only victim that could be located is Mrs Valerie Hlubi. Her house was damaged in this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just spell her name please. Valerie?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MAKHUBELE: It's H-l-u-b-i. Hlubi.

Mr van Rensburg, you say you confirm the affidavits and specifically those that you have read of your co-applicants, you co-applicants mention that there was - the target was a - one of them was a white house and the other one they call it a "hout huis".

CHAIRPERSON: Wooden house.

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, wooden house.

Where you satisfied that - before you finally gave the approval, were you satisfied that that was the only white house, or were there several white houses in that vicinity?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I cannot recall today whether or not there were various white houses in that vicinity. At that stage we were aware of two so-called white houses. I don't know why they were called white houses, but there were two in Manzini. The one was occupied by an ANC member, John Kadimeng(?). We are not referring to that house, we're referring to the other house which was also referred to as a white house because it was painted white, as far as I can recall and understand.

MS MAKHUBELE: The victim before the Committee today, Mrs Valerie Hlubi, my instructions are that her house - if the word "white house" refers to - or you understand it to mean the painting outside, my instructions are that her house was painted white and that next to her there was a cream/white house. My instructions are further that her house did not house any activists, but that the activists were housed in the cream/white house which was next to hers. What would you say to this?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, I would say that this is very strange, because the Swazi Police confirmed that this particular house was indeed a house which was used by trained ANC members as a transit house. Afterwards it was determined that the person who had died in the house of this particular lady was a trained ANC terrorist. I can no longer recall his name, but he was involved prior to this, in an attack on the Booysens Police Station and this was an armed attack.

MS MAKHUBELE: She will testify to the effect that her house is in plot 122. They used plot numbers 122, and that actually the house that was used by ANC activists was plot 123.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, if I might just add something ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment please. Keep that answer in mind, I just want to determine something from the Advocate.

Ms Makhubele tell me, you mentioned just now that the cream/white house was the one in which certain activities occurred ...(inaudible)

MS MAKHUBELE: The cream/white house is plot number 123, the house where ANC activists were staying.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, in response to the question put by the Advocate, I must say that the Swaziland Police confirmed to my subsequently that the particular house which was damaged in the explosion was indeed the correct house, it was the transit house of the ANC. And the former Commissioner of the Swaziland Police, Mr Mtetwa, still accused me of the fact that it was South Africans who had blown up that house.

MS MAKHUBELE: As far as the report you got, if you can remember it well, were there any other houses damaged in that incident or was that the only house?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, there were two houses which were simultaneously blown up that night, or at least the bomb exploded at two houses.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is the other house?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The other house was also in a Manzini residential area, but it was a wooden house.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it perhaps that house to which the Swaziland Police referred?

MR VAN RENSBURG: They referred to both. They were aware of both. They knew that they had arrested people such as ANC cadres or trained ANC members on previous occasions at that house. They knew of the activities which were under way there.

MS MAKHUBELE: When I read all the affidavits I get the impression that the wooden house and the white house are not in the same vicinity, is this correct?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: So what I mean is, in the vicinity of that white house, were any other houses damaged?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I recall vaguely that there was a house next door of which the walls were cracked. I cannot really say with certainty the extent of the damage which that house incurred.

MS MAKHUBELE: Can I refer you to the affidavit of Dirk Coetzee, page 95. Unfortunately the bundle is not paginated so the pages ...

CHAIRPERSON: Is your bundle not paginated?

MS MAKHUBELE: ... I have is not paginated, so ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) hand machines. Has it not been done for you?

MS MAKHUBELE: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Is it there?

MS MAKHUBELE: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Now the two of us are in the same mode here.

MS MAKHUBELE: It's 867 98 - I don't know which one is ...

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MS MAKHUBELE: The number that appears here is 00000067. It's paragraph 5.4.14.1.22 of Dirk Coetzee's affidavit. According to him he says that he went to the scene thereafter and the part I want to refer you to is where he says:

and Mrs Hlubi's instructions to me are that this refers to her house.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That may be so, Chairperson, I would not be able to dispute it. I did not visit the scene after the explosions, so I could not assess the situation.

CHAIRPERSON: Therefore you cannot dispute it?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I cannot dispute it.

MS MAKHUBELE: Page 7 of your affidavit you say that your objective would not be to kill young children or innocent children. What I want to know on a follow-up to the clarifications put to you by Judge Pillay, are the precautions that you - obviously in the planning you - I've read all the affidavits there, there were people who made the bombs and obviously precautions would have been taken to guard against damage to neighbouring houses or property. Was this actually done?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, we didn't know that there was a child in the one house, we had no knowledge of that.

MR MALAN: Mr van Rensburg the question is, in your planning, did you try to prevent damage to neighbouring houses?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, the main objective was to actually blow up the house. I am not an explosives expert but these experts did their planning in such a way that the bomb was to be planted in such a way that it had its greatest impact on the target.

MR MALAN: Mr van Rensburg, don't you just want to listen to the question. In your order did you also give the order that adjacent or neighbouring houses should not be damaged?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Did you tell them "Blow up the house but make sure that the neighbours don't suffer damage"?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Quite correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: My instructions are that - as you have heard from Coetzee's affidavit, not only was Mrs Hlubi's house badly damaged, but also another house. Mrs Hlubi's is 122, the ANC's house was plot 123, a further plot, 124 was also damaged. Would you still say that enough precautions were taken?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I really can't answer the question, I don't know whether those houses were damaged. I can't dispute it at this stage, I don't know whether such houses were damaged. I can remember vaguely that there was a wall, an adjacent wall adjacent to one of the houses and this wall had collapsed or had been damaged. I don't know about any other damage. I can't remember it, so I really can't answer that with any certainty.

MS MAKHUBELE: You said in your affidavit that the houses were monitored and I take it you would have known by that day or by the time you give an order, who - that say in the neighbour's house there are these people living there, whether there are children, old people, because the house that you wanted to target was monitored. Is one of the purposes for monitoring, to see how many people live there, maybe their ages?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, we had to work on the information which we received, we didn't work on our own direct observation of these homes. So we had to go on the information which we received and some of this information had been confirmed by the Swaziland Police.

MR MALAN: Was that before the bomb?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: So part of your information you got from the Swaziland Police?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, regarding the existence of these homes and the purpose for which they were used.

MR MALAN: In other words they co-operated with you, the Police, in terms of the operation against ANC people at that stage?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Not - well I received this information from certain sources in the Swazi Police. The Commissioner of the Swazi Police sometimes made certain remarks to me and comments to me, other information bits of information I got from sources in the Swazi Police, who were my sources. I even saw documents, reports emanating from the Swazi Police, in which some of these things had been put in writing.

MR MALAN: So it wasn't a Police to Police relationship, it was sources within the Police, of which the Commissioner of the Swazi Police was one such source?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, he wasn't a source, we were - well if I had complaints about, for instance complaints or information about ANC activities in Swaziland, he wanted me to come and tell him about this.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you.

In plot 122 there was Mrs Hlubi's mother who is now 86 years old, she could have been 66 years old, and a five year old child. Fortunately the house was just damaged as described, but there were no injuries.

MR MALAN: Do you have a question, or ...?

MS MAKHUBELE: It's not a question, it's just a statement. I have no further questions for the applicant.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Mr van Rensburg, at the back of the bundle, pages 69 and 70 - I don't know whether you were referred to those pages by Mr Victor, there's a short piece of evidence from Dirk Coetzee which says that he had been referred to his book, but that according to him he was not yet at Vlakplaas, because he said it was only in August of 1980 that he went to Vlakplaas.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I think he was at Vlakplaas. He might still have been at Middelburg, I really can't say, I can't remember that. You know he went from Oshoek to Middelburg, but just for a short time, a couple of months and then from Middelburg he went to Vlakplaas. So I want to say almost with 99% certainty that he was at Vlakplaas at that stage.

MR MALAN: You see, if you say you're certain - well I don't think he would make a mistake about the date at which he started at Vlakplaas, and the evidence is that this took place - there are also other references to this, about three days after the attack on the Sasol plant and then it could not have been August, it must have been June, and then Coetzee's right, that he was not at Vlakplaas.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I can't dispute that. I can't dispute it if you say that he wasn't at Vlakplaas, I will concede it. I simply assumed that he was at Vlakplaas, but I will concede the point.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, for what period, or over what period of time did the planning for this attack stretch?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I'm not sure, Sir, but I think it could have been two/three weeks possibly, but I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there a time when you gave the order or were given the order "Look come on men, we're actually taking too much time with this, let's just finish it now"?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, there was never an attempt to speed it up, not from my side. What was important to me was that if we did go there, that we should achieve the highest possible level of success. That was important to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Now the report after the incidents, were you told how many houses had been blown up?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Two?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you told that the targets had actually been blown up?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you perhaps told that perhaps more than the targets had been damaged?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you dispute it as the Advocate has put it to you now, that plots 1, 2 and 3 were also blown up, but that the house plot 122 was also damaged?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, not by the persons who were carrying out the order.

CHAIRPERSON: But will you concede that that's possible?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it's possible. What I can specifically recall is that the Swazi Police told me afterwards when I was there, about this house which had been blown up and that two had been blown up. They said some windows had been damaged and I think they mentioned a wall that had been damaged. That's all I can remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe, I hope it's just a toy and you haven't got any other plans with that tyre.

MR VAN DER MERWE: It belongs the past, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

During that period there were also certain incidents of retaliation, do you remember that? From both sides.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What I've just remembered is the possibility that this attack could have been in retaliation for the Sasol incident.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, it is possible, but it was - before the Secunda attack it had already been planned and discussed and approved. The transit house had already incident had already been approved.

CHAIRPERSON: That's why I'm asking the question. So it didn't depend on what happened at Secunda?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No.

CHAIRPERSON: And it wasn't put in plan or in motion because of the Secunda thing?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No.

CHAIRPERSON: And after the incident did you perhaps find out who had been killed?

MR VAN RENSBURG: We learnt that there was a child in the wooden house who had died and in the other house a trained ANC man had died. According to our information he had been involved at an earlier stage, in an armed attack on the Booysens Police Station.

CHAIRPERSON: That was the information which you got?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And maybe that is the evidence which we have to accept. I'm worried about the child. Were attempts made at the wooden house, to find out who was inside before it was blown up?

MR VAN RENSBURG: According to my opinion, no. If you want to carry out such an operation at night, you can't go to the house and try and find out exactly who is inside or whether there's a child or whatever, you place yourself at risk. You're acting in a foreign country, there are numerous risks which you have to attend to. So I would say no, it's not possible. I'm very sorry about the child who died, I wish I could have prevented it. I wish we could have prevented it.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, one of the considerations is whether the incident or the death of a person is of such a political nature that it could improve the political situation for that party on whose behalf it was formed. It doesn't matter how. Do you understand what I'm saying?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now if we look at the death of a small child, how in your view would that have strengthened the position of the government of the day?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I would not say that the death of the child would have improved the government's position at all. I say once again it's a pity that a child died, but I don't want to dilute my feeling of pity. But I want to also say that is was also irresponsible of the people to allow a child to live in an ANC transit house, where there were armed people in and out and in transit, on their way to commit acts of terror and on the other hand, there were also landmines that had been planted, aimed at Defence personnel and cars and innocent women and children who were killed. It was a war, we had to prevent these people coming through to your side to commit acts of terror. We did what we thought was right and good to try to prevent loss of innocent lives on this side. Unfortunately in this case, for which I've already expressed my regret, a child died.

CHAIRPERSON: You see according to information which we have at this stage, we don't know whether there were other people who were perhaps injured in that same house and whether other people were killed. It seems to me that that was a targeted house and it was only the child who was in that house and that child died.

MR VAN RENSBURG: My information was that during that period there was information that there were fourteen trained people on their way and that they were going to be staying in that transit house. That was our information. There was no information regarding a child and a member of the Swazi Police afterwards told me that they themselves were not aware that there was a child in that house.

CHAIRPERSON: I accept that. I'm trying to place you in a position to give us information, so that we can actually look at the proper considerations in this matter, so that we can ultimately come to a proper and right decision. As this case stands at the moment, the death or the killing of the small child is a problem, I'm worried about that. So we have to ask, did you do enough to confirm that just before you blew the house up, I'm talking about the wooden house, that those fourteen people, the trained people were indeed in that house and that in the circumstances as you saw them, the blowing up of the house with the fourteen people inside was right, in terms of that war which you're referring to? I must ask that question, was enough done? If enough had been done to determine whether the information was correct and that there were that number of trained people in the house, then it's an easy decision. If sufficient precautions had not been taken and those people were not in the house, then other questions arise to be able to determine whether the provisions of the Act have been satisfied and I'm asking these questions to enable us to be in a position to ask the correct questions and to make the correct decisions. Do you understand? I'm not trying to catch you out.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: And that's why I'm asking you, what was done to verify that information as correct and to make sure, just before the house was blown up, that those fourteen were in fact inside the house?

MR VAN RENSBURG: It was a high risk operation. The information which we had was the information which we had to go on and to work on. It was a high risk operation. Our information was that there was always a man present at this wooden house and that he played the part of a caretaker. And these people couldn't have gone to the premises to investigate to find out who was there and what was going on. We couldn't monitor the place openly, it was a foreign country, we simply had to work on the information which we received and we had to plan our actions accordingly. I'm sure that my people who went there were not able in any way to determine whether those people were inside the house at 2 o'clock in the morning and then still place the device there without anybody noticing, with sufficient time to make their escape.

You must understand that they could have been observed at any point by, for instance, a police patrol and they still had to get out and there could be roadblocks. So time was a factor, a crucial factor. It's easy for us to sit here with hindsight and to think what could have been done, but there at grassroots level where the work actually had to be done, circumstances are often quite different at that level, quite different to the way we observe it now with hindsight.

CHAIRPERSON: You see the problem we have no is that you had contact with certain policemen in Swaziland, could they not, or one of those policemen not have been used to find out or to confirm that those fourteen people who'd been expected to come to the house, were in fact in the house?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, we wouldn't even have considered such a thing because you didn't want to involve other people outside of our little group, you didn't want to make anybody else aware of this operation. We couldn't run that risk and I would never have caused that risk to be taken.

CHAIRPERSON: This information that you would have received from those policemen, how independent was this to keep them out of the entire plan?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, they regularly conveyed information to me. It wasn't just a one off information piece that they gave me, I had other information from them regarding movements and other aspects of things which the ANC was involved with in Swaziland.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Thank you very much.

MR MALAN: Mr van Rensburg, I just want complete clarity. You only gave an order to Rorich and these two houses that you had previously identified were to be blown up, you did not give them any other instruction to see who was in the house or anything else, you had already decided to blow up those houses based upon the information that you already had.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And only that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Only that, except that in as far as possible neighbouring houses or bystanders or anybody else should not be injured or damaged, if it could be prevented.

MR MALAN: Then the question of the fourteen persons who would have been there according to the information, was your information that they would be there on that specific evening, or that they would be there at some or other point?

MR VAN RENSBURG: There was no specific time, it was said these persons usually came and stayed over in such a house for three days at a time sometimes, so if we had information which could lead us to expect that, say next week Wednesday fourteen persons would arrive in Mozambique, one could be certain that these would be trained persons and then we would know that if they arrived there on Wednesday, some of them at least would infiltrate over to the RSA by the weekend. So one had a few days leeway to work with in some cases.

MR MALAN: What was the primary objective, to destroy the houses, to kill people, to intimidate the ANC, or was it simply a tactical exercise?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The primary objective in my opinion at that stage, or the primary objective was definitely to make the ANC see that we were not going to tolerate this. We wanted to intimidate them, we wanted to make it clear that we would not tolerate the fact that they made use of neighbouring States to commit acts of terrorism and then conveniently slip back over the border, wait there for some time and sometimes go to Mozambique for a short while and then return to commit further acts of terrorism. The purpose was to say, "Yes, we know who you are, we know where your transit facility in Swaziland is, we know that you are trained and we will not tolerate your actions, we will not let you continue with this." And simultaneously, to send a message to the Swaziland Police that we will not tolerate the fact that they allow such free and open access to these activists, so that they can commit acts of terrorism in our country. If with both explosions we could have killed a number of trained persons, that would have been a bonus.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: As I've understood your evidence the explosion of the wooden house did not depend upon the presence of those fourteen trained persons.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The fact that we received information that there would possibly be fourteen persons there, gave me the feeling that it would be a good time to complete the planning, or to complete the operation.

CHAIRPERSON: Three weeks before the explosion of that house, wasn't that part of the plan?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it only the white house which was part of the plan?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No I must have misunderstood you. Three weeks before the time it was both houses. That was the plan.

CHAIRPERSON: And why was the wooden house part of the plan?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The wooden house was a transit house. It was identified and clarified as a transit house.

CHAIRPERSON: Three weeks before the time?

MR VAN RENSBURG: We knew this before that, before the three weeks.

CHAIRPERSON: But three weeks before the time the plan was formulated?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, more-or-less.

CHAIRPERSON: So that house would have been blown up regardless of whether or not there were people inside?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is entirely correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Innocent persons as well?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, if the information was that there was, for example, a supervisor or if there were any other persons who were living in the house.

CHAIRPERSON: A week before the explosion of the house you say that you received information indicating that there would be approximately fourteen persons present there during the forthcoming week.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say this had nothing to do with the plan to blow up the house?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, I'm not saying that it didn't have anything to do with the plan, but the plan was already formulated. The fact that there was an additional fourteen persons simply told us that this was a suitable time.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Rorich will be the following applicant. If we could just arrange for the microphone to be placed. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Which language do you prefer to speak, Mr Rorich?

MR RORICH: Afrikaans.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any objection to taking the oath?

C S RORICH: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Rorich, you are the second applicant in this application before the Honourable Committee. Your application is embodied from page 12 to 14, which is the formal application form and the incident for which you apply is from page 15 to 16, thereafter from page 16 to 24 we have your political motivation, is that correct?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You've heard the evidence given by Mr van Rensburg. I would then like to take you directly to the incident itself, and a statement has also been made by you. This morning before this session reference was made to the date and it was determined that this incident took place shortly after the SASOL incident in Secunda. As you have stated in your application that you placed it at May or June 1978, do you

agree, or isn't it correct that it could possibly have been June 1980?

MR RORICH: I would request an amendment, Chairperson, to June 1980.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you.

You have heard now that there were two houses which were identified and that you and three other members received an order to blow up these houses with explosives.

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you in any way involved with the preparation or the identification of the houses and any monitoring, to determine how many people would be inside the houses?

MR RORICH: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was your order?

MR RORICH: To blow up the place.

MS VAN DER WALT: And who occupied the houses?

MR RORICH: They were transit houses which were supposedly occupied by trained ANC persons who were on their way to infiltrate the RSA.

MS VAN DER WALT: At that stage you were a demolitions expert, is that correct?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was it your order to manufacture the explosive devices?

MR RORICH: My colleague, Mr Hattingh, and I were both trained demolitions experts and each of us manufactured an explosive device.

MS VAN DER WALT: And what was the intention with these two houses, how would the explosions have taken place, can you tell the Honourable Committee?

MR RORICH: Chairperson, what took place is that we manufactured the explosive devices before we entered Swaziland, and when we arrived to a place near the targets we activated the time switch, meaning that both devices were set simultaneously to explode at more-or-less the same time.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR RORICH: We did this. We activated the devices. My colleague, Mr Hattingh then admitted that he could not continue and I took the device from him and handed it to my other colleague, Mr van Dyk, with the order that he had to go to the wooden house. I took my device and placed it against the wall of the white house, where it later activated after we had departed from that place.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you were not in the immediate vicinity of the houses when the bombs were detonated?

MR RORICH: No, we were quite some distance away, approximately a kilometre.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did the two explosive devices detonate approximately the same time?

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have just heard that it was said to you that you had to attempt not to damage neighbouring property or houses, can you tell the Honourable Committee what you did in order to prevent this? If it was at all possible.

MR RORICH: Chairperson, all that I can say is that the detonation direction of the device was aimed as such that it had to take place in the direction of the white house itself, but given the power of an explosion which is always unpredictable, I later heard from the Commander that apparently a neighbouring house had also been damaged.

MS VAN DER WALT: But did you try your best to aim the explosion only at the white house?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you ever return to the houses subsequent to the incident?

MR RORICH: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did you also hear subsequent to the incident, as you have stated in your application, that a person was killed in the one house and that a young child was killed in the white house?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is what I heard from my Commander.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you reported back to Mr van Rensburg.

MR RORICH: Yes, I reported back to him that the two targets had been struck.

MS VAN DER WALT: You then apply before the Honourable Committee for amnesty for the conspiracy to murder.

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then also an application for two persons who were killed during the explosion.

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Two charges of malicious damage to property.

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Defeating the ends of justice.

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then also that you conspired to cause an explosion in a neighbouring State.

MR RORICH: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: As well as the possession of illegal explosives.

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Or any other offence which may emanate from your actions.

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: As well as any delictual liability.

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the explosion in another State, a charge?

MS VAN DER WALT: Well I think conspiracy to cause an explosion in another State, yes. Because the conspiracy took place in South Africa.

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

Mr Rorich, with this sort of operation that you executed there, would it have been at all possible to determine whether or not there were so-called innocent persons in the places that you blew up?

MR RORICH: No, Chairperson, not according to my opinion.

MR VICTOR: Can you give us the reasons why you say this?

MR RORICH: These were definitely identified targets of the ANC, which we attacked at that stage and that is that. Unfortunately the time in which one has to execute such an operation is of cardinal importance, in order to be able to return safely oneself if possible.

MR VICTOR: Thank you, I have nothing further.

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

Mr Rorich, just one small question. The time switch mechanisms that you used, what were they?

MR RORICH: It was a watch.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Which was adapted?

MR RORICH: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you.

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

Mr Rorich, just one question. At point Mr Hattingh withdrew and you gave an order to Mr van Dyk.

MR RORICH: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chair.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you, Chairperson.

Did you see these places before you manufactured the explosives, in order to determine - rather, to control or to minimise damage to neighbouring properties?

MR RORICH: Yes, Chairperson.

MS MAKHUBELE: Would you still recall the distances between the neighbouring houses?

MR RORICH: No, Chairperson.

MS MAKHUBELE: My instructions are that these are cluster houses, actually the distance is about 10 metres from one house to the next.

MR RORICH: It is possible, Chairperson, I cannot dispute that.

MS MAKHUBELE: If I understood your evidence correctly, you are the one who planted this explosive in the white house.

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: If I were to - did you satisfy yourself that it's actually - rather let me first start here, when you say white house, is it because of the paint or that's the name of the house?

MR RORICH: Coincidentally the house was also white, Chairperson, but that was the name which was circulated by the ANC in Swaziland.

MS MAKHUBELE: If I were to tell you that the house where the ANC activists were staying was actually painted cream/white and the white painted one is the neighbour's, that's Mrs Hlubi's, would I be correct to infer that you planted the explosive in a wrong house?

MR RORICH: No, Chair, I did not place the device at the wrong house, I placed it at the white house, which was coincidentally painted white at that stage.

MS MAKHUBELE: With leave of the Chairman, can I just show you this picture? What paint is that? If you can see from the picture.

MR RORICH: This is a very old photograph, so it's very difficult for me to say whether this is the correct colour, it may have changed over the years. It's very difficult to say.

MR MALAN: Mrs Makhubele, may I ask you, in your question you refer to the wrong house, but from your earlier questioning I assumed that your instructions are that they indeed did target the right house. It wasn't the white house, it was the cream house but it was the correct target, the ANC house. Is that so?

MS MAKHUBELE: If one looks at the statement of Dirk Coetzee, my impression is that there is controversy about this white house, whether it's the white house that was the correct target or not, because when one looks at - it's page 64, the bottom paragraph or the last paragraph, where he says the new transit house, not the white house that Leon ...(indistinct) had photographed during his heroic excursion into Swaziland. So I really do not - that's why I'm saying I don't know whether there were two - these two explosives were in the white house and another house next to it, or whether two explosives were planted in the white and the cream/white house. So my question is really that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, but the problem is, your instructions as I understood it a little while ago, is that yes, the cream/white house was in fact a transit house and your client's house was a white house which was a neighbouring house, and the explosion took place at the cream/white house, but in addition your client's house was damaged in that explosion. That's how I understood it. Did I misunderstand it?

MS MAKHUBELE: You're not, Mr Chairperson, but what my instructions are is that the white house is my client's, the cream house is the ANC, plot 123, but then what we are not saying is that actually whether the house was damaged as a result of the explosion that started at the cream house and affected her property, or whether the bomb was actually planted in her property. Because she doesn't know that. That is what I'm trying to establish. That is the applicant definite that he planted the explosive in the white house.

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to get something clear in my mind, because it has been confirmed by the present witness. That there is a house in this area, known as the white house. It's not the house that Mr Clinton got up to tricks, but there's a name called the white house. Now which house is it, is it your client's house or the neighbour's house that is known as the white house? Let us get that clear first.

MS MAKHUBELE: My client doesn't know how the name "white house" comes about, but what she knows is that in relation to the ANC house, her house is painted white.

CHAIRPERSON: So your client doesn't know of a specific house named the "white house"?

MS MAKHUBELE: No, she doesn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rorich, under these circumstances I must ask you on which plot, and can you describe the house on that plot where the bomb which you planted was planted?

MR RORICH: Chairperson, at that stage I was one hundred percent sure that I had the correct house and I placed my explosive device next to the correct house, although I cannot remember exactly how it looked today.

CHAIRPERSON: That's not the question. The question is, can you describe to us the house next to which you planted the bomb? I'm not asking whether or not it was the correct or the incorrect house, I just want a description of the house where you planted the bomb.

MR RORICH: Chairperson, that is somewhat difficult, I cannot tell you with certainty how many bedrooms the house had, but it was a normal house as one found in that environment. It wasn't unnaturally large or anything, it had a reasonably flat roof if I recall correctly. My bomb was placed next to the wall on the oblong side of the house.

CHAIRPERSON: You gave me the impression during your evidence that you knew of a house by the name of "the white house", am I correct with that impression?

MR RORICH: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The name of the house is "the white house."

MR RORICH: That is how we knew it, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no, I don't want you to misunderstand me. There are certain people also in this country who for some or other reason give names to their homes, are we referring to such a type of name, or was it the white house according to your plans?

MR RORICH: It was the white house according to the information that we possessed. This was the white house that the ANC used.

CHAIRPERSON: So you don't know whether or not the name of the house was actually "the white house"?

MR RORICH: No, Chairperson, I cannot tell you who gave the house that name.

CHAIRPERSON: You are referring to the colour of the house, the white house?

MR RORICH: The place itself.

CHAIRPERSON: It was coloured as such?

MR RORICH: Not necessarily.

CHAIRPERSON: Then how would you have known where the house was situated?

CHAIRPERSON: Chairperson, that is how information was channelled to us by the informers. This specific house was identified as the white house.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. And when you planted the bomb there, how did you identify that house as the correct house?

MR RORICH: Chairperson as I have already stated, before the explosion took place I had previously, based upon information that we had, paid a visit to go and see where both houses were situated.

CHAIRPERSON: On that same day?

MR RORICH: No.

CHAIRPERSON: On a previous day, a few days before?

MR RORICH: A few days before. Yes, it may have been a week or two weeks, I cannot recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Were these houses pointed out to you or did you go and have a look for yourself?

MR RORICH: As I have stated, Chairperson, the information provided to us by the informers, based upon that information we went to the plot.

CHAIRPERSON: I accept that, but was the house pointed out to you by somebody or did you have to rely upon information to identify the house?

MR RORICH: Chairperson, I can recall that one of my Swazi informers upon occasion also identified the place to me, and this confirmed according to the information that we had.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was identified as the house?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And the day when you planted the bomb there, it had already been clarified to you as the house?

MR RORICH: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you relied upon that information.

MR RORICH: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell this to Mr van Rensburg?

MR RORICH: After we were finished I told him that the targets...

CHAIRPERSON: What did you tell him?

MR RORICH: When we returned after the attack I reported to my Commander that the two houses were blown up as the plan had stipulated.

CHAIRPERSON: After it was identified for you, before it was blown up, did you inform your senior that it was confirmed that those houses had been identified to you?

MR RORICH: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was van Dyk with you?

MR RORICH: No, Chairperson, not with the identification.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you alone?

MR RORICH: It was my informer and I.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Did you make any attempt to determine who was inside the house when the house was identified to you?

MR RORICH: At the time when it was identified to me I was told that these were the transit houses of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: And that was all?

MR RORICH: Yes, that's all.

CHAIRPERSON: I assume according to your evidence, that the same happened with the wooden house.

MR RORICH: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you the one who was told that in the near future fourteen trained persons would arrive there?

MR RORICH: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Now it has been put to you that the house which was identified to you - and you say that this is the house next to which you planted the bomb, was not a house where trained ANC persons lived.

MR RORICH: No, I would not agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not? Isn't it possible that your information was incorrect?

MR RORICH: No, I don't believe so.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?

MR RORICH: Chairperson, to confirm the trained person who died in the explosion was a trained person, as my former colleague has previously testified.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible that at that time the house was indeed painted white?

MR RORICH: If I recall correctly it was painted white. What happened to the place afterwards, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: I will determine later, but I want to ask you now, is it possible that the bomb which you planted may also have damaged the home of the person next door?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is possible.

CHAIRPERSON: To such an extent that people could think that the bomb was actually planted next to that house?

MR RORICH: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: There would have been less damage to the other house?

MR RORICH: Let me put it as such, Chairperson. The bomb was planted next to the target house, if this front of this house had somewhat of a skew door - it had windows and it is possible that during the explosion the walls could have been cracked or the windows may have been damaged. The white house was damaged during the explosion. The intention was not to damage other property.

CHAIRPERSON: No I can understand that. Let us abandon your motivation for the while, I want to know what could possibly actually have taken place. As a result of the fact that you placed the bomb, and we'll assume that the bomb was placed in the right place, I just want to determine to what extent the neighbouring house may have been damaged. In that regard I then ask whether it is possible that it could have been damaged to such an extent that any person could have thought that the bomb was planted at the neighbour's house? Would there have been less damage to the neighbour's house?

MR RORICH: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Makhubele.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thanks Chairperson.

I was only showing you the photograph to show that that's actually plot 123, the cream house which housed the ANC activists. If I may proceed. How much explosives did you use?

MR RORICH: Chairperson, if I recall correctly it was approximately two kilograms.

MS MAKHUBELE: What type?

MR RORICH: Plastic explosives, PI4.

MS MAKHUBELE: I've got nothing further.

MR MALAN: I just want to be certain, I cannot find my note. Either you or Mr van Rensburg said that the white house was how you referred to it, but also how the ANC referred to the transit house. Did you say that or was it Mr van Rensburg? Oh, Mr van Rensburg has indicated that it was him. Did you ever hear the ANC use that name for the house?

MR RORICH: Yes, some of the informers.

MR MALAN: So they referred to the white house as one of the transit houses?

MR RORICH: That is correct.

MR MALAN: But it wasn't a name of the house, which was on the gate or something, it was simply a description for the identification of the house?

MR RORICH: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Because I think that is how I understood it. That is still Mr van Rensburg's evidence.

MR RORICH: Yes, that is completely correct.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairman, I neglected to ask one question, it will only be one, with your permission please.

Mr Rorich, I omitted to ask you from whom the mechanisms, the time switch mechanisms and detonators came from.

MR RORICH: It may have been Mr Coetzee who brought us these items.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: What language do you prefer to speak?

MR VAN DYK: Afrikaans, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any objection to taking the oath?

P J VAN DYK: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr van Dyk, you are the third applicant and your application runs from page 25 to page 27, is that correct?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the incident, from page 28 to 29, and your political motivation is on page 30 to page 36 - 37.

MR VAN DYK: Correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You've heard the evidence of Mr van Rensburg as well as Mr Rorich, do you agree with it as far as it relates to you?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You heard Mr Rorich's evidence that Mr Hattingh, that his courage failed him when he had to plant the bomb at the wooden house and he gave the bomb to you to plant the bomb?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct. I wouldn't say that his courage failed him completely, I think perhaps he didn't want to carry on with the operation, but after we spoke we then together, both of us went to the wooden house.

MS VAN DER WALT: How did you know exactly to which house you should go?

MR VAN DYK: The premises were pointed out to me by Mr Rorich.

MS VAN DER WALT: You also agree that Mr van Rensburg, as he mentions on page 6 and 7, gave you the order to go along.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Where were you stationed in that time?

MR VAN DYK: At Magaliesburg.

MS VAN DER WALT: Would you know where Mr Coetzee was stationed at that stage?

MR VAN DYK: I'm not sure if it was Middelburg or Vlakplaas. I think it was in 1980. I can't dispute that it might have been 1980, because it was a long time ago.

MS VAN DER WALT: You say you don't know whether he was in Middelburg or where?

MR VAN DYK: I'm not sure whether it was there or at Vlakplaas.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you also ask for an amendment that the incident could have taken place in June 1980?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, those are the indications, so I will go along with that.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you're also asking the Honourable Committee to grant for conspiracy to kill.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: As well as for two charges of murder.

MR VAN DYK: That's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you later learn that a person and a child were killed?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And malicious injury to property of the two houses.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Obstructing the course of justice.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And also conspiracy to cause an explosion.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And possession of explosives.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And any other offences which may flow from your actions.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And also delictual liability.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: As the Honourable Committee pleases.

MR VICTOR: I have no questions, thank you.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, no questions.

MR PRINSLOO: No questions.

MS MAKHUBELE: None.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you're excused.

MR VAN DYK: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Hattingh is applicant number 4, the next witness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Which language would you prefer to speak?

MR HATTINGH: I'd like to testify in Afrikaans please.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any objection to taking the oath?

MR HATTINGH: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Hattingh, you are also an applicant in this matter and your application appears in the bundle from page 38, that's the formal part, and the incident is discussed on page 41 up to page 42, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And the political motivation is set out on page 43 of the bundle.

Now Mr Hattingh, you've heard the evidence of Mr van Rensburg, as well as the evidence of Mr Rorich and van Dyk in this matter, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you agree with their evidence?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Insofar as it relates to you?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you also heard that this incident took place in June of 1980 and the application refers to it as 1978, are you requesting the Committee to grant you an amendment so that that be changed to 1980?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: You had an order to blow up the wooden house.

MR DU TOIT: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And at the critical stage you indicated to Mr Rorich, your senior, that you didn't have the courage to go through with it.

MR DU TOIT: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And the explosive device which you fashioned was then handed to Mr van Dyk, the previous witness.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you accompany him?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: In that area, to the wooden house?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I went with him to the wooden house.

MR PRINSLOO: Was the wooden house blown up by Mr van Dyk, in your presence?

MR DU TOIT: We planted or placed the explosive there and then moved away from the scene.

MR PRINSLOO: Did the explosion take place thereafter?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Hattingh, did you associate yourself with such an explosion, that an explosion would take place at the wooden house after the device was handed over to Mr van Dyk?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you are therefore applying for amnesty for conspiracy to commit murder.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: For two charges of murder.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And after the incident you also learnt that a child as well as one other person had been killed in these two houses respectively?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you're also applying for amnesty for a conspiracy to malicious injury to property, to these two homes.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And also for a conspiracy to cause an explosion.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And for defeating the ends of justice.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: You're also asking the Honourable Committee for amnesty for any other offence which might be a competent verdict on the evidence before us.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: You're also applying for amnesty for any delictual liability, in other words, civil liability.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson, no further evidence.

MR VICTOR: I have no questions, thank you.

MR VAN DER MERWE: No questions, thank you Chair.

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions.

MS MAKHUBELE: None.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR DU TOIT: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, the next witness is Mr Wybrand Andreas Lodewikus du Toit and he's going to testify in Afrikaans.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------WYBRAND ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: As it pleases you, Chairperson.

Mr du Toit, your application is contained in the second bundle which was provided, but if we look at the paginated pages of my bundle, it's from page 71 as far as page 112, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You confirm the entire content of this application as it is contained here and also the correctness thereof.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: The specific part which is important for this application is contained in pages 108 and 109 of this bundle, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: That's correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I will just take you through that very quickly. At this point in time you on various occasions had adjusted these types of watches to act as switches, electronic switches, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: That's correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And the utilisation of these electric switches was for the purposes of enabling bomb operators like here, to train the people who were operating in that field and various ancillary functions relating to explosives.

MR DU TOIT: Correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You had absolutely nothing to do with the planning and anything prior to this operation, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: After this operation you were told by Dirk Coetzee that he had used some of these mechanisms in an operation in Swaziland, which is this operation currently before the Committee, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You then saw this operation as a political operation, you decided not to do anything about this and kept your knowledge to yourself, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And in the last paragraph on page 109 of the application, you say that you were not aware that these switches were used in an offence way at that stage, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: The fact that you didn't talk about this is as a result of the fact that you regarded this operation as one which fell within the ambit of a political act or action by the Security Police against the ANC abroad.

MR DU TOIT: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions.

MR PRINSLOO: No questions, thank you.

MS MAKHUBELE: None.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Toit, did you know what these watches were to be used for?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson. As I said earlier, the watches were normally used for training purposes for bomb disposal operatives.

CHAIRPERSON: No I know, but were you aware that the watches in this case were to be used to blow up a house in which people could be killed?

MR DU TOIT: No, I had no recollection that anybody came to fetch it from me for that kind of purpose.

CHAIRPERSON: But generally speaking, did you know that such a watch could be used or was used for these kinds of operations?

MR DU TOIT: I didn't know about specific operations.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I'm not talking about specific operations.

MR DU TOIT: I was aware that such a mechanism could be used for such a purpose.

CHAIRPERSON: And you associated yourself with that purpose?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you realised that people could be killed?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you reconciled yourself with that possibility?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And also that buildings could be damaged?

MR DU TOIT: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe, what is your client asking for amnesty for?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I'm of the view that he was not involved in the conspiracy itself, but that my client was an accessory after the fact to the crimes for which the other applicants are asking for amnesty and that by virtue of the fact that he became aware ex post facto of the fact that these mechanisms had been used and that as a police officer he did nothing further to reveal this offence or crime. So that would be being an accessory after the fact.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry.

He prepared a mechanism which he knew was to be used for the purposes of blowing up something, in which people could be killed and he associated himself with that.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I will leave it in the hands of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any contradictory or opposing argument on that?

MR VAN DER MERWE: There's a slight semantic difference, I don't think it's really important ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: If it's not romantic, that's fine.

MR VAN DER MERWE: My client's instructions are that at the point when, or at the stage when he made these things it was for a bona fide utilisation, namely for the training of bomb and bomb explosives and bomb disposal ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR VAN DER MERWE: For the simple reason that he was aware after this incident of the fact that these watches had been used for offensive purposes outside the borders of the country, in which people were killed and there was damage to property and he did nothing about that. As a police officer he had knowledge of that. Obstructing the course of justice, perhaps being an accessory after the fact. ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR VAN DER MERWE: ... in that he committed an omissio, he did nothing.

CHAIRPERSON: Are we not pushing it a bit too far when you say accessory after the fact? An accessory after the fact is in my view, a person who does something positive to associate himself with an act.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Yes, Chairperson, now we're going to lapse into a very legal technical discussion, but the act of being an accessory after the fact can also be constituted by an omissio. There are other duties which a policeman has when he becomes aware of an offence or a crime, so there was a duty on Mr du Toit to actually make known this offence. When he became aware of it he didn't do that and by his omission he helped other people who had committed an offence, to evade justice.

CHAIRPERSON: I hear what you say.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I may just add perhaps at this stage, for the Committee's benefit, Mr du Toit drafted this application by himself, without legal assistance.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm asking you as a legal representative to help me. What deeds or what offences should we think of an consider in terms of your client's application?

MR VAN DER MERWE: I think it's six of one, half a dozen of the other whether it's defeating the ends of justice or being an accessory, but somewhere between the two one will find the truth and of course then delictual liability as well.

CHAIRPERSON: But if he gets amnesty, then he gets it for the delictual liability as well.

Thank you, you may be excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any applicants?

MS VAN DER WALT: No, no further witnesses or applicants from my side.

MR VAN DER MERWE: None, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: No evidence.

MS MAKHUBELE: I will only call Mrs Hlubi, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Hlubi, which language would you prefer to use?

MS HLUBI: I prefer to use English, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Are you comfortable with English?

MS HLUBI: Yes.

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

VALERIE HLUBI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MS MAKHUBELE: Mrs Hlubi, you stay in Swaziland, which part of Swaziland to be exact?

MS HLUBI: I stay in Manzini.

MS MAKHUBELE: Your address?

MS HLUBI: You mean my residential address?

MS MAKHUBELE: Physical, yes.

MS HLUBI: I stay in Manzini, Extension 1, Zakele, Mazibuko Street, Plot 122.

CHAIRPERSON: In 1980 your house was damaged?

MS HLUBI: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Your house was damaged during 1980.

MS HLUBI: Yes, it was on the 4th of June 1980.

CHAIRPERSON: By virtue of a bomb exploding.

MS HLUBI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We are told that a house in that area was used as a transit house for members of the military wing of the African National Congress, and applicants now who were members of the Security Forces at the time of South Africa, indicate that a bomb was planted at that house that they regarded as a transit house, have you got any comments about that?

MS HLUBI: What I know about this house is that it is just next to my house. My house is in plot 122 and the house that was occupied by these ANC men was in plot number 123.

CHAIRPERSON: What colour was your house painted?

MS HLUBI: My house was painted white.

CHAIRPERSON: And the house that you refer to as a transit house, what colour was that?

MS HLUBI: You mean the one next to me? It was painted cream/white.

CHAIRPERSON: And the other side of you?

MS HLUBI: Which one now?

CHAIRPERSON: 121.

MS HLUBI: 124.

CHAIRPERSON: You were 122?

MS HLUBI: Yes, 122.

CHAIRPERSON: And 123 was a cream/white house.

MS HLUBI: Yes, cream/white house.

CHAIRPERSON: 121?

MS HLUBI: 121 is my neighbour.

CHAIRPERSON: What colour house was that?

MS HLUBI: I cannot recall the colour.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that perhaps also all white? You can't say?

MS HLUBI: Ja, I can't say.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway you say your house was damaged.

MS HLUBI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you explain or describe the damage of your house?

MS HLUBI: Okay, I was not there when it was damaged because I was working in Babane, my mother was staying in the house with the little boy of about five years. So when I was at work in the morning at about 8 o'clock, I received a call that I must rush home, something has happened. Then I had to ask for permission. I rushed home. When I reached home I discovered that my house was blown out. There was no roof and the walls were greatly damaged. There were big cracks and inside the house there was no furniture. Curtains were blown out. The house was just in ruins. There was nothing that could be valuable found in there.

CHAIRPERSON: And did anybody die in your house?

MS HLUBI: In my house nobody died, my mother was safe and the boy got out safe.

CHAIRPERSON: And did anything happen to the cream/white house?

MS HLUBI: So when I got there they told me one person died in the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: In that house?

MS HLUBI: No, in the cream/white house where the ANC people used to stay. Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the condition of that house, how did that look? How did the damage look there, if there was any?

MS HLUBI: Well it was also blown out and the other side of the house which was just next to mine was blown out, down. The walls were down.

CHAIRPERSON: And in your case the walls weren't down?

MS HLUBI: No, the walls were not down. The roof was out, it was blown out, the whole of it.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it, it seems to me - are you saying that there was more damage to the cream/white house than to your house?

MS HLUBI: There was a lot of damage even in my house because ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I accept that, but if you take the two houses together, which was more damaged?

MS HLUBI: Both of them.

CHAIRPERSON: The one you say had the roof ...(intervention)

MS HLUBI: Yes, the cream/white one was also blown out.

CHAIRPERSON: And its walls were down, some of its walls were down?

MS HLUBI: Yes, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And in the cream/white house, were the windows broken?

MS HLUBI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And the curtains blown out?

MS HLUBI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And in your house your curtains were blown out, your windows were broken and the roof blown out?

MS HLUBI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What with the walls?

MS HLUBI: The walls were cracked.

CHAIRPERSON: Cracked?

MS HLUBI: They had big cracks, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Carry on.

MS MAKHUBELE: Were there any other damages to neighbouring properties, or was it just your own?

MS HLUBI: The other side which was on plot 121, the doors were damaged and the windows also.

MS MAKHUBELE: Anything else? Plot 124, for example.

MS HLUBI: I'm not very sure about plot 124. What I knew is that in the morning when they opened the doors they found the head and the arm in front of the door, of the victim that was staying in number 123.

MS MAKHUBELE: The body was found in plot 124?

MS HLUBI: Yes, the arm and the head and the remains were inside the house, 123.

MS MAKHUBELE: Were you housing any activists? Were there any political organisation from South Africa?

MS HLUBI: In my house?

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes.

MS HLUBI: No, there wasn't.

MS MAKHUBELE: How far are these houses from each other?

MS HLUBI: Mine and the cream one?

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes.

MS HLUBI: They are about 10 metres away.

MS MAKHUBELE: Have you repaired the damage to your house?

MS HLUBI: Yes, I repaired it. I had to contact my government and plead with them for a loan, then they gave me the loan and then I started to repair it.

CHAIRPERSON: What did it cost you?

MS HLUBI: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: What did it cost you to repair the house?

MS HLUBI: It cost me about 33 000.

CHAIRPERSON: What?

MS HLUBI: Rands.

CHAIRPERSON: Rand.

MS HLUBI: Yes, at that time.

MS MAKHUBELE: What's your comment to the applicants' application for amnesty for this incident?

MS HLUBI: Personally I've no right to stop them from applying for amnesty, but what I would like the TRC to do for me, I would like to see justice done in this matter.

MS MAKHUBELE: In which sense? Save for yourself, what would you like?

MS HLUBI: As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to - like as I said before, I tried to look for, or to ask for some compensation. I wrote to some organisations and I failed, nothing came out. What I would like the TRC to do for me is to give some kind of compensation.

CHAIRPERSON: You have a passport?

MS HLUBI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Which country do you carry a passport for?

MS HLUBI: I have a passport for Swaziland.

CHAIRPERSON: And you're a Swaziland citizen?

MS HLUBI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything more?

MS MAKHUBELE: That's the evidence-in-chief.

MR VICTOR: I have no questions, thank you.

MR VAN DER MERWE: No questions, thank you.

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions.

MR PRINSLOO: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, Chair.

MS MAKHUBELE: I have no further witnesses.

ADV STEENKAMP: No further witnesses, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. We don't need any arguments from anyone. We'll reserve judgment and deliver it as soon as possible.