--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. Today is the 31st of August 2000, the continuation of the applications of Mr de Kock and eighteen others. I have been approached by Ms Cambanis, that there is one of the victims who has got to leave today at twelve, couldn't we accommodate her?

MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, I apologise, I should have indicated to you earlier that they have changed their, they are ...(indistinct) the entire testimony and they intend staying on until the conclusion. I'm sorry I didn't inform you earlier on, I just mentioned it to Ms Patel.

CHAIRPERSON: That's in order.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Then we will continue as we have been.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, may I, just before we continue with further evidence, I just want to put on record that a further report has been obtained from the psychiatrist, Dr van der Merwe. I have placed copies of the report before the Committee, as well as before the Evidence Leader, as well as the representative acting for the victims.

Chairperson, you will see I've placed before you the previous report. From the context of the further report, it appears to be a supplementary to that report. I do wish to apologise for the handwriting in which the report is. There is a typed copy you will see that has been prepared, attached to the hand-written report. As it pleases you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Dr Pieter A van der Merwe did the report?

MS LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you given it to the other legal representatives, and in particular Ms Cambanis?

MR LAMEY: Yes, I have Chairperson. I received it this morning, I believe Mr Willemse saw Dr van der Merwe again this morning, round about 6 o'clock. You will note that it has been faxed at about 06H58, to our offices.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you had an opportunity to look at it closely, Ms Cambanis?

MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, I have and I've also shown the copy to the victims, they are satisfied that the psychiatrist knows best and we're not intending to dispute any of the psychiatrist's findings. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

We are conducting these hearings through the agreements reached by the legal representatives. I would say as in regard to who comes here, I'm in your hands but for the rest of the proceedings you are in my hands.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, it's Roelof du Plessis on record. I will be proceeding with my two clients, it's Capt Kotze and Lieut Hammond, and I wish to call Capt Kotze first.

CHAIRPERSON: In which language is he going to testify, Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: In Afrikaans, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kotze, your full names for the purposes of the record.

HENDRIK VAN NIEKERK KOTZE: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is duly sworn, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. You may be seated, Mr Kotze.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. As it pleases, Mr Chairman. Perhaps before I lead the evidence, I may just state for record purposes, for exactly what Mr Kotze and Mr Hammond are seeking amnesty for. They are seeking amnesty for conspiracy, malicious damage to property, arson, any crimes

committed in terms of the Arms and Ammunitions Act, any other competent verdicts under any of those criminal offences. I'm sorry, I have to add being an accessory after the fact, as well as defeating the ends of justice and then also for all civil actions and civil liability they may have. Sorry, and offences in terms of the Explosives Act. My learned friend, Mr Lamey has pointed that out to me, I nearly forgot that.

CHAIRPERSON: Would petrol also fall under the Explosives Act?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I don't think so.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Kotze, I'm going to refer to you as Mr Kotze instead of Captain, is that in order?

MR KOTZE: Yes, that is.

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Kotze, would you tell the Committee where you were working at the time of this incident.

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, during the incident at Khanya House, I was attached to the Bomb Disposal unit at the Security Branch Head Office, where I served as an Instructor, among others. We were training members of the force, but also in terms of the fact that we were seated at the Head Office unit, we were also responsible for the bomb disposal function throughout the entire South African Police, and as part of our duties, with the exception of the training, we also conducted research. In other words, we were examining all weaponry, the explosive devices and so forth which were traced within the borders of the RSA, and we associate ourselves with the functioning and operation of these devices, what dangers or threats they entailed, so that we could generate this information back into the training process, in order to equip all those members who were involved in bomb disposal, so that they could combat the threat more effectively.

We also followed courses at the Defence Force so that we could expand our knowledge, because often were involved in prominent court cases, as expert witnesses for the State, so that is why we always attempted in as much as possible, to broaden our field of knowledge so that we could speak with certainty regarding certain matters. We also dealt with the logistical necessities or needs throughout the country for the Bomb Disposal unit, therefore we also examined things such as equipment, what those in the field would require to perform their tasks and where necessary we developed or purchased equipment whenever it was necessary. That in a nutshell, Chairperson, was our task.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Kotze. Could you examine, or you do not have to look specifically, but your application can be found in the bundle from page 347 to 376, do you confirm the content thereof as true and correct?

MR KOTZE: Yes, I do.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Kotze, do you regard yourself and Mr Hammond as experts in the field of explosives?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, expertise must be a very broad definition, but we always regarded ourselves as members of the force who perhaps possessed more knowledge regarding explosives than the average policeman out there, due to our involvement and our commitment to the task.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Kotze. And your Commander was Col Hattingh, is that correct?

MR KOTZE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And there was also a similar unit at the Security Branch in the Northern Transvaal, is that correct?

MR KOTZE: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson. The way it functioned was that there was a Bomb Disposal unit at every one of the most prominent Security Branches throughout the country. Not at every Security Branch, but at most Security Branches there were members of the Security Branch who received training in bomb disposal and they added this as a further task to their Security task in order to be able to provide service in cases where explosives were involved. So every prominent Security Branch had a Bomb Disposal unit and ours was the one which was seated at the Head Office, which was basically one which had an overall status.

MR DU PLESSIS: Just to begin with the evidence regarding this particular incident, could you tell the Committee what order you received from Col Hattingh with regard to Khanya House.

MR KOTZE: Honourable Chairperson, some time before the incident, I cannot recall precisely whether it was weeks or days, but it was definitely quite a number of days before the incident, Col Hattingh went to Head Office. Our offices were not in the actual building of the Security Branch Head Office, we were situated a number of blocks away and because we were a small staff we usually knew when Col Hattingh would be called away. On that morning that he was called away, he called me into his office and told me that Head Office had requested a special operation and that he wanted me from the side of our unit, to assist in the execution of the operation. If recall correctly, he stated furthermore that the target was Khanya House, where the head office of the South African Catholic Bishops Conference was seated and he also told me that in all probability arson or damage by fire would be the desirable effect, because the purpose with the operation was to destroy the infrastructure of this particular organisation, so much so that they would be prevented from continuing with their activities.

MR DU PLESSIS: At that stage, both you and Mr Hammond had already been previously involved with the explosion of Cosatu House and Khotso House, is that correct?

MR KOTZE: Honourable Chairperson, I personally was not involved with Cosatu House and my fellow applicant, George Hammond, was however involved in Khotso House with me and we planned that together.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you were aware of the Cosatu House operation?

MR KOTZE: Eventually I did become aware of it.

MR DU PLESSIS: And after you received the order from Col Hattingh, what did you do next?

MR KOTZE: I immediately indicated to Col Hattingh that I would definitely require assistance from our own staff contingency, and George Hammond was an automatic choice as a result of our previous actions in this regard ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR DU PLESSIS: And did you explain the order to him?

MR KOTZE: Yes. Col Hattingh agreed that I put the request to George Hammond whom I required to work with me, we went together to Col Hattingh where we exchanged a few more words regarding the operation.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then you went to visit Col de Kock at Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR KOTZE: Yes. If I recall correctly, Honourable Chairperson, during the discussion with Col Hattingh we stated that with the Khotso incident we tried initially to execute the operation by ourselves and after the first abortive attempt, we decided to involve Mr de Kock, whereupon which we managed to execute the operation successfully with his assistance, and in the light of this we immediately suggested to Col Hattingh to make a request to Vlakplaas to assist with this incident as well, and Col Hattingh immediately agreed and stated that we should continue with discussions on this with Mr de Kock.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then you went to see Mr de Kock, is that correct?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, George Hammond and I, if I recall correctly, went to Vlakplaas and held a discussion to the one side with Mr de Kock, upon which he stated that he would be prepared to assist us, but that he did not want to do this without the knowledge of his Commanders. What we then did was to contact Col Hattingh and to request for him to clear this with Col de Kock's Commanders, which was then done and then Col de Kock received an instruction via his Commander, to assist us.

MR DU PLESSIS: But you do not know what was discussed and by whom, regarding Col de Kock and his Commander and Col Hattingh?

MR KOTZE: I do not have any knowledge regarding the nature and content of that discussion.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And did you ever contact the Technical division at Head Office? That would be WAL du Toit and the Kok brothers?

MR KOTZE: Honourable Chairperson, yes, we immediately realised that such sort of an operation would require access to the building and we then referred it to Col du Toit's unit and specifically Japie Kok.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And can you recall whether you were involved in any reconnaissance missions to Khanya House?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, if I recall correctly there was one reconnaissance occasion upon which we went to examine the inside of the building. If I recall correctly, Col de Kock was present upon this occasion, Japie Kok was definitely there, because he had to examine the locks and determine what sort of locks they were and also figure out how quickly he would be able to pick these locks. There may have been two other members as well, but as far as I recall I was present during the reconnaissance when we entered the building.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you recall that upon that occasion, Japie Kok and Mr de Kock were present, during that reconnaissance mission?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, that is my recollection, that they were present, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Can you explain to the Honourable Committee what you did in preparation of the operation for that particular evening. What did you take with, what did you purchase, what did you obtain and what did you do to in order to prepare for the operation?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, for the execution of this operation we relied quite heavily on Col de Kock and Vlakplaas and we held various discussions during the course of the days leading up to the operation with Col de Kock and his members and among one another, and the planning basically took place on the run, so to speak. We discussed among others, what we would use to fuel the fire, we decided that petrol would be the most advisable fuel for that. We discussed how we would attempt to propagate the fire to the various sections of the building where the petrol would be poured. We also discussed the protection of the members who would be tasked with specific tasks. We discussed how the transportation would take place, what we were supposed to look out for and what not. It was the regular type of planning for such an operation, which took place in the form of intimate discussions.

MR DU PLESSIS: But there was a planning session on the day of the operation, during the course of the day?

MR KOTZE: That is correct, Honourable Chairperson, and I think that we all convened on the evening shortly before the operation. For one last time we had a discussion regarding all the points of the plan, we made sure that everybody understood what they were supposed to do. This task was largely managed by Mr de Kock.

MR DU PLESSIS: Where did the petrol and the ignition cord that were used in the operation, come from?

MR KOTZE: After we decided to use that it came from our own magazines which we used during practical training sessions for the Bomb Disposal experts outside in the field. So it came from the magazines of our unit. If I recall correctly, we obtained funds for the purchase of the petrol and the Technical unit provided the plastic cans in which we poured the petrol in order to carry it into the building. I think that some of my fellow applicants have already pointed out that Kobus Kok poured the petrol into the cans at their offices and then prepared it as such.

MR DU PLESSIS: Could you look to page 368 of your application, there you state in the second paragraph that approximately 40 litres of petrol were used. Is that correct, or what is your perception regarding that?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, these 40 litres would have been somewhat insufficient, when I made the statement it was quite a number of years after the incident and in the meantime we have tried to reconstruct the events in order to refresh our memories and there was definitely more petrol than 40 litres worth. I would say that it was probably more than 100 litres worth of petrol, but I would not be able to say with certainty what the precise amount of petrol was but it was definitely more than 40 litres.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you also state that you added diesel to the petrol, is that correct?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, I stated that in my affidavit. I know that we added a substance, however in the meantime when I spoke to some of my fellow applicants, I think that it is more correct to say that it was paraffin and definitely not diesel. So I think it may have been an error on my behalf to say that it was diesel.

MR DU PLESSIS: And in this process, was Mr Hammond the one who assisted you consistently?

MR KOTZE: On the contrary, I think the section pertaining to the planning of the operation and the procurement of the paraffin, was conducted by George Hammond. We didn't do everything together all the time. I wasn't present when the petrol was purchased and prepared, but if I recall correctly he was the one who managed this aspect of the operation.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the ignition cord?

MR KOTZE: One of us retrieved it from the magazine, Chairperson. I cannot recall who it was.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Let us then go over to the planning session. Did you have any recollection of who was present or can you no longer recall?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, I can recall the prominent figures, naturally myself, Mr de Kock, George Hammond, the Kok brothers and an assortment of persons who were attached to Vlakplaas and who participated in the operation. It was a number of persons.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you depart on the operation from Vlakplaas?

MR KOTZE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Were you and Mr Hammond armed?

MR KOTZE: No, we were not armed at all. We also didn't have anything that would identify us as police officers.

MR DU PLESSIS: Were you carrying radios?

MR KOTZE: If I recall correctly Honourable Chairperson, I personally had a hand radio on me. Yes, I had a hand radio.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall in which vehicle you travelled to the scene of the incident? In whose vehicle it was.

MR KOTZE: If I recall correctly we were in two kombis and a sedan vehicle. I recall that the vehicle in which I was, which was one of the kombis, was driven by Riaan Bellingan, but I cannot recall precisely who was in the vehicle with me.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Will you please explain to the Committee precisely what you did at the scene of the incident.

MR KOTZE: Honourable Chairperson, during the planning at Vlakplaas we planned the operation as such that the Kok brothers would obtain access to the building, that that would be their specific task and in the same fashion it was the task of myself and George Hammond to see that the ignition cord would be rolled out to the places where the petrol would be poured, and we were also responsible for lighting the cord and determining that that component of the plan was in order.

As a result of the fact that there was a printing press in the building, that component was also assigned to me. I had to determine that petrol was poured in the printing press room and that the ignition cord was also rolled out to that room. So at the time of the operation I was not in the main building, it was George Hammond's duty to perform these tasks in the main building.

MR DU PLESSIS: So therefore, Mr Kotze, you were in the small building where the so-called printing press was situated?

MR KOTZE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you just explain to the Committee, there had been mention of this printing press, but what is your recollection or what precisely was in that building?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, to call it a printing press in the true sense of the word would perhaps not be entirely correct, because there was no printing machine as such. What I do recall is that there was a large copying machine which one would find in any large office and I also imagine that there were other pieces of office equipment, such as document binders and a regular photostat machine with which one used to make copies by means of wax sheets, in the early day, but it wasn't really a professional printing press which stood there.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. If you look at Exhibit E which was submitted, you will see that there are a number of photographs in that document, I just want to ask you about these photos. The first photograph which is on page 2, do you see the building in which the printing press, so to speak, was housed?

MR KOTZE: I can see it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And if you turn to page 7, which building is that?

MR KOTZE: That also appears to be the same building, but from a southerly view.

MR DU PLESSIS: And page 8?

MR KOTZE: That looks like the inside of the printing press room after it had burnt down.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Kotze, you never entered the main building.

MR KOTZE: Not during the execution of the operation, at that stage I was never in the building itself.

MR DU PLESSIS: And do you have any recollection who was with you in the printing room?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, I can only recall one person. There were more than just the two of us but I cannot recall specifically who they were, but I do recall that Japie Kok was there, because he had to unlock the printing press room, and I also recall that at a certain stage he assisted me in pouring petrol all over that room.

MR DU PLESSIS: Could you just explain to the Committee, the ignition cord, what precisely did you do with the ignition cord, who was responsible for it, how did it operate?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, the ignition cord is a demolitions accessory which is generally used in demolitions such as in construction work and mining work, wherever large-scale demolitions have to be performed. It looks like a regular electrical cord, but when it is exposed to a flame it burns at a steady pace with a clear open flame, and the purpose for it was to light the safety fuse. So if you were in a situation such as a mine where there would be a heavy charge, all the fuses would be connected to this safety fuse, which would then render it unnecessary for the demolitions expert to go from fuse to fuse.

The use of the ignition cord was twofold, it would take the fire into the various sections of the building and secondly, because it was a commercial demolitions accessory, it was freely available within the demolitions industry within South Africa, for example, with mining and so forth, and it would not necessarily be linked to a specific organisation or person.

MR DU PLESSIS: Could you just pause there. You spoke of a safety fuse, you must remember that most of the people here don't really know anything about this. Can you please explain to the Committee what a safety fuse is in comparison to an ignition cord.

MR KOTZE: A safety fuse is also a conductor of a flame, it takes the flame from the point of ignition to the charge and then unleashes the explosive action, but a safety fuse is a specific fuse which burns with a closed flame. The fuse is watertight, so that external elements cannot extinguish the fire or the flame then, and the flame would then burn within this watertight capsule.

MR DU PLESSIS: So the safety fuse is basically the opposite of an ignition cord. And does it burn slower than an ignition cord?

MR KOTZE: Yes, it burns slower than certain of the ignition cords and also with a much more constant flame, because a safety fuse is also employed in creating a time delay between the point of ignition and explosion. Typically then, to give the demolitions expert the chance to get to a point of safety after the charge has been set alight.

So on the evening of the operation we decided that we would run two lines of ignition cord, one in the main building and then another line which branched out to the building where the printing press was held.

The ignition cord, because it burns with an external flame, could be branched out quite easily and as soon as the flame reaches these points, because it is an open flame it would set these points alight. So that night we had a line in the building as well as a subsidiary line going to the printing room. We also had a length of safety fuse. I cannot recall precisely what the length was, but it must have been between 90 and 120cm, which we used in order to obtain the delay between the ignition of the safety fuse and when the ignition cord would set alight, which would then give us the opportunity to vacate the area.

MR DU PLESSIS: Who put down the ignition cord to the printing room?

MR KOTZE: George Hammond and I determined the ignition point which was just outside the outside door which faced the northern side on the ground level.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is that the back door?

MR KOTZE: Yes, that is the back door which showed to Skinner Street. And then we took the two points of the two rolls of ignition cord and connected them and George Hammond took the one roll into the main building whilst I took the other roll into the printing room.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And who was responsible for igniting the safety fuse which would then burn to the point where the ignition cord was attached to the safety fuse, from which point it would burn further?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, I set the safety fuse alight.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Were you the last person at the scene?

MR KOTZE: Yes, all the persons withdrew from the scene and that is one of the reasons why I had a radio on me, so that Col de Kock could then tell me when to light the fuses once all the men had withdrawn safely and circumstances were favourable.

MR DU PLESSIS: There was an insinuation during cross-examination of the other applicants, that the back door was closed after the fire. Can you recall whether the back door through which the ignition cord went was closed or not?

MR KOTZE: The back door was definitely open, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Why do you say that?

MR KOTZE: Well one reason is that the ignition cord ran through that entrance and we didn't want to pinch the ignition cord in a closed door, because that could halt the propagation of the fire. And in order to allow a building to burn properly, we would require a flow of oxygen. Despite the use of petrol, we would require oxygen to fuel the fire, that is why we left the doors open to allow a maximum level of oxygen in the building which would then fuel the fire as much as possible.

MR DU PLESSIS: And I'm asking you this in terms of your expertise as a demolitions expert, could you think of any reason why the door would have closed at a certain stage? Is there any possible reason that you could think of that would be the cause of this during the fire?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, if the door had closed during the fire it is impossible to say beyond all doubt why it would have happened, but one reason I can think of is that if the fire ensued within the building, it would mean that the air would be heated and we know that hot air rises and wherever it rises cold air flows in beneath the hot air, which creates convection streams, and it is a possibility that some of these convection streams may have been strong enough to blow a door closed, or whatever the case may have been. But it is naturally impossible to state that this beyond any reasonable doubt.

MR DU PLESSIS: That is a possibility that you have presented?

MR KOTZE: Yes, that is a possibility that I have thought of.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Kotze, after you lit the safety fuse, where did you go then, what did you do?

MR KOTZE: If I recall correctly, Honourable Chairperson, we agreed that the persons who would assist with the operation would depart in the two kombis and return immediately to Vlakplaas. Col de Kock had a sedan vehicle which was parked somewhere in Bosman Street, if I recall correctly, and we agreed that as soon as the fuse was burning, I would return and join Mr de Kock in the sedan vehicle and that we would then follow the two kombis back to Vlakplaas.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is that what took place?

MR KOTZE: Yes, that is what took place, Honourable Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Now Mr Kotze, can you recall whether you saw from the vehicle of Mr de Kock, could you see that the building was on fire? What could you see?

MR KOTZE: If I recall correctly, we drove past the building a number of times to see what was going on there and how the fire was progressing and so forth. I confirm what Mr de Kock stated, we saw the fire brigade was helping people out of the building, which was quite an unpleasant surprise for us.

MR DU PLESSIS: Were you shocked when you saw this?

MR KOTZE: Yes, I didn't feel very good about it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was there ever any talk prior to the operation that you can recall, of people that would have been in the building? Did anybody have any information indicating that there would be people in the building?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, I can state quite clearly that from the first word that I heard of the operation, from the first time that Col Hattingh spoke to me, the instruction was for us to execute the operation as such that no-one would be injured. We always spoke of that and discussed possibilities throughout the planning and at no stage whatsoever was it the intention to affect or injure any person. And with the reconnaissance component, we did not come to the conclusion that there were people in the building.

During the evening of the operation there was also no indication to me at least, that anyone was in the building and we were completely under the impression that the building was unoccupied at that stage. Perhaps that would not be the right word. At least we were under the impression that no-one was in the building, we were certain of that and that is why it was truly a very unpleasant experience for me when I saw that people were being helped out of the burning building. It really wasn't our intention.

JUDGE MOTATA: Very well, Mr Kotze. You and Mr Hammond returned to the scene the next day, is that correct?

MR KOTZE: Yes, the following morning we visited the scene.

MR DU PLESSIS: Why did you do that?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, it was usually the custom for us in the Bomb Disposal unit at Head Office, to investigate prominent incidents of explosions for two reasons. Firstly, to inform ourselves of what had taken place there and to see whether or not new methods or techniques had been used, so that we could gain information for the research and training process. Furthermore, we also wanted to provide assistance for the members of the local Security Branch who had been tasked to investigate the scene. And for me and George Hammond it was then important to visit the scene of the incident because it could also provide a potential alibi for us, because it would have been our custom to act as such in visiting the scene. It would also have given us the opportunity to investigate the nature and extent of the damage.

MR DU PLESSIS: Would it have been strange if you had stayed away from the scene?

MR KOTZE: It may have been strange, Chairperson, or certain people may have asked questions if we had not been there, so we decided to continue as if it was a normal working day and a normal task.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Kotze. Did you notice anything at the scene? Did you see anything at the scene?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, we specifically examined the sections where we had been and we saw that the printing room had burnt quite effectively and that the damage to that section of the building had been devastating. We examined the rest of the building and had a look around and saw that there were areas which had burnt quite well, although there were others that had not really burnt effectively at all. Basically we just had a look at how the fire had progressed.

MR DU PLESSIS: Could you explain to the Committee how you felt when you were there, and did you see any persons from the church there. Could you explain what your feelings were regarding this.

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, it was a peculiar state of awareness to walk around on the scene of the incident knowing that you were responsible for it, because my career up to that point had involved me being the person to investigate what had happened and now I was on the other side or the scene. There were some members of the church staff at the scene and I could clearly see from their body language and their facial expressions that they were clearly very upset and that it had been a very traumatic experience for them, the fact that their place of work had been damaged and destroyed to such an extent. It wasn't a very pleasant feeling.

On the one hand I knew why I had done it and why I had associated myself with the operation, but on the other hand it actually went against my principles as a police officer knowing that I stood in that position, and it really wasn't a very pleasant experience for me personally.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you feel bad about it?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, perhaps to summarise, for me it felt as if I had actually neglected my task as a policeman and at that point I wasn't certain whether the ends really justified the means.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Kotze, do you know anything about weapons which were placed on the scene by some of the persons who were involved in the operation? Did you ever have any knowledge about it at that stage?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, at the time of the incident I did not have any knowledge about it, after the operation I came to hear of it.

MR DU PLESSIS: A document was submitted as Exhibit D, which was signed by Col Ras from the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch and given to Mr Hattingh, it was dated the 14th of October 1988 and made reference to weapons which were found there and there is a reference to two SPM limpet mines, two F1 defensive handgrenades without detonators and four empty AK magazines. I'm showing the document to you, can you see this?

MR KOTZE: Yes, I recognise the document as a fax report, typical of those that we received from the branches during those years to make certain reports.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Then what I want to ask you in your capacity as an expert, the limpet mines and defensive handgrenades without the detonators, one could probably accept that they would not have caused any damage in the fire, nothing could have happened with it.

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, fire is an acceptable technique in the destruction of explosive devices. It is a technique which was developed in the second world war by means of which they would make a hole in the window of the sea mines which had washed up on the beaches and burn out the contents, and my opinion in this case is that fire would not have led to the explosion of these devices, especially in the absence of detonators.

MR DU PLESSIS: And if these devices had been fitted with detonators?

MR KOTZE: If so, the detonators per se would not really have caused any damage, it would depend whether or not the detonators which were the sensitive components of the device, would actually unleash the explosive effect. It would also depend on the explosive content of the device and the exposure to heat. That would determine whether or not something like this would go off. But in the absence of detonators, I have grave doubts regarding whether those devices would actually have exploded.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall the duration of the operation?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, I didn't really watch the clock during the entire process, but I don't think that it could have taken longer than 10 to a maximum of 15 minutes, because one would try to get away from such a scene as quickly as possible.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And during the operation you acted under the command of Col de Kock, is that correct?

MR KOTZE: Yes, we accepted Col de Kock's authority and he was involved in the ...(end of side A of tape) ... because he was also the senior officer there that night.

MR DU PLESSIS: And would you have continued with the operation if you had any idea that there were people in the building?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, if I had been aware of the fact that there were people inside the building, I do not think that I would have continued because then that would have gone beyond the parameters of the instruction if there were people in the building.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis. Mr Hattingh?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Kotze, in terms of Mr Kok's evidence regarding the reconnaissance operation in which he, and as he testified Mr de Kock and another person were involved, I asked Mr de Kock, and I don't believe that he gave evidence about this, I asked him about his recollection with regard to this and his instruction to me is that he cannot recall that he went with you into the building, but that he also cannot dispute it.

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, I must admit that seeing as Mr de Kock was a prominent figure throughout the operation and that we looked to him for guidance in the execution of the operation, it would be very easy to place him in such a position, but after the course of all of these years I myself cannot say with certainty whether or not this was the case. And I must confess that I think that it possibly could have been that way, but I cannot confirm it beyond any doubt.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Just with regard to the quantity of petrol that you gave evidence about, some of the other applicants stated that there were about eight to nine of them carrying these containers of petrol. If there were eight to nine of them, there would have been in the vicinity of 180 to 190 litres of petrol, isn't that correct?

MR KOTZE: Yes, it could possibly have been that way, I cannot dispute or confirm it.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock informs me that according to his recollection there was something to the effect of 200 litres of petrol.

MR KOTZE: Yes, that is possible.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.

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

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

Mr Kotze, just one or two questions. If one would pour the petrol and paraffin mixture out on the floor in a passage, would it cause smoke or immediately cause fire as soon as the ignition cord made contact with it?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, the petrol would result in an immediate flame because it is a highly flammable substance, as we all know, but because petrol is such a flammable substance it burns very quickly but very briefly and that is why we decided to add the paraffin, because paraffin does not detonate as easily, but it burns for much longer and it would have caused a fire that would be long enough to burn items that the petrol might not have burnt, and there would have been smoke.

MR VAN DER MERWE: According to your knowledge, this mixture had already been prepared by the time you got to the scene of the incident.

MR KOTZE: We had discussed the possibility of the petrol not causing as much damage because it burns so quickly, and that is why we decided to add paraffin, and I was told that it had been done, but I personally did not mix the substances.

MR VAN DER MERWE: But what I want to establish is whether or not paraffin was taken to the scene of the incident to mix with the petrol.

MR KOTZE: No, that would have taken way too much time and it would have rendered the operation too complicated.

MR VAN DER MERWE: If there will be evidence that on the second floor petrol was poured out but that all evidence indicates that the second floor was only filled with smoke by the time the people in the building tried to escape, would you, from your expert position, not agree that it is indicative of the fact that there could not have been any petrol on that floor, otherwise there would have been flames? This would be by the point that the people awoke.

MR KOTZE: Naturally the building started burning at the bottom, because that is where the ignition cord and the petrol started. There would have been smoke, the smoke is hot and along with the hot air it would also have risen and that would have heated up the rest of the building. That is a logical process. If there had been petrol on the second floor, there would have been signs of a severe fire because the petrol would have burnt and there would have been a fire.

If there was a fire on the second floor, and I myself wasn't there, so it's quite difficult to say, but I can imagine that people would not have been able to move there or that they would have been able to view very serious fire damage.

MR VAN DER MERWE: According to what I have read in Exhibit E, it would appear to me that some of the people who escaped, ran down that passage to get to the fire escape and that some of the others found the smoke too thick to move through, but no-one mentions anything about flames, or initial flames on that floor.

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, one can only speculate about these matters, but there are two aspects to bear in mind. If there flames, there would usually not be smoke at the basis of the flames, so the smoke would have formed against the ceiling above the flames. Something further is that the passages and the stairways form something like a chimney effect, so the hot air and the smoke downstairs, would definitely have chosen these routes to follow to the top, due to the natural convection streams which would have originated at this point. So I can imagine that the passages towards the top, not necessarily only on the second floor, but also on the third floor, would have been filled with dense smoke.

MS CAMBANIS: Sorry Chairperson, I don't know to what my learned friend is referring in Exhibit E, but if - I don't know where he was reading, at page 3 on the second paragraph, on the right-hand column:

So I'm not sure where he's assuming there was only smoke, from Exhibit E, on the second floor. I think it's quite clear.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr van der Merwe, you were questioning in generalities, could we be focused and say precisely this.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Let me be focused, Mr Chairman, and I will not get cross.

CHAIRPERSON: We shouldn't be.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Let me say to you, if you read a little bit further, that paragraph that my learned colleague has quoted does not refer to where this wall of flames was, it could have been on the staircase, we don't know, but if we go further down, three paragraphs further, if we read nicely there what was said, it says:

No mention of flames. And then just the next paragraph:

Quite clearly, there's no evidence of fire at the rooms. But I will leave it at that, maybe the people who were there can tell us.

MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, I'm sorry, but if he reads Mr Roddy Nunes ...

MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairman, I think we can leave this for argument, with all due respect, I think "surrounded by fire" could be the whole building as well, we don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't have to saunter towards argument at this stage. I don't know, but let me hear you out, Ms Cambanis.

MS CAMBANIS: No, Chairperson, they will speak for themselves, they will tell what they saw and what they felt. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: My ruling in that respect, Mr van der Merwe, was that when Mr Kotze was telling us about a mechanical operation of burning liquids, in this instance petrol, paraffin, what proportions, he says "you cannot say a hundred percent but this would be the natural progression of such flammable liquids". And you were somewhat saying petrol on the second floor and all that, I think that is overstepping in a way, but the questioning of how this general progression would be and what smoke would do, getting the nearest outlet like a chimney, I think that was fair enough.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairman, I won't pursue the matter any further, I think we will agree to disagree in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VAN DER MERWE: The floors, Mr Kotze, when you visited the building the next day, did you see whether or not there were wooden floors, can you recall?

MR KOTZE: Honourable Chairperson, I could recall or imagine that there were wooden floors. If they were not wooden floors, then they might have been wooden slat floors. There was also carpeting in certain sections if I recall correctly.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel?

MR NEL: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I've got no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, I have no questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: I'll ...(indistinct) the examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Honourable Chair, I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

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

Mr Kotze, the planning was just to use the petrol on the building where the printing press was and on the ground floor of the building, is that it?

MR KOTZE: Honourable Chairperson, if I recall correctly we said that the printing press was definitely a target, we poured over one container of petrol there and the room was quite small, so that would be enough. And then in the other rooms, I cannot recall whether we decided on which floors we will pour petrol, but I would imagine what happened that evening was that the persons poured the petrol as far as had petrol, but it is difficult to say because I was not in the main building to know where the petrol had been poured.

And the other thing is that usually in such building it would be sufficient to only, if the fire erupted on the ground floor and the flames burn upwards, so usually in time it would burn the whole building. So I do not believe it was the intention to pour petrol in the whole building, the fire would do that eventually.

MR LAMEY: And then the igniter cord that was used, you spoke of a length of about 100 centimetres, is that correct? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR KOTZE: No, that is the safety fuse that we used, because the fire was an open flame there was always the danger that there would be enough petrol fumes that it would burn while I was still on the scene, so we used a piece of safety fuse, and you will recall the safety fuse is the one that burns with a closed flame, so I would say that was approximately 120 centimetres. So we had a closed secure flame for a time period of approximately two minutes.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall up to where the cord was laid?

MR KOTZE: I do not know in the building, because during the night of the operation I was not inside, but I do know that I used one roll to do the branching off to the printing press, but the starting point was at the stoep steps at the back side.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I do not have any further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: I don't have the luxury of a junior counsel as my colleague, Mr Jansen, but I've got no questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Ms Cambanis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair.

Sir, you say Mr de Kock was the most senior person, but on your evidence he was not at the building during the operation, is that right? He was not in the building - Mr de Kock?

MR KOTZE: I just quite frankly say, Mr Chair, that like the Kok brothers, we had a specific task to pursue and I concentrated on that. I must say that I didn't pay any attention to Col de Kock's whereabouts during the operation. Whether he was inside or outside the building, I really don't know, I didn't take any note of that in particular.

MS CAMBANIS: So as far - it is possible that he was in the building?

MR KOTZE: I really don't know, I really couldn't say.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, you said you were in radio contact with, was it with Mr de Kock that you said you were in radio contact?

MR KOTZE: That's correct, yes.

MS CAMBANIS: And were you in radio contact with Mr Hammond?

MR KOTZE: Not that I can recall, no, not that I can recall, Mr Chair.

MS CAMBANIS: Of the people that entered the building, do you know who you would have been in radio contact with?

MR KOTZE: Well I ...(intervention)

MS CAMBANIS: If you can't recall who, that's ...

MR KOTZE: As far as I can recall is that the purpose why I had the radio was that we decided beforehand that I will light the fuse and I will withdraw from the scene right at the end when all the others had left already and Mr de Kock would give the signal, and there's only one way that he could do that and that was by means of radio. So how many other radios there were and who had radios, I really cannot remember. I think we had one radio per vehicle at least, so that even if we on our way there and back, so that we could at least co-ordinate while we were split up.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, that's what I've been - now the vast, well not the vast majority, but there were certainly several men inside Khanya House for the purpose of carrying out the instruction, generally in planning, would it not have been important to be in contact with them for the, with the vehicles parked for securing the area?

MR KOTZE: I think with an operation such as this, you don't spend time communicating and talking all the time, that's limited to the minimum and everybody was briefed beforehand so everybody knew what they had to do and concentrated on that. I think in a special operation such as this you use the radio only when necessary and for very particular purposes, that's why I don't think that there was pre radio communication during the execution of the operation in Khanya House itself.

MS CAMBANIS: No, Sir, I'm sorry if I misrepresented to you, I didn't mean that there would have been frequent communication, but for the safety of the men inside the building, one would expect that there would be radio communication between the people keeping guard or keeping watch outside and the men inside Khanya House. I'm not suggesting that ...(indistinct)

MR KOTZE: It's possible that it was like that, yes, it could have been, otherwise - I cannot recall what the exact situation here was, if people work in close proximity you could also do this by hand sign and not necessarily need radio for that. So as I say, I didn't really pay attention to this in particular, I cannot really make any substantive comment on that.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes. The building was dark, was it?

MR KOTZE: Yes, it was dark.

MS CAMBANIS: Hand signs would have been helpful?

MR KOTZE: Yes, on second thought, hand signs in such a situation would have maybe not been the appropriate way.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes.

MR KOTZE: I was referring to in general.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, Sir, I'm also referring in general, that one would expect in a mission of this nature that the operatives who would be sent in, their safety would be paramount.

MR KOTZE: Yes, of course. Yes, Mr Chair.

MS CAMBANIS: And generally, because that was such a high priority, all I was saying is that one would expect some communication between the operatives inside Khanya House and the people who were guarding them or keeping surveillance outside, that's all.

MR KOTZE: Yes, Mr Chairman, it would be necessary to have some means of communication for this purpose.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes. Of the people - there were, I don't want to say several planning sessions, but planning discussions from time to time, who was the person allocated to oversee the activities inside Khanya House, can you recall that?

MR KOTZE: Mr Chair, normally in an operation such as this you don't have like a foreman walking up and down to see if everybody does their jobs, that's done beforehand. Everybody is allocated his part to do and you do in, identify the area where you have to perform your task and as soon as that has been accomplished, you withdraw immediately. So there isn't like an overseer walking up and down to check on everybody, no.

MS CAMBANIS: And in the absence of foreman or an overseer, if an emergency situation arose in that building, would they be trained to know what to do in the emergency, beforehand as well?

MR KOTZE: Yes, normally there is contingency planning as far as possible, to decide what will happen if things go wrong.

MS CAMBANIS: And what was the contingency plan in this case if something went wrong?

MR KOTZE: I cannot exactly recall how we planned this, but I think our main objective was not to be identified and not to be seen, so if things were not right, we would have of course withdrawn as fast as possible and as quickly as possible without being seen.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, but how would the people inside Khanya House know if something had gone wrong?

MR KOTZE: By means of communication, radio, hand signals, for people close enough to each other, and by voice if necessary.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Sir. Sir, you said in your evidence, in your application as well, that the purpose of this was to destroy the building so that it couldn't be used again, I think.

MR KOTZE: Well I think the objective was to cause as much as possible damage to the building, to the infrastructure, yes.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes. And you've already clarified to the Committee that that would have required more petrol. I just want to know if you can remember the first that you - you are now aware that there is three storeys, a ground floor and three storeys?

MR KOTZE: Yes.

MS CAMBANIS: And when you went to the surveillance, do you remember where you went to?

MR KOTZE: My recollection of the surveillance is that I remained on the ground floor and since we were a very small team, I never moved very far from the, if I remember correctly, the set of glass doors on the eastern side of the building. We left it to Mr de Kock to go in deeper and survey the locks and the types of locks and to get a general layout of the building, I wasn't - Mr Kok, Mr Kock was the lock expert, he had to survey the types of locks, amongst others. I never went beyond the ground floor, I never went beyond the ground floor during that time, because I was keeping in the vicinity of the glass doors to see if anybody was approaching from outside.

MS CAMBANIS: Sorry, near the glass door?

MR KOTZE: On the east side of the building.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, I don't know, do you recall that the staircase going up to the various floors is in fact situated closer to the, what we can refer to as the back door facing skinner street?

MR KOTZE: I must confess that my recollection of the inside of the building is really very vague.

MS CAMBANIS: Sorry, I'm going to withdraw that, because I see one client is indicating that I'm mistaken. I withdraw that and apologise. Sir, the following day when you went onto the scene, you said you examined the building, not examined the building, but you walked around the building.

MR KOTZE: That's correct, Mr Chair.

MS CAMBANIS: And I don't recall, did you go throughout the floors to assess the damage?

MR KOTZE: If I recollect, Mr Chair, I think there were still some firemen on the scene doing their investigation and having been responsible for the printing press, I frequented more in that area. I cannot remember that I've gone up into the building onto some of the other floors. Whilst we were there my main attention was focused on the area that I was responsible for.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, is it correct that when this ignition cord burns it can give a quite distinctive trail that would be discernible by the naked eye?

MR KOTZE: It leaves a trail of what we used to refer to as an ash trail, yes, it does.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, like a snaking wherever it went? It would be easy to ...(intervention)

MR KOTZE: Wherever the line went there would be a residue, yes.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes. And as you know we don't have the docket with the fire report, but the witnesses say that that trail is correct as you say, on the outside from the printer to the back door, along the passage and up the staircase. Is that what you would expect to have been done?

MR KOTZE: Well I would imagine that the passage and the staircase would have been the obvious route, but I think my colleague, Mr Hammond, could perhaps shed some light on exactly how it was installed on the inside of the building.

MS CAMBANIS: That would the logical ... to take it up the staircase, that's what you're saying. Sir, the next day on your inspection, not inspection, I've used the wrong word, during your perusal of the place, you can't remember where in the main building you went, if anywhere, is that right?

MR KOTZE: I think we, I think I went, had a look on the ground floor as well. I could have gone up to the first floor, but I really cannot remember. It's also awkward in a building like that after the fire brigade been there, you know, the place is full of water and you have water dripping from the ceilings and the black soot, so it's not always easy to go wherever you want to. But I cannot really recollect whether I've ever went further than the first floor, but I know that I was definitely on the ground floor inside the building, yes.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, during the recce, now in retrospect you'd agree that it's a great pity that no-one bothered to go up to the second and third floor. In retrospect.

MR KOTZE: Well in retrospect there are a lot of things that one could depict as a pity, but I assume and I also assumed at the time that the people who are responsible for the proper investigation would have done that, so I never bothered to do that, I never really visited the scene to become part and parcel of the investigation.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, but surely a recce is the most proper investigation or one of the more proper investigations that could be done, with respect Sir.

MR KOTZE: Well it depends on whose responsibility it is.

MS CAMBANIS: Wouldn't that have been the perfect opportunity to find out what the nature of the, whether there were residents, for example?

MR KOTZE: Mr Chair, as I've already indicated in my evidence, I was quite shocked to see that there were actually people in there that night, but by the time that we visited the building the next morning I also had already heard that none of those people were actually hurt or that they were all safely evacuated from the building, and that to me was already a relief and there was no wish from my side to really walk that trail and see where they were kept and what has happened. The main thing for me was that there was nobody killed or seriously injured and that to me was a relief and I was satisfied that, or glad that that at least didn't happen. So there was no wish on my side to walk the trail and look everything through.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes. If you look at Exhibit E just for confirmation, on page 3 on the first column is what Bishop Verstrate said subsequent to that, is that he heard footsteps in the passage on the second floor where he was sleeping. You're not in a position to dispute that?

MR KOTZE: I cannot comment on this at all.

MS CAMBANIS: And if people say that they felt liquid which they assumed was petrol, or thought was petrol, or was petrol, on the second floor, you can't dispute that, that petrol was in fact strewn at least on the second floor?

MR KOTZE: I simply don't know, Mr Chair, because I wasn't in the main building during the operation, so ...

MS CAMBANIS: But with the amount of petrol that was taken there, that's possible? There was sufficient, certainly, it wasn't ...

MR KOTZE: It depends on what sufficient is, Mr Chair, we used one container of petrol in the printing press and that virtually exploded, there was a typical gas explosion there because of the volatility of petrol and the gasses that were formed. It was a total overkill because the place was destroyed. Is that enough or sufficient? Or if you go to the ground floor you use 10 litres or 20 or 50 litres per square metre? I mean sufficiency is a relative concept, I cannot say that with 200 litres you would have gone to the third or even fourth floor. It may have under the circumstances be not even sufficient for the first floor, it's a relative thing, so I cannot comment on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, 20 litres in the press unit and 180 litres in the main building, would that be sufficient for these purposes, to achieve the main objective, to render this building unworkable?

MR KOTZE: Mr Chair, maybe I can make this comment. Even a highly flammable liquid like petrol still requires air to burn and even if we had a dam of petrol on the ground floor and there wasn't sufficient oxygen present in the building, then the building wouldn't have been destroyed either. So one would think that with 180 litres of fuel, you could easily lay a building like Khanya House in ruins, but in fact it didn't happen because the building was closed, there weren't any broken windows or anything that could have provided sufficient draught to help the process. So one would think that 180 litres of fuel or petrol would be sufficient, but I think that was practically just about all that we could carry under the circumstances. So I think this is, to my mind, a very relative point as to what would have been sufficient or what not. It depends on how much you throw in a particular area, there may not have been enough for even the first floor or wherever. But since I wasn't there and I cannot recall any specific instructions as to how much petrol to apply in a specific area, I don't think we went down to those details, it's very difficult to say. At that time everybody's adrenaline is pumping and everybody is aware of the extraordinary circumstances under which they are and you try to get rid of your petrol as quickly as possible. So it's quite possible that there wasn't enough petrol even for the first floor, because everybody dumped it on the ground floor. It's very speculative and it's very relative.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed, Ms Cambanis. Mr du Plessis, your foot is fidgeting with out ignition cord.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you had formed the impression that was on purpose, I wish to set the record straight that it wasn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Ms Cambanis.

ADV BOSMAN: Ms Cambanis, may I just interpose for a moment?

Mr Kotze, somebody had to work out how much petrol you had to take along with you to do what you wanted to do.

MR KOTZE: Honourable Chairperson, in such a case the amount of petrol depends on how many people are participating in the operation and it depends on the access routes and how suspicious it would look if the persons would walk in the middle of the night with hundreds of containers, delivering hundreds of containers before a Catholic church, all those things have to be considered, and it also depends on how comfortable we can carry those containers. Because it is a convert operation one wants to do it as inconspicuously as possible, one cannot carry loads and loads of equipment with you and go unnoticed. But if I recall correctly, the amount of petrol that we took into the building was simply a practical amount that we could carry amongst ourselves, taking all these circumstances into consideration.

And secondly, the petrol would only serve to set the building alight. The whole purpose would be that because of the inherent combustibility of the substances or material in the building ... and once again I can say that those were the restrictions with regard to the amount of petrol that we could carry.

ADV BOSMAN: I can understand that there were restrictions, but can you tell me who worked out how much petrol you could take along with you, when you consider all these factors that you have mentioned?

MR KOTZE: Honourable Chairperson, I cannot recall exactly whether we went and worked it out on paper. I think that in this regard we said that listen, we are so many people, let us get so many containers and that would give us so much petrol and that should be sufficient.

ADV BOSMAN: And with regard to the ignition cord, did you work out a length that you would use and who would work out that length?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, with regard to the ignition cord, it boils down to, it comes in standard lengths and if I recall correctly, Mr Hammond and I just took one roll each, because at the end of the day when the ground floor, for argument's sake, was soaked in petrol sufficiently, then only the first metre or metre and a half would be necessary to get the flame to the petrol and then the ignition cord wouldn't serve any purpose anymore because the fire would propagate itself further.

ADV BOSMAN: But you took two rolls with you.

MR KOTZE: I cannot speak on behalf of Mr Hammond, but I would think that in such regard one would roll it out as far as the roll would go, if one would feel that you do not want to go any further, you would just leave the rest there.

ADV BOSMAN: Can you assist us and tell us what the length of it was?

MR KOTZE: If I recall correctly the rolls were usually somewhere in-between 25 to 50 metres. At that stage I think there were nine various types of ignition cords on the market and the length that the factories used were standard lengths and the amount of length that goes onto, that is sold, was dictated beforehand, and if I recall correctly we used some of the thicker cords and usually that is not a full 50 metres, so it could have been at least 25 metres, but definitely not more than 50 metres.

ADV BOSMAN: That was a rather long interruption, I apologise for that, Mr Cambanis, you may continue.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you.

Not more than 50 metres per roll, is that what ...

MR KOTZE: I haven't been in contact with these things for the past 12 years - no, that's a lie, for the past 7 years, Mr Chair, and I doubt whether that roll was 50 metres, I would say that it was rather in the region of 25 to about 40 metres, at the most, for that particular thickness of igniter cord.

MS CAMBANIS: But in any event, Sir, you say you weren't in the building and you can't dispute the evidence or observation that the ignition cord was taken up the stairs to the third floor, the beginning of the third floor?

MR KOTZE: I cannot recall that at all, I cannot say that I dispute it or do not dispute it, Mr Chair, I simply don't know.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, were you aware - can you please assist us with who planted the limpet mines and the explosives inside the building that night? Or who took it and put it in the cupboard?

MR KOTZE: Mr Chair, I must be quite frank, I didn't know of these items until the next day. I really don't know who planted it and who took that responsibility, I really don't know. I was as surprised and upset about it as anybody else, but I really don't know.

MS CAMBANIS: I'm sure - I don't know if you were here, Sir, but Mr de Kock, has quite openly and honestly said that yes, it did come from Vlakplaas and yes, it was planted, you know that now?

MR KOTZE: Yes, I know that, yes.

MS CAMBANIS: And we now nearing the end of witnesses and we cannot trace, and between yourselves it's not possible that anyone has come out and said, 'it was planted, but we can't put a face to that".

MR KOTZE: Mr Chair, I can quite honestly say in my mind that I don't know who it was. Mr Hammond was my ex-colleague and after this incident we have spent many years working together as well, so we shared and still sometimes shared a lot of time together in discussions, but even we cannot recollect exactly who put it, who planted the material, who actually took, physically took the stuff and planted it. So I can honestly say that I really don't know. As far as I'm concerned, I'm also grateful that we can clarify that issue that definitely the Bishops Conference wasn't really stashing arms or anything at that stage, but unfortunately I cannot put a face to the person who has actually done that.

MS CAMBANIS: Mr Kotze, were you here on the first day of these hearings?

MR KOTZE: I was, on the first day, the first afternoon when Mr McIntyre gave evidence, yes I was here.

MS CAMBANIS: And did you hear that when we told the Chairperson on behalf, when I told the Chairperson on behalf of clients, that had we been satisfied with the papers before Court, there would be no question of opposing, all that my clients want to know is what happened that night and who did it and how they did it and when they did it. Did you hear that?

MR KOTZE: Yes, I heard that, Mr Chair.

MS CAMBANIS: Now this is probably enormously naive of me, but if explosives were going to be taken into the building, wouldn't it be better to get someone in your position or Mr Hammond's position to do that?

MR KOTZE: Mr Chair, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to carry explosives, I mean the things have been designed to withstand very rigorous treatment on the battlefield, because they were - a limpet mine, amongst others, is a conventional weapon, they are intended to go into the thick of battle and still it must be able to be handled safely by whoever is operating them or planting them or preparing them. Yes, one could say in retrospect or retrospect is not the right word, but in ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Hindsight.

MR KOTZE: Not even hindsight, Mr Chair, if you will forgive me, but in normal conduct of matters you would want explosives experts to handle the explosives, but in this particular incident it wasn't really required that an explosives person should carry them to be able to keep them safe or to handle them safely, it could have been anybody, it could have been a five year old child for that purpose. That's how safe those things are in the state where they haven't got igniters in them. So it could have been anybody. And, Mr Chair, I have also revealed something of my emotions that I've experienced during the experience on the scene and the day thereafter, I'm trying to be as straightforward and to be as honest as possible and I can say honestly that I do not know who the person was who placed those explosives in the cabinet. During the operation I was unaware of them, I only found it out the next day. And I will be as honest to say that I was upset by it, because I think it was taking the whole thing too far and that could possible point fingers back directly at us. It wasn't even in the planning of the operation. If I remember correctly, afterwards Col Hattingh was upset about it, but still I cannot say who planted those items, I really don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they of Eastern origin, Eastern-bloc?

MR KOTZE: Yes, they were of Russian origin, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Ms Cambanis.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, you've canvassed the issue of the back door being locked, I think that was also the evidence of Mr de Kock, that it had been closed - no, no.

MR KOTZE: No.

MS CAMBANIS: My clients were informed by the investigator or members of the police, that the door had been locked after the arsonists left the building, and based on that fact it was suggested to them that it would have been an inside job.

MR KOTZE: Mr Chair, I was the last person to leave, I was the last guy to leave and that door was definitely open, it was a metre and a half away from me where I knelt to light the fuse, there was no draught at that time, or anything. If the door was found locked the next day, I mean the fire brigade was there, they could have closed the door or could have done something that could have caused the closure of the door. One must also keep that in mind that the fire brigade doesn't really handle an arson scene with gloves, they go in there and they would even break down doors and destruct parts of the building if that will help them to kill the fire, so they have been through there like a tornado as well. So it's impossible to say what really closed the door, but what I can state categorically, without a doubt, that the door was open when I left.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, you said that you were with Mr de Kock in the sedan vehicle when you left the scene and that you came back and you drove past the building a few times to see what happening, is that correct?

MR KOTZE: That is my recollection, yes, Mr Chair.

MS CAMBANIS: What was put by one of the witnesses yesterday is that there's police barracks, I think it's called barracks, in the vicinity, there's a ...

MR KOTZE: Directly to the eastern side of the church, on the corner of Bosman and I think, Skinner Street, there's an old hotel, I can't remember what the name of the place was, but that was later used by the police as quarters for, unmarried quarters for members of the police force.

MS CAMBANIS: But this is a built up area where there was a risk of detection, which is exactly why guards were posted outside to look after the safety of the men inside, because of the risk of detection.

MR KOTZE: With any - yes, of course, with any such type of operation where you are doing things that you shouldn't be, or a covert operation, of course you have to take care of that.

MS CAMBANIS: And I think Mr de Kock - normally you would leave the scene immediately to avoid detection, isn't that the normal expectation?

MR KOTZE: I don't understand the question.

MS CAMBANIS: After the operation it would be important to leave the scene as quickly as possible to avoid detection, surely.

MR KOTZE: Yes, that would be the natural instinct, but then again on the other hand, it is sometimes necessary to see out the operation and see also what happens after your actions and make sure that things are going the way they should or ... It's sometimes just maybe, it depends from person to person and exactly why Mr de Kock decided to stay in the vicinity, we haven't really discussed that, I haven't asked him about it, I just assume that it was to see whether things went well, whether the building is burning well and just get a general sort of like first glimpse after the operation for his own knowledge.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you. Chair, may we take the lunch adjournment now in order that I may take instructions?

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, it's almost one. We'll adjourn and take lunch. We'll have an extra 15 minutes because we have to just complete some administrative duties, but we'll definitely start at two.

HENDRIK VAN NIEKERK KOTZE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: We are ready to proceed, but firstly, the Members of the Panel wish to thank you for your indulgence in allowing them these extra minutes to complete their administrative duties. We are very thankful for that. Ms Cambanis?

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Mr Kotze, just a couple of aspects. Am I correct in my understanding that of the operational group, yourself and Mr Hammond were the two persons most experienced in terms of how most effectively to set Khanya House alight?

MR KOTZE: Mr Chair, I think it's difficult to say that we were the most experienced, but at least from our job description, we were working with explosives and associated materials on a full-time basis. I don't think we can say that we are more experienced than other people in combustibles or in methods of arson, but from the point of view that we were working with this stuff full-time, as our daily job, from that point of view I could say that we had lots of exposure to it, yes.

MS PATEL: And in terms of this operation, the decision as to the modus operandi in respect of the arson specifically, would that have been left to yours and Mr Hammond's discretion?

MR KOTZE: I think if I can recall correctly, what actually happened was that I think we all had suggestions, even from other members, and we considered all the suggestions on the table and then, you know, decided on the most practical thing to do, or what we thought at that time were the most practical. I won't say that everybody just followed exactly what Mr Hammond and I said, I think we certainly had inputs to make, but I think we sort of like, under the circumstances, taking all the aspects of such an operation into consideration, I think we considered all the suggestions on the table and decided which would be the most practical, yes.

MS PATEL: In coming to the decision as to how much petrol would be used, or whatever combination of flammable substances you wanted to use and whatever else you required to set the building alight, did you take into consideration that the fire department was very close to Khanya House?

MR KOTZE: Yes, Mr Chair, there was some discussions about that, the quick reaction time of the fire brigade, and maybe we, Mr Hammond and I at least, discussed the aspect that the fire brigade could be on the scene before enough damage was done to the building, or before the fire progressed far enough. We've considered that aspect and certainly from that point of view, we were thinking of ways to make the fire burn as ferociously and propagate as quickly as possible, hence the open doors, to use but one example.

MS PATEL: Okay. And then just as a matter or interest, how long would it take from the time you set the safety ignition, the safety valve at the bottom ...(intervention)

MR KOTZE: Fuse.

MS PATEL: ... fuse, that's it, sorry Honourable Chairperson, excuse my ignorance. From the time you set the safety fuse alight on the ground floor, to the end of the ignition cord to burn, how long would that take, would it take a couple of minutes for the entire cord to set alight and for the building then to be ignited, or how long would that take, just an average?

MR KOTZE: It's rather quickly. The length of the safety fuse burns at a constant speed which, if I recall correctly, was in the region of, I think about two minutes.

MS PATEL: Okay.

MR KOTZE: But the moment that the flame goes into the open, in other words when the igniter cord actually propagates the flame, when the flame is now open, you know it's very difficult to predict and I think the purpose of the igniter cord was not to delay it, but to actually just propagate the flame. And I may perhaps just mention that the moment that I was sure that the fuse was burning well, I left the scene immediately, climbed back over the wall and went to Col de Kock's car, and I think even before I went into the car I heard the explosion in the printing press, because petrol fumes were all over, it formed gasses floating in the air, so from that point onwards it was rather quickly. I would say at the most, two and a half to three minutes after I struck the match I think the printing press went up in flames.

MS PATEL: Right, thank you. And then just finally, in response to a question earlier on as to whether you would have proceeded if you had known that there were people in the building, your response as I'd noted it then, was that you wouldn't have proceeded because it would have been beyond your authorisation at the time. This is hypothetical, but if the orders at the time were that people were to be injured as well, would you have proceeded?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I have to object against this question, I don't know what the relevance of the question is and it's an unfair question to the witness. There was no evidence before this hearing that that was ever the order and it's unfair towards the witness to ask this question on what he should have done if the order was different, then we can just as well ask him what he would have done if they had said to him he must kill the people with bayonets in the building. It's got no relevance, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: It would put us in the realm of speculation, all the permutations.

MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Sandi?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kotze, this spraying or littering of the petrol, for instance let's take where your concern was, that is the print unit, did you spray it that it would fall on certain items, like for instance in Exhibit E I saw something that is similar to a photostatting machine, how were you spraying it, or you just wanted petrol in that print unit?

MR KOTZE: Mr Chairperson, we simply took the containers of petrol and sprinkled it all over. I definitely made sure that what appears to be the photostat machine, what I also assumed to be a photostat machine at that point in time, I made sure that it was well soaked in petrol.

CHAIRPERSON: The background you have sketched in the documents, which was a reaction to when the ANC started with their "covert operations", is that the learning you obtained whilst you were doing your courses, or was this just related to you? I would refer you to page ...

MR KOTZE: Mr Chairman, my knowledge at that time of the ANC, the weaponry, the doctrines, and which ultimately formed my perception of the situation at the time, was a culmination of own reading, own interest, security reports, information that I obtained from the actual mouthpiece of the various organisations, such as the African Communist, Sitchaba, Vukani Awake and many others which being a member of the Security Branch, we've had access to these and before my stunt of duty at the Bomb Disposal unit, I was actually a normal Security Police operator at the Security Branch Pretoria, where I actually dealt with security reports, with the gathering of information. So I was informed from various areas about these, from security courses right down to my own readings, to my actual involvement in the Security Branch operations, from time to time.

CHAIRPERSON: So would it be fair for me to infer that that would have started as early as 1976, when you joined the Police Force?

MR KOTZE: Mr Chair, to be quite honest with you, even before that, when I was at school I read books on communism and by the time that I joined the Police force, I had very strong perceptions and personal views on communism, things that I still have to this day.

CHAIRPERSON: Why I'm asking you that, I was guarding it jealously that if probably that kind of history belongs to people like Hattingh SC, myself, Adv Bosman and probably Mr Cornelius, because we have sufficient grey hair to have been around then. No, no, the interest was that I realised that you were born in 1957 and suddenly in '63, about Rivonia, you had interest, as I said probably you must have been a genius during the Police force before then.

MR KOTZE: No, Mr Chairman, I think that comes from readings and also at security, the courses that we do in the Security Branch, I mean we, as part of our training, we have looked at, you know, shall I say cases in history, of which Rivonia was one. Also Rivonia, as I remember correctly, it is where the first improvised explosive devices that were used in South Africa, where they were devised, that's why from the explosives course we've taken an interest in that and we've studied the methods and the techniques used then. That is where that knowledge comes from, so not firsthand but acquired knowledge.

CHAIRPERSON: And that gave you a strong leaning towards the Nationalist Party's policy?

MR KOTZE: Mr Chair, yes, we can say that. Personally, in my perception I think to me the big enemy was communism, world communism at that stage. I was also very much under the impression of what was happening elsewhere in the world. I mean, there was the huge arms race, the nuclear arms race in Europe and elsewhere in the world, which was a direct result of the cold war between West and East, and I think Southern Africa was likewise the hot-spot on the globe where, if I can put it that way, Kremlin communism has taken a strong interest in. And I also believe that although apartheid was maybe an unjust, not maybe, definitely an unjust political dispensation and many people were deprived of those rights, I still believe that that was but the sub-component of the bigger, shall I say danger that was lying ahead and that was that South Africa would be engulfed by Russian communism and by communists and we were turning into something like Angola and Mozambique. They've never yet recovered from those revolutions and the revolution has taken on the same magnitude in Southern Africa. We would have been in a similar situation, and I strongly believe that in many instances the black consciousness movements, of course they found a very sympathetic and apathetic ear with the communists, but for a reason, and would the iron curtain not have come down when it has happened, I sincerely believe that pay-back time would have been there and of what is today the previous, shall I say black consciousness movements, they would have had to pay back and the situation would even for them be worse today. So to me it was never a case of really attacking the man around the corner because he didn't believe what I believed in, but I sincerely believed that everything was intertwined into this bigger enemy that was overwhelming, and that was the main perception that made me associate myself with operations of this type.

CHAIRPERSON: As at 1988, October the 12th, which the date of this incident, you were busying yourself studying international politics, did it have a negative influence on you, or it merely fortified the views you had about communism?

MR KOTZE: Mr Chair, my personal studies actually revealed to me the first time, shall say on an intellectual level, how wrong the apartheid system was and even at that time, being a member of the Security Branch, I acknowledged it to myself and even to some of my colleagues, that I think it's an undefendable, unjust political dispensation. But you know, that my views at that stage was that it will change and there is no ways that it can go in any other direction. But one of the strong perceptions at that stage was that Khanya House, and it was alleged that some of the pamphlets that had come from the printing press in Khanya House, strongly urged the communities to go against the first Municipal elections in which black people could participate.

Now in my mind, being a supporter of the Nationalist Party, I perceived that to be a very strong and a very definite sign from the Nationalist Party, that they are going to change things and the things are changing, this was the first step towards a much more democratic dispensation and anybody that stood in the way of that and tried to disrupt that or to urge people not to participate in this natural process, I thought it was wrong and that's why I could associate myself with the operation.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Kotze. Mr du Plessis, any re-exam?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Kotze, at the end of the day you still believed that this operation was aimed at the liberation movements and against the effective action of the liberation movements against the government.

MR KOTZE: Honourable Chairperson, yes, that is what I believed because it was necessary for me, because the liberation movements in many cases had advocated the chaos that they wanted to reign at that stage.

MR DU PLESSIS: And when this happened, you said that you supported the National Party government in its policy, is that correct?

MR KOTZE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now Mr Kotze, during that operation it was not your function to gather information with regard to what the church was doing, is that correct?

MR KOTZE: No it was not, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you accept that the persons who gave the instructions from the top would have known exactly what the church was busy with and that they would have had a justified reason for taking action against the church?

MR KOTZE: Chairperson, I did not doubt that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Kotze, this mixture of paraffin and petrol which was poured on the floor, did this make the floor smooth?

MR KOTZE: Yes, the wax on the floor is dissolved by the petrol and it becomes very smooth.

MR DU PLESSIS: Would you say anybody would be able to run on it?

MR KOTZE: I could not walk properly in the printing press, I had to walk very cautiously, I think it would be very difficult to run in there. On the contrary, while we were busy in the printing press, Japie Kok fell hard and this was while he was trying to walk.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Kotze, and then the roll of ignition cord, am I correct in saying that the one roll was into the building and the other one was into the printing press?

MR KOTZE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And this ignition cord that burnt when it burnt passed the safety part and it was burning into the building, can you give the Committee an indication as to how fast it burnt?

MR KOTZE: The ignition cord had a burning speed which was specified according to the product in terms of seconds per metre, but I cannot recall the exact burning speed. What I can also add is that I would think that the moment when the first flame arrived at the first petrol, then it would burn much quicker than what the ignition cord would, but then everything else would burn together and would not play a role.

MR DU PLESSIS: Would one be able to regard it as quickly, very quickly?

MR KOTZE: Well it's as quickly as when you would pour a whole lot of petrol on the floor and add a match to it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kotze, you are excused.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I ask if Mr Kotze can be excused from the hearing too, he has to accompany his daughter to the doctor and he should have been there already.

CHAIRPERSON: You are excused from the hearing, Mr Kotze.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR KOTZE: Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you leading any evidence in support of Mr Kotze?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, that is the evidence of his application, Mr Chairman, may I beg leave to call Mr Hammond.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, while Mr Hammond is taking the seat, may I just draw your attention to the fact that we are in the process of distributing statements from the victims in this matter, and Ms Patel has compiled a bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Did you want us to give it a number right away, or could we just keep it until ...

MS CAMBANIS: We could keep it, but I just wanted to place it on record that that has been placed before you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we have received the bundles and I saw Ms Patel walking around, I suppose she was doing precisely that. Thank you, Ms Cambanis. Mr du Plessis, in what language is Mr Hammond going to testify?

MR DU PLESSIS: Afrikaans, Mr Chairman.

GEORGE FRANCOIS HAMMOND: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is duly sworn, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Mr du Plessis?

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Hammond, your application is in the bundle from page 377 to 391, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR HAMMOND: Correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you confirm the political motive therein?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And while we are busy with the political motive, may I just ask you as follows. Did you during this action believe that you were acting on behalf or to the advantage of the National Party and the National Party's policy at that stage?

MR HAMMOND: Yes, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And did you believe that you were acting against communism and against the liberation movements?

MR HAMMOND: Yes, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Hammond, you have also heard the evidence of Mr Kotze.

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is there any aspects in Mr Kotze's evidence which you would like to differ from?

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Can we then accept that the evidence of Mr Kotze, with regard to the incidents where you were together, you agree with that?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, unless you want me to repeat that evidence, I don't intend to repeat the evidence to Mr Hammond too.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no.

MR DU PLESSIS: I'm just going to lead him on those parts, the separate parts where he was involved separately.

Mr Hammond, you were a Lieutenant, you were under the command of Capt Kotze, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And your viewpoints were also in this operation that you were under the overhead command of Col de Kock, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: The gathering or the preparation that you conducted, where exactly were you involved and what did you do? This is now with reference to the gathering or obtainment of the petrol.

MR HAMMOND: Chairperson, I went to buy the petrol at various petrol stations, so as not to create suspicion. It was collected in containers which we received from Mr de Kock, from Technical. The paraffin which we mixed with the petrol is known in English as "chopper fuel", it is helicopter fuel and when they fill a helicopter, in the bottom of the container they would leave some of this paraffin to prevent any dirt getting into the petrol tank of the helicopter, and it is this specific paraffin that we used. It was approximately 60 litres which we mixed with approximately 100 litres of petrol.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. So insofar as your application refers to a lower quantity, that is not correct.

MR HAMMOND: That is not correct where I refer to 50 litres.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Hammond, can you recall who was present at the planning meeting at Vlakplaas, the night before this action?

MR HAMMOND: I was present, Hennie Kotze was there, Col de Kock was there, the Kok brothers were present, as well as other members, I cannot recall all their names.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Can you recall whether you were armed that evening?

MR HAMMOND: I was not armed, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you carry a radio?

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And do you have any recollection in which vehicle you drive there?

MR HAMMOND: I went in one of the kombis, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you have heard the evidence of Mr Kotze with regard to the laying of the ignition cord, how it happened, where it was laid, do you agree with that?

MR HAMMOND: Yes, I agree, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: You were responsible for the handling of the ignition cord in the building, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Will you please explain to the Committee what you did about that.

MR HAMMOND: I took the ignition cord into the building, at the back door on the northern side and I took it across the ground floor to the first steps and I rolled it down, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was the ignition cord laid with the length of the first floor?

MR HAMMOND: No, I do not believe it was the whole length of it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you do anything else in the building, is that all you did in the building?

MR HAMMOND: I also assisted with the pouring of the petrol, specifically on the first floor.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Hammond, Mr Kotze testified that the back door was open, when he ignited the ignition cord you were already gone then?

MR HAMMOND: Yes, I was already gone and the door was open when I had left.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you were not in the vehicle of Mr de Kock, which at the end stayed somewhat longer there?

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Hammond, you were along with Capt Kotze back to the scene the next morning, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Where exactly at the scene were you?

MR HAMMOND: I went in at the back door where we had gone in the previous evening and I walked around on the ground floor, not exactly to the back of the steps which went up to the first floor.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall whether the building was wet in any way?

MR HAMMOND: It was Chairperson, because of the fire brigade that had come to extinguish the fire.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Hammond, you were also involved in Khotso and Cosatu House, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you had also applied in other cases for amnesty, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Khotso and Cosatu House took place before this incident?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And were you under the impression, or did you form any opinion that this operation was not authorised or not justified under the circumstances?

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Were you ever aware that there were people in the building, or that there would be people in the building?

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: What would your approach have been to the operation if you knew that there would have been people in the building?

MR HAMMOND: I would have had us withdraw, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: While you were in the building did you see any signs of any persons in the building?

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Hammond, there is talk of weapons that were found on the scene and Mr de Kock testified that it was weapons that came from Vlakplaas and that the weapons had been placed there but he doesn't know by who, do you have any knowledge about that?

MR HAMMOND: I know of the weapons, Chairperson, I saw that someone took it in there, but I cannot think who it was. I walked past the room and the door was open and someone was standing next the cupboard and placing the weapons in the cupboard, and up to today I cannot recall who it was.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now Mr Hammond, these particular weapons, if I can just refer you - if you'll just bear with me for one moment, Mr Chairman, these particular limpet mines, they did not have any detonators, according to the report that we have, the limpet mines were without detonators and the defensive handgrenades were without detonators, so it would not have had any danger for anyone in the fire.

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Would you agree with Mr Kotze's evidence with regard to that, that if there were detonators, what the affect of the fire would have been on it?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you would you agree with Mr Kotze's evidence with regard to the length of the ignition cord?

MR HAMMOND: More-or-less yes, Chairperson, I cannot recall whether the roll was shorter than 25 metres, I suspect it was two 50 metre rolls.

MR DU PLESSIS: Two 50 metre rolls?

MR HAMMOND: I suspect so, yes Chairperson.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis. Mr Hattingh?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Hammond, you said the following day when you arrived at the building you did not go higher up than the ground floor, did I hear you correctly?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you also said it was too dirty, what was too dirty?

MR HAMMOND: Chairperson, I was wearing neat clothes and the whole place was under water and it was burnt black and there were pieces of the building and furniture lying all over the place and I did not want to dirty my clothes in the building.

MR HATTINGH: A previous witness, Mr Kotze, was questioned about when this ignition cord burns would it leave any residue where it burns, did you hear that?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: If there was a residue left behind in the building, would you have expected to see it there, in the light of the fact that the floors were wet and would this not have washed away?

MR HAMMOND: It possibly washed away because of the fire that had been extinguished by the firemen, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So it would have been a very thin layer, thinner than the ignition cord, that would remain behind, is that not so?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson. The ignition cord that had burnt outside, that had led into the building and into the printing, I could still see that.

MR HATTINGH: And it was just a very fine powder ash that would be disturbed easily if water came across it.

MR HAMMOND: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: While you mention it now, it has been suggested to the pervious applicants that the outside door had been locked, to raise the impression there that it had been an inside job. Did you hear those statements?

MR HAMMOND: Yes, I heard those statements, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You say that the ash residue that was caused by the ignition cord, you say that you saw it clearly outside the door?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So any person who came there could have seen that the fire was started outside the building?

MR HAMMOND: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: I don't know how realistic the scenes are that we see in the movies, but we usually see in the movies that when petrol is poured in a room and he would pour it around and then leave a trail of the petrol leading the outside the door and then he sets it alight and then when it runs into the building, it's just one big woof and the whole building is set alight, how quickly would the fire run along that petrol line?

MR HAMMOND: Chairperson, in the movies it's not so realistic. I have already done special effects in movies and one would use other substances and mix it so that it would not ignite immediately, but when one pours out petrol in the building and the petrol mixes with the oxygen and the atmosphere, it would burn much quicker than in the movies.

MR HATTINGH: You say you were of assistance with the pouring of the petrol on the first floor?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you also pour petrol down the steps to the ground floor?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you have now explained the speed of the ignition cord, that it burn metres per second, not so?

MR HAMMOND: That is what Mr Kotze testified, yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Does petrol not burn quicker than the ignition cord?

MR HAMMOND: Much quicker, yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So the moment when the fire is touched by the petrol, then that fire would spread much quicker than what it would have with the ignition cord?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And if petrol was poured on the first floor and it was poured down the steps, then it was not necessary to run an ignition cord to the first floor, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Because the fire would have, in the wink of an eye it would have spread with the petrol up to the first floor, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And if petrol was poured down the whole corridor of the second floor, then that whole corridor would have been on fire in the blink of an eye.

MR HAMMOND: I beg your pardon?

MR HATTINGH: If petrol was poured on the second floor and the fire spread to there, then that whole floor would have been engulfed in flames in an instant.

MR HAMMOND: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: It is not like one could look back and see the fire coming, it comes as quickly as one can see it, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Just with regard to the explosive devices which were left there, we know that it was landmines and ...(intervention)

MR HAMMOND: Limpet mines, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: ... or limpet mines - are you sure it was limpet mines?

MR HAMMOND: Yes, it was limpet mines.

MR HATTINGH: And handgrenades that were not supplied with detonators.

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You have heard the evidence of Mr Kotze, that if such weapons were not supplied or provided with detonators, it would not burn in the fire.

MR HAMMOND: Yes, Chairperson, I emptied it myself and I used it during training to secure it and one of the methods that I used was to burn out the explosives in the device to secure it.

MR HATTINGH: Is that to make sure that it was entirely empty and it is not dangerous?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So a fire is used to get rid of the explosives without it exploding?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you say you have personal experience of that.

MR HAMMOND: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: On many occasions?

MR HAMMOND: On many occasions, that's correct.

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel?

MR NEL: No questions for Mr Hammond, thank you.

MR WAGENER: I've got no questions, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Counsel?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Another counsel?

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Chair, no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair.

Mr Hammond, the person with the explosives, just describe, what did you see?

MR HAMMOND: I saw a person standing in front of the cupboard with a bag in his hand, the items in the bag were placed in the cupboard and I assumed that these were the weapons because that is where they were found.

MS CAMBANIS: You saw someone place a sack into the cupboard?

MR HAMMOND: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MS CAMBANIS: In which room was this?

MR HAMMOND: A small room just before one takes the stairs up to the first floor, on the right-hand side.

MS CAMBANIS: And did you know what was in the "sak"? In the bag, I beg your pardon.

MR HAMMOND: Yes, I knew what was in the bag, because Col de Kock arranged for someone to bring the weapons from Vlakplaas. Who it was, I cannot recall.

MS CAMBANIS: That was a specific task given to someone by Mr de Kock?

MR HAMMOND: I assume so.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes. Sir, do you remember how many - at the planning meeting, how many people were tasked to enter the main building of Khanya House?

MR HAMMOND: I cannot recall precisely, I think it was nine or ten, Chairperson.

MS CAMBANIS: Sorry, are you including the side building with the printing press? I was talking directly into Khanya House.

MR HAMMOND: I think for the main building it was approximately nine or ten, but I'm not entirely certain.

MS CAMBANIS: And does that include the Kok brothers?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS CAMBANIS: Please Sir, if you can just assist us, besides the two Kok brothers, and I assume that includes yourself, who are the other six or so people that were tasked with entering Khanya House, the main building?

MR HAMMOND: I can recall Dawid Brits and Snor Vermeulen, I cannot recall the others.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, have you looked at the list, the list of applicants on the ...(end of Side A of tape)

MR HAMMOND: Chairperson, it is difficult for me to say who was inside, based upon this list of names. If I study the list I think back to what took place that evening on the scene of the incident and I cannot recall everybody who was in the building.

MS CAMBANIS: But are you sure that Mr Brits and Mr Vermeulen were inside the main building with you?

MR HAMMOND: I am certain, because Snor Vermeulen assisted me with the ignition cord on the first floor.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, the next ...(intervention)

MR HAMMOND: I beg your pardon, not on the first floor, on the ground floor.

MS CAMBANIS: I'm sure you've said this, I haven't got my note, was the ignition cord on the second floor? On the first floor, I beg your pardon.

MR HAMMOND: Please repeat.

MS CAMBANIS: Was the ignition cord placed on the first floor?

MR HAMMOND: Igniter cord.

MS CAMBANIS: Igniter cord, I beg your pardon.

MR HAMMOND: Yes, it was on the first floor as well.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, the next day when you went into the building, did you go and inspect each and every floor of the building? Of the main office.

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson, I didn't even visit the printing room. I went to the ground floor, I walked into the building, some distance on the ground floor.

MS CAMBANIS: Why did you - is there a reason why you didn't inspect the building, Sir?

MR HAMMOND: I cannot really give a reason, I didn't see the necessity of it.

MS CAMBANIS: You weren't interested to see what a good job you had done?

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson.

MS CAMBANIS: And to learn from experience and mistakes?

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, I think it's Mr Brits that referred to the fact that he had doused the documentation room with petrol, but there was in fact not as much damage as one would expect in the documentation centre. Now as an expert, is it possible that you douse a place but fire has a life of its own, it does what it wants to do?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just perhaps come in here. I'm not sure that Mr Brits did testify that he had doused the document centre. I may be wrong in this regard, but I'm not sure about that. I can't recall that evidence. He was in the room, but he didn't testify specifically that he had doused the whole room with petrol. I know, maybe Mr Cornelius can assist me here.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you assist us, Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. He said he was in the room and he removed the computer component there from that room.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the dousing of the documentation?

MR CORNELIUS: As I can recall he didn't testify to dousing the room with petrol.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you grant me a moment?

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, I will retract that part, what I really want to ask is whether fire acts in a predictable way. That's actually all I wanted to ask, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, thank you.

MR HAMMOND: I cannot recall whether petrol was poured into that room, the room where the weaponry would have been, I cannot recall whether petrol was poured into that room.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes Sir, I'm retracting that part, I'm just asking you whether fire behaves in a predictable way. For example, we've heard that maybe evaporation occurs or ...

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I'm not sure what the question is, maybe my learned friend could rephrase the question right from the beginning, so that we can understand.

CHAIRPERSON: May you do that, Ms Cambanis.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, as I recall, then I have put previously questions relating to why certain parts weren't burnt and it has been said, for example, a reason has been given why the damage hasn't been done, was because petrol may have evaporated, for example, because it evaporates very quickly.

MR HAMMOND: I don't believe so, Chairperson, because the 10 minutes that we used to work in - I think it was actually more than 10 minutes that we went into the building and then withdrew again, the petrol could not have evaporated to such an extent by that stage. I don't believe that petrol was even poured into that room, that is why it didn't burn as severely.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Mr Hammond. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Cambanis. Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: No questions, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: No questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination, Mr du Plessis?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hammond, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the case for Mr Hammond, Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is the case for Mr Hammond, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that complete the witnesses you have, Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: I have no further witnesses, thank you Mr Chairman, I believe it's Mr Lamey's turn now.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, I see now you would be left with two.

MR LAMEY: Yes, yes, Chairperson, Mr Nortje and Mr Bosch.

CHAIRPERSON: Why I'm asking you, and this is directed to every legal representative, the Evidence Leader, Ms Patel, informed me that people were trying to adjust their flights tomorrow and it would appear to be packed, that we sit a little later and probably just finish the evidence of the applicants. I wondered if that would be in order with everybody? I think we can go up to five.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I'm the only person who has a problem, but I think I can be excused, my attorney can be here this afternoon, so I don't think that will be a problem. Are you referring also to the evidence of the victims too?

CHAIRPERSON: We'll see how far we take it with Mr Bosch and ...

MR DU PLESSIS: I see, alright. Well Mr Chairman, may I perhaps then, if that's the possibility, may I be excused for a minute then just to make arrangements so that I can be here?

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, and the other thing is that I wanted to give my Interpreters a breather for 10 minutes, then we can all stretch our legs and come back within 10 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we can proceed. I must thank you for having thought of the people in those hot boxes, that they had to catch some fresh air. I hope they caught enough to take them through this hearing. Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I call applicant Nortje.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is duly sworn, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Mr Lamey?

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Nortje, during these proceedings you are also applying for your involvement in the arson which took place at Khanya House, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: The incident for which you are applying is also one of many incidents for which you have also applied for amnesty before the Amnesty Committee and of which most have been heard.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: In the bundle before the Committee, from page 54, we found your initial amnesty application to which is attached an annexure and on page 62 there is a summary of your version of the Khanya House incident, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: From page 63 onwards up to 79, there is an extract from a supplementary amnesty application which was submitted after you obtained legal representation, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And on page 77 to 79, you deal with a supplementary section pertaining to the Khanya House incident.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Furthermore, Mr Nortje, in the bundle there is an extract from a statement which you made in Denmark in 1994, before the Goldstone Commission.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And therein mention is also made of the Khanya House incident. That is on page 83 of this bundle.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, the first aspect has to do with your supplementary affidavit, where you state a date of approximately 1990, it would appear that it is common cause that the incident took place in October 1988, would you agree with that?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: At that stage you were a member of the Security Police unit, C1, stationed at Vlakplaas.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall your rank at that stage?

MR NORTJE: I was a Sergeant.

MR LAMEY: And you served under Col de Kock, who was your direct Commander.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Do you confirm the content of your affidavit with the exception of further additions and explanations that you will give verbally?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that you received your order in this case from your direct Commander, Mr de Kock?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You state in your affidavit that the request for the operation was directed to Vlakplaas from the Pretoria Security Branch. I would like to ask you whether you have any personal knowledge of the origin of the request.

MR NORTJE: No, I did not.

MR LAMEY: And during these proceedings you have heard that Brig McIntyre who was the head of the Stratcom division, issued the request.

MR NORTJE: That is correct, I heard so.

MR LAMEY: You do not dispute the evidence?

MR NORTJE: No, I do not dispute it.

MR LAMEY: Could you tell us where the impression came from regarding the request from the Security Branch in Pretoria?

MR NORTJE: I had the idea that it was originally the idea of the Security Branch, because it was their area and I was under the impression that they provided the information indicating the target, the fact that there were not people in the building and so forth.

MR LAMEY: Did you know that the Security Branch in Pretoria also had a desk pertaining to churches?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Or let's be more specific, the involvement of churches in the liberation struggle.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: I do not want to reiterate evidence that has already been given by the other applicants pertaining to the meeting that took place at Vlakplaas, I just want to get to your involvement. What was the task that was issued to you and what was your involvement in the incident?

MR NORTJE: During the planning session the tasks were handed out and as far as I can recall I was supposed to assist the men who were opening the locks, and I have mentioned Japie's name, but Kobus was also there, the Kok brothers. I was to assist them in gaining the initial access, I had to provide the necessary protection and once everyone was inside, I had to serve as a guard at the gate in order to prevent anybody from entering via that gate on that evening.

MR LAMEY: I think it was one of the Kok brothers who mentioned that you provided the necessary backup, so to speak, and that you were armed for those purpose, can you recall this, or do you dispute it?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot dispute it, I cannot recall it pertinently but I do believe that I was armed. It is possible that I was armed with a firearm and I think I also had an item with which to hit. I cannot recall precisely what it was, but I do believe that I would have been equipped with that kind of equipment because it was my job to guard the gate.

MR LAMEY: Did you personally have any expectation or was any admission made to you regarding the fact that people would be in the building when the operation was executed?

MR NORTJE: No, in my mind the Security Branch provided the information and that there would not be any people in the building when we entered it that night.

MR LAMEY: Very well. And did you ever enter the building at any point?

MR NORTJE: No, I did not.

MR LAMEY: And after the building had been set on fire did you depart from the scene?

MR NORTJE: I think that before the igniter cord was ignited, we departed.

MR LAMEY: In what vehicle did you depart?

MR NORTJE: I assume that it must have been the minibus, the minibus which Bosch drove, because that is the vehicle that we arrived there in. I cannot recall pertinently, but I assume that it must have been that vehicle.

MR LAMEY: Did you see at any stage that the fire brigade was assisting the people in the building?

MR NORTJE: No, I did not.

MR LAMEY: And when you departed you returned immediately to Vlakplaas?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You also state that you were aware of the printing press which would be in the building, similar to the Cosatu House incident.

MR NORTJE: Yes, as far as I can recall the primary target was the printing press because that is where the documents were published. I can recall pertinently that it was specifically stated that it would be in the building itself, otherwise we would only have burnt down the small building in which the printing press was. Therefore the target had to be the building itself as well, but in my mind there was only the printing press.

MR LAMEY: And then from your affidavit it appears that you were under the impression that this building was being used by the South African Council of Churches, you were involved in the Cosatu House incident as well, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: But you were not involved in the Khotso House incident?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you know about the Khotso House incident?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And during the incident did you know who was using the building?

MR NORTJE: I assume that I must have known, but I have stated South African Council of Churches, but I put all these organisations under the same umbrella.

MR LAMEY: That was the impression that you were under?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And during your activities, did you ever hear that the South African Council of Churches as the umbrella institution also showed solidarity, in that some of their members promoted the liberation struggle?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You do not have any personal knowledge indicating whether anybody was injured during the incident, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: I read about it in the media the next day and when we arrived back at Vlakplaas, Mr de Kock told us that the fire brigade had been there and that they were helping people to escape from the building.

MR LAMEY: So you heard subsequently that people had indeed been in the building?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Therefore you apply for amnesty for your involvement and your participation in arson and/or malicious damage to property or any other offence or unlawful act that may emanate from your involvement in the incident, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Particularly, "all offences" would indicate any transgression in terms of the Arms and Ammunitions Act, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And in as far as it involves the equipment, the igniter cord and the manufacturing of the fire materials, if this should come down to a transgression of the Act on Arms and Ammunitions and Explosives, you would associate yourself with this?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And furthermore I want to ask the following, you are not in dispute with the political motivation as provided here by the applicants such as Mr McIntyre and your Commander, Mr de Kock?

MR NORTJE: No, I am not.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Hattingh?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Nortje, I have noted that you have not mentioned all the names of all the Vlakplaas members who were involved in the operation. In your evidence or in your application, are you capable of saying today who the members from Vlakplaas were who were involved in the incident?

MR NORTJE: Chairperson, I was never entirely certain of who was involved. When I made my application I did not make any enquiries, I assumed that those who had been involved would also be applying for amnesty.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Nortje, it is completely understandable that after so many years and after so many operations, one cannot always recall who precisely was involved with you in what operation, therefore it is also so that you and most other Vlakplaas members who have applied for amnesty for other incidents, including Mr de Kock, upon many occasions during your evidence had to concede that members whom you had named as being involved, were not necessarily involved.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that there were also members who were indeed involved, whom you never mentioned.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You have heard Mr de Kock's evidence in this matter and he is under the impression that more Vlakplaas members were involved in the operation than those who are applying for amnesty, he mentioned the names of Mr Snyders, Mr Morkel and Mr van Dyk. We have heard that Mr Snyders was away on study leave or something of that nature, but is it possible that there are certain former members who were involved in the matter who did not apply for amnesty?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: In light of the serious incidents in which you were involved in the past, during which people were killed in a very brutal fashion, this is a relatively minor incident because no-one was injured and the intention was never to injure anybody.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: There are just a few other aspects I want to examine you on. In your affidavit you state that the entire operation took approximately three to four minutes, that is somewhat short, don't you think, because everybody else has estimated 10 to 15 minutes and there was even someone who estimated up to 30 minutes.

MR NORTJE: I would say that three to four minutes might have been too short, I would also estimate in the vicinity of 10 minutes.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. You were not here all the time while the applicants gave evidence with regard to this application?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I was.

MR HATTINGH: Were you in the TV room next door?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you hear Mr de Kock's evidence that he gave instruction for explosives devices and AK47 magazines to be taken with and planted at the scene?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you hear him issue this order?

MR NORTJE: No, I did not.

MR HATTINGH: And are you aware of who the person was who planted the items there?

MR NORTJE: I can only imagine that it must be some of the members who are not here.

MR HATTINGH: We also know that Mr Vermeulen made an affidavit, but that he did not - I beg your pardon, Mr Willemse made an affidavit, but that he did not testify here.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Nortje, I would like to put a hypothetical question to you, if it had been you who had been instructed to plant the items and if you had received the order from Mr de Kock, was there any reason why you would not disclose this?

MR NORTJE: I have no reason, I would definitely have disclosed it if I had done it. The persons who have testified here have no reason to hide this information.

MR NORTJE: Yes, because they were footsoldiers, they received orders from their Commander, Mr de Kock, and they had to carry out these orders.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel?

MR NEL: No, thank you. Thank you, Mr Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR NEL

MR WAGENER: No questions, thank you Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER

MR BUNN: No questions, thank you Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR BUNN

MR JOUBERT: No questions, thank you Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT

MR DU PLESSIS: No questions, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: No questions, thank you Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Thank you.

Sir, at no time during the operation did you enter into the main building of Khanya House, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And Mr Hattingh has just asked you, you can't remember who the operatives were, you can't remember anyone who entered the main building of Khanya House that night, except for Mr Kok?

MR NORTJE: I know that our people went in, but I cannot say precisely who went in where. I just know that I was with one of the Kok brothers who was opening the locks and the members entered the building. I remained there. I cannot say who went in where and what they did. I assumed that they came in through the gate, as I recall. I don't know if any of the other members climbed over on the other side, but as I recall, those who passed me went into the building, but I cannot say precisely where in the building they went.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's say when you say "our people went in", my understanding is that even though they all fall under the Security Branch, but there were at least three and you fell under Vlakplaas, let's confine it to members of Vlakplaas, can you say which members of Vlakplaas entered the building? When I say "three" I mean there are three groups, the group of Kotze, the group of the Kok brothers and Vlakplaas, in this instance.

MR NORTJE: Chairperson, I cannot recall precisely who all entered the same gate that I did, I know that one of the Kok brothers unlocked the gate and I waited at the gate. He went in with the rest of the other members. I'm referring to the Vlakplaas members now. I also cannot recall pertinently the size of the petrol cans that they were carrying, I didn't really attend to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Now let's say one of the Kok brothers which you were providing cover for, did he know that the first door was the only door to be opened or he had to open others doors once he has entered the building, and if so, did you provide cover throughout?

MR NORTJE: No, I did not go in with him to the next section, I may have walked a little way with him, but I did not go in directly. I saw photos of the building here, it was dark that evening, but I imagined the appearance of the place completely differently. I cannot recall pertinently that I went with him to the next lock or the lock after that, I just know that I was with him at the first set of locks which was then opened and the rest went in and I waited there.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Ms Cambanis, thank you very much.

MS CAMBANIS: No Chair, I have nothing further, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I'm sorry to have taken the thunder away from you.

MS CAMBANIS: I'm grateful, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: No questions, thank you Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: Just one question, thank you Chairperson.

Just for the record I would like to clarify something, Mr Nortje, on page 56 of your application, paragraph 10(b), there is the question of whether you drew any benefit from your involvement and your answer is "yes" and then you're asked to explain the scope and you explain that it is "financial".

MR NORTJE: It was in general, regarding all my applications from the beginning. I have been asked about this before. In this particular case I was not placed at any kind of advantage.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nortje, I perused your application and on page 56 again the question on 11(a):

and what you have written in is:

and in your application when you obtained legal assistance, to this question they said:

you said "yes", but when you initially filled page 11 on your own without legal representation, what did you have in mind when you said:

MR NORTJE: Perhaps I could clarify it as I have clarified the previous paragraph. This was in general, from where we obtained our orders, what we believed or where we believed the orders originated from, that these orders came through to our Commanders and that I did not do any of these things without authorisation, so to speak.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but when you mentioned Ministers, were you at any given time told that this order, other than that it is from Head Office, emanated, say for instance from the Minister of, in this instance, Safety and Security?

MR NORTJE: At that stage I think the reference is to Minister Vlok, who did take responsibility for our acts and I accepted that we did not do these things without their knowledge.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nortje. Mr Lamey, any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, just to clarify the question which was put by the Chairperson and also the question which was put by Adv Bosman. What you did with your initial application when you did not have legal assistance is that you regarded these questions as general questions and you did not answer every question with regard to every individual incident that you were involved with.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And as an example of this case, on page 79 we can see that once you had obtained legal assistance all the questions were individualised with reference to all the particular incidents that you were involved with.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: So the initial form, as filled in by you personally, may create a misconception of the incidents that you were involved in?

MR NORTJE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: If we look at page 79, paragraphs 10(c) and (d) where you state that you did not receive any specific benefits for this action.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then there is also the reference to the order or approval, on page 79, and all the matters have been individualised as you were involved with them.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Regarding the involvement of Ministers, was it your idea and perception - Mr de Kock, Mr Ras and other applicants have also testified to this, your perception is based upon the visits that were paid by Mr Vlok to Vlakplaas, the fact that it emanated, that your inference was justified in light of the Cosatu and Khotso incidents, because the Ministers were involved with that as well.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks Mr Nortje, you are excused.

MR NORTJE: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: I call the next applicant, Mr Bosch, Izak Daniel Bosch, Chairperson.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ADV BOSMAN: The applicant has been sworn, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Mr Lamey, you may proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Bosch, you have also prepared an initial application which was prepared in your handwriting, which appears from page 87 to 93, the general from thereof.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And you have also added a typed annexure which you briefly referred to, and there you referred to the acts for which you applied for amnesty, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And later when you obtained legal representation with regard to the drawing up of your further particulars, you were assisted by Mr Rossouw, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And on page 102 to 105, we find the particulars which you supplied with regard to the arson in Khanya House, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: You also refer to the incident taking place in 1989/1988(sic), do you accept that it took place in October 1988, as previously said?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: During the completion of your supplementary statement you had insight into the statement of Mr Nortje that had already been completed at that stage.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And you refer to it insofar as it is relevant to you.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Can you tell the Committee what was your role in this incident.

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, I received instructions from Col de Kock to transport the persons from Vlakplaas to Khanya House. I prepared the minibus, in other words I put on false plates and filled the petrol in it and I think beforehand I went to drive around the place in order to familiarise myself with the place and I knew the road and although I am from Pretoria I just wanted to familiarise myself with the vicinity there.

MR LAMEY: Why did you do that?

MR BOSCH: In order to familiarise myself with the routes. If something happened I had to know which route to take to get away from there quickly.

MR LAMEY: The question has been put previously by Mr Hattingh, I would like to ask you about it. Besides the applicants who applied here, what is your recollection, were there more persons involved in this incident that have not applied?

MR BOSCH: Yes, definitely, Chairperson. At the time when I saw this amnesty application and I saw the names here, I immediately knew that this was not all the people that were involved here.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall anyone specifically?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, it is extremely difficult. I wish to assist the Committee with it, but I cannot recall everyone, but I know my minibus was full of people.

MR LAMEY: What did you do while the other members went into the building?

MR BOSCH: I drove to Khanya House, I parked on the northern side. There was a parking area next to the entrance that led into the church, I stopped there and I waited there. I had a police radio on a police frequency to monitor if any report was made to radio control that there was activity at Khanya House or at the church, then we could inform the persons. I had an extra radio with me, the same that Bellingan had, so that we could communicate with the persons inside.

MR LAMEY: Did you know or did you expect that there would be people in the building when the operation took place?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: What was the information in that regard, as far as you know?

MR BOSCH: That the building was empty and that the printing press had to be destroyed in the building or burnt down.

MR LAMEY: And then you also mention that you only executed your orders. With regard to your political motivation, you said it was in order to stop the ANC and prevent the revolutionary pamphlets being printed there. Did that information come to your knowledge, that it was also a motivation why this building had to be damaged?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson, that is what they told us, there was a printing press and literature is printed there.

MR LAMEY: And you executed your instructions under the command of Col de Kock.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: What was your rank at that stage?

MR BOSCH: I was a Sergeant.

MR LAMEY: Were you in a position to verify any information which led to any decision, or did you just execute your instructions?

MR BOSCH: I just executed my instructions.

MR LAMEY: Did you place your trust in your Commanders to clear up the motivation for this action and to get clarity of it?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I completely trusted my Commander and executed my instructions to the tee.

MR LAMEY: You also say that you were under the impression that the building was occupied by the South African Council of Churches, it would appear now that the building belonged to the Catholic Church community, can you please explain how you came under that impression.

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, I was not involved with the church desk or anything, I thought everything fell under the Council of Churches, that they were the controlling body of all the churches.

MR LAMEY: Certainly not of all churches, but which churches specifically? Is this the churches who were involved in the struggle?

MR BOSCH: Yes, churches who were promoting the struggle of the ANC, that's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: You were also involved in the Khotso House incident.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Which happened a few months before this incident?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And the evidence was indeed that that was the building that was used by the South African Council of Churches.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Hattingh?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Van der Merwe on record, no questions thank you Mr Chair.

MR NEL: I have no questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairman, no questions.

MR BUNN: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no questions.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you Mr Chair, no questions.

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

MR CORNELIUS: Wim Cornelius for the record, no questions, thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis?

MS CAMBANIS: Sorry Chairperson, but I just want to know one thing, please.

CHAIRPERSON: Why are you sorry that you've got to ask? You don't have to be.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: I do, Sir.

Sir, you were in radio contact with the people inside the building.

MR BOSCH: Correct, Chairperson, I think we had four sets of radios or four radios. Two radios, one with Bellingan, one with me, because I think he was on the south end of the building, I was on the north end of the building and then two radios inside the building.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes. And the two radios inside the building, who had those radios?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, I cannot tell you who had those radios.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair, that is all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: Thank you, no questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bosch, I don't think there would be any re-examination, that's why I thank you in anticipation to that. You are excused.

MR LAMEY: Indeed. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any further evidence in respect of Mr Bosch, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: No evidence, thank you Chairperson, that is the case for the two applicants that I represent. And then I just want to clarify the position of Mr Willemse, Chairperson. May we perhaps mark the documents as exhibits which have been handed to the Committee. I think we are at Exhibit G. I think the supplementary report must perhaps be read with the first report, shall we mark the first report dated the 10th of July, G, and then the other one, H, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Why not G and G1, because that's the same.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson. Chairperson, under the circumstances then my application to the Committee is in the light of which I perceive there's no real objection to this, that Mr Willemse's application be considered on the affidavit which is before the Committee. Unless there's any other issue which must be clarified with Mr Willemse, endeavours could be made to obtain a further supplementary affidavit, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis, earlier I somewhat heard you that you had no objection to this psychiatric report, which meant, I may be mistaken, to me that as the initial request went, that he may not testify and we can merely decide upon his application on the papers before us.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, you need not address me any further on that, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: I'm indebted to the Committee, as well as to my learned friend, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless I have not been following the proceedings, it would appear that's the end of the applicants and we've got an hour to kill. Would you venture to call some of the people you had indicated you may call?

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, I'm happy to commence, Chairperson. Chairperson, firstly, I'd like to - the bundle of statements, perhaps that can be handed in as Exhibit H.

CHAIRPERSON: H and then thereafter, 1, 2, 3.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, I beg leave to call Ms Rosemary Cook.

CHAIRPERSON: Then I suppose we've got to rearrange them in accordance to the people you are going to call, because here I see, the first one I have before me is Sister Bridget Flannagan. I suppose they've got to be rearranged then?

MS CAMBANIS: No Chairperson, with respect, it's not necessary to do that, Sister Bridget will not be giving evidence in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So you're calling Rosemary Florence Cook?

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ROSEMARY FLORENCE COOK: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Take a seat and make yourself very comfortable. Ms Cambanis?

EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Mrs Cook, if you look at the bundle in front of you, you'll see at page 2 ...(end of side B of tape) ... with the signature at the bottom of that statement, is that in fact your statement?

MS COOK: Yes, it was a report that I was asked to submit to the Bishops Conference after the event.

MS CAMBANIS: And from the date we see that that was signed on the 23rd of October 1988.

MS COOK: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And did you make any other statements after the events of the 12th of October 1988?

MS COOK: Yes, I did. On the day after the event, that is on the 12th of October, I made a statement to the police.

MS CAMBANIS: Mrs Cook, in your own words will you just tell us what happened on the evening of the 12th of October. You were at Khanya House, is that correct?

MS COOK: Yes, that is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: Just, please in your own words, proceed.

MS COOK: At that time I worked for a Commission of the Bishops Conference called The Church and Work Commission, and we were attending our biannual meeting at Khanya House, which was lasting from the 11th over the evening of the 11th of the 12th, and it was supposed to finish on the 12th of October.

We had been meeting most of the day and we finished about 10 o'clock in the evening.

MS CAMBANIS: If I can just interrupt you. When you say "we", do you remember who the persons were that attended?

MS COOK: Yes.

MS CAMBANIS: Who are they please?

MS COOK: For the record, there was Bishop Verstrate and Bishop Umkhumishe, who were the Chair and Vice Chair of our Commission. There was Dr Rob Lambert, he was the ...(intervention)

MS CAMBANIS: You're going a little fast.

MS COOK: Sorry. There was Dr Rob Lambert, he was the Secretary, Mr Roddy Nunes, Mr Jonathan Williams and myself, I was the Administrative Secretary.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, please carry on.

MS COOK: As I say we finished our meeting at about 10 o'clock and this meeting had taken place on the third floor in an office facing the street, that is Visagie Street on the southern end of the building. We then went to our bedrooms which were situated on the second floor, and it was approximately 11 o'clock, I think, that I turned my light out, but I could not sleep straight away. I was a bit restless and I did go to sleep but woke up again, I think it must have been a couple of hours later. I heard footsteps in the passageway and as though someone was feeling their way along the wall. And then there was a peculiar smell suddenly that was being suffused into the room and I felt as though, I couldn't breath, I was being suffocated and my eyes and my throat were stinging and I got up and I opened the window onto the balcony and I went back to bed and a few minutes later, it must have been, there was this enormous explosion and shattering glass and I really became very upset and I rushed out into the passageway. My colleagues were already there in the passageway shouting "fire, fire, get out, the place is on fire."

I rushed towards, down the passageway towards the main staircase which was on the south side of the building and I noticed as I ran along the corridor, the passage which was carpeted, that the carpet was wet and the fumes and the smoke were there and I really didn't know what this was all about. I tried to go to the - I tried to go down the main stairway and got as far as the place on the stairs where it turned a corner, but before I could even go around the corner, this terrible heat and smoke forced me to turn back. I ran back up those few stairs and along the passage and I had just started going along the passage when I bumped into something, it wasn't very heavy, it was quite light and didn't make a noise as it fell. It fell onto the floor in front of me and it spread its contents.

I was in a hurry and I was really afraid and I was running and then I noticed on the floor, just a little way in front of me there was a light coming from the floor, as if there was a luminous glow coming from the floor and round that I could see cording, some type of cord, but I wasn't paying particular attention or I didn't know what it was, I was just so set on concentrating on getting out of this building and I ran shouting to my colleagues who were in the passageway, "We can't get out that way." I did not know where the fire exit was.

And so we rushed into my bedroom which was closest to the north side of the building and as we rushed into the bedroom, I turned around and noticed that there was a fire coming along this corridor, and it suddenly made me realise, but that fire is right outside Sister Bridget Flannagan's bedroom and she wasn't with us. And so we clamoured onto the balcony adjoining the bedroom. That was Roddy and Robert, Jonathan and myself.

We rushed along the corridor outside the adjoining building, the building, and we, I think it was Rob who broke the window to her bedroom and she was still fast asleep. We managed to waken her and we dragged her out onto the balcony with us. And when we tried to re-enter the building, when I tried to re-enter the building through my bedroom door again, it was too late, we were trapped. There was fire in the corridors and we could not get out.

We remained on the balcony for quite some time I think, becoming quite hysterical, because the fire was in the passageway behind us, there was fire below us and we knew that there was no escape. We became quite hysterical and we screamed and we shouted for help. Just then a large truck went past in Visagie Street and the driver stopped and we shouted and shouted to him please to get us help from the fire brigade and he continued to drive off and we waited and we waited. In the meantime, the flames below, the building, the roof had collapsed and these flames and the heat were so intense. Eventually the fire department did come. I don't know how long it was, but it seemed an eternity.

The fire department came and they still didn't seem to take notice of us, although they knew we were there, but I heard later that they were actually having to douse the flames below us before they could rescue us. And after we waited for a while they sent one of these ladders, because they were parked in the street they sent one of these ladders across to us and we decided then that Sister Bridget Flannagan would go first on this ladder and the fireman came and carried her across this ladder and I followed, falling on all fours, terrified of falling into the fire, and then Rob Lambert followed me and then Roddy Nunes. And so it was that we were able to get out of that building unharmed.

MS CAMBANIS: If I could just show you on Exhibit E, on page 2 there's a photograph of Khanya House, can you just orientate us in terms of this photograph, of where you and your colleagues were asleep at that time.

MS COOK: This photograph shows the opposite side of the building to which my bedroom and Rob Lambert and Sister Flannagan's were, this was the opposite side with the balconies where the two Bishops were sleeping together with Jonathan and Roddy.

MS CAMBANIS: Mrs Cook, you've travelled up for the hearings in order to hear what motivated the persons to do what they did that night, is that correct?

MS COOK: That is correct, yes.

MS CAMBANIS: Would you just give your thoughts on what you've heard so far?

MS COOK: So far I've wanted to hear what actually did transpire that night. There were many questions that were unanswered, that we were never sure of, because whenever we asked we never got answers and it wasn't until I was approached and told that there was an amnesty application, that we actually knew who had done it, and my thoughts were that perhaps at last we will hear the truth. I have been rather despondent during these hearings, because somehow in some of the testimonies, not all, I'm beginning to wonder whether anyone was going to take responsibility for what I witnessed on the second floor.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair, that is the evidence-in-chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions, Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, please. Thank you Mr Chairman.

Is it Mrs Cook?

MS COOK: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you. Do I understand you correctly that you would have spent only one night in Khanya House, the night on which the fire actually occurred?

MS COOK: Yes, that is correct, that was the plan.

MR HATTINGH: And the same applies to the other six people who spent the, who were going to spend the night there, is that correct?

MS COOK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So there weren't people who lived there on a permanent basis as far as you're aware?

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: And those sleeping quarters were used only on occasion such as the occasion on which you slept there, is that correct?

MS COOK: They were used for occasions of meetings of the Commission and various other conferences that were held.

MR HATTINGH: For people who'd come from far?

MS COOK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You retired to bed at approximately 11 o'clock that night?

MS COOK: That's right.

MR HATTINGH: And I assume so did most of the others, especially if you look at their statements?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now you told us that you were asked to submit a report on the incident, who asked you to submit the report?

MS COOK: The Bishops Conference.

MR HATTINGH: And were all of you asked to submit reports?

MS COOK: I'm not sure. I know that Rob and I who were together in Durban, were asked to submit a report.

MR HATTINGH: Because we only have statements from five people and we know that there were seven people who were going to sleep there that night, is that correct?

MS COOK: That is right.

MR HATTINGH: We have one from Sister Bridget Flannagan, from yourself, Verstrate, Bishop Umkhumishe and Robert Lambert. Who are the two missing ones?

MS COOK: The two that aren't here in this bundle are Roddy Nunes and Jonathan Williams.

MR HATTINGH: Roddy Nunes and Williams. Where were they from?

MS COOK: Jonathan was situated in Durban and Roddy in Cape Town.

MR HATTINGH: Cape Town, yes. You are from?

MS COOK: I'm from Durban.

MR HATTINGH: And we know from the statements that Sister Bridget Flannagan gives a Pretoria address.

MS COOK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did she live in Pretoria at the time?

MS COOK: She lived at the Loreto Convent, yes, adjacent to Khanya House.

MR HATTINGH: Adjacent to Khanya House.

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Is there any reason why she spent the night in the sleeping quarters where you were?

MS COOK: She came across in the evening to check that we had supper and everything was under control and then had stayed on.

MR HATTINGH: To sleep there for the night?

MS COOK: To sleep, that night with us.

MR HATTINGH: And we see that Verstrate is from Klerksdorp.

MS COOK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Or was at the time, is he still there?

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: Bishop Umkhumishe, where is he from? Port Elizabeth? No, sorry, Witbank.

MS COOK: Witbank.

MR HATTINGH: Witbank. Is he still there?

MS COOK: No, he has moved as well.

MR HATTINGH: Alright. Then the last one from whom we've got a statement, Robert Lambert, Durban it seems, is that correct?

MS COOK: At that time he was, yes.

MR HATTINGH: From Durban?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now was this the first time that you'd spent a night in Khanya House?

MS COOK: No, it wasn't.

MR HATTINGH: So you were familiar with the building?

MS COOK: To a certain extent, yes.

MR HATTINGH: On how many previous occasions did you spend a night or some nights there?

MS COOK: It's difficult to say, we had biannual meetings and I worked for the Bishops Conference for a number of years, so it was a few times.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. Now as I understand your evidence, I'm looking at the picture of the building on page 2 of Exhibit E, your room was on the opposite side of the building, not on the side that we see here?

MS COOK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Do I understand your evidence then to be that the passage had rooms on both sides?

MS COOK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the passage itself you said had a carpet.

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Was it wall-to-wall carpet?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And do you know what was underneath the carpet? Is it concrete or wood?

MS COOK: Most probably concrete, having regard to the fact that it's the second floor, not so?

MS COOK: I wouldn't really know.

MR HATTINGH: Now you said that you heard footsteps, how could you hear footsteps on a carpeted floor?

MS COOK: I did hear footsteps on the carpeted floor.

MR HATTINGH: Your door was closed?

MS COOK: My door was closed.

MR HATTINGH: And you had already fallen asleep, so when you woke up you weren't wide awake immediately?

MS COOK: I was wide awake by that time.

MR HATTINGH: You were. So you heard footsteps?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Can you say whether it was the footsteps of more than one person?

MS COOK: No, it sounded as though it was one person and I took it that at that stage it was one of my colleagues going to the bathroom.

MR HATTINGH: Why did you arrive at that conclusion?

MS COOK: I didn't think there was anyone else in the building that could have been ...(indistinct) footsteps.

MR HATTINGH: But didn't it strike you as peculiar that you could also hear that this person sounded as though he or she was feeling his or her way along the wall?

MS COOK: Yes, I had ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: How did you hear that?

MS COOK: I had - because it crossed my door, I heard the hands going across my door and I had presumed that it obviously was dark and they were merely not trying to disturb anyone and were going across to the bathroom.

MR HATTINGH: Was it dark in the passage?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Are there lights in the passage?

MS COOK: Yes, there are lights in the passage.

MR HATTINGH: But they were switched off?

MS COOK: They were off.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know who switched them off?

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know where the switch is?

MS COOK: I have no idea.

MR HATTINGH: But you are certain that they were switched off?

MS COOK: They were off.

MR HATTINGH: Did you, when you got up did you switch on your bedroom light?

MS COOK: I didn't try to, no.

MR HATTINGH: You didn't try.

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Now you heard the footsteps and then you detected this peculiar smell. What did it smell like?

MS COOK: It was a very familiar smell.

MR HATTINGH: You know what petrol smells like?

MS COOK: Yes, but I couldn't really identify it. I do know what petrol smells like.

MR HATTINGH: So it didn't smell like petrol?

MS COOK: I was not sure.

MR HATTINGH: Well if you know what petrol smells like, why could you not determine whether it was the smell of petrol or not?

MS COOK: I do not know.

MR HATTINGH: You do not know. Then you got up and you opened your window.

MS COOK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then you got into bed again.

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: How long after you'd opened your window did you hear the explosion?

MS COOK: It wasn't very long, it must have been just minutes possibly.

MR HATTINGH: Before you heard the explosion you heard nothing else, apart from the footsteps that you described?

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: And did you then immediately get up?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And where did you go to?

MS COOK: I rushed out into the passageway.

MR HATTINGH: Into the passageway?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And it was dark?

MS COOK: It was dark.

MR HATTINGH: And there were no windows along the passage, so it must have been completely dark.

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you wouldn't have been able to see anything?

MS COOK: No, I could see sufficient to see figures there.

MR HATTINGH: Where did the light come from that enabled you to see figures?

MS COOK: It wasn't that dark that I couldn't see figures.

MR HATTINGH: Are there windows at the end of these passages?

MS COOK: I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: If there were no windows, Mrs Cook, I put it to you that it must have been pitch black in the passage, there couldn't have been any light from any other source and then you wouldn't have been able to make out any figures. Won't you agree?

MS COOK: No, I do not agree.

MR HATTINGH: You were able to make out figures you say?

MS COOK: Yes, we were all together in close proximity.

MR HATTINGH: Alright. So the others ...(intervention)

MS COOK: I could hear my colleagues speaking and I could identify their voices.

MR HATTINGH: But you couldn't see them.

MS COOK: I could see them.

MR HATTINGH: You could see them.

MS COOK: They were close to me.

MR HATTINGH: Their lights, did they switch on any of their bedroom lights?

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: Because we have a statement here from Bishop Umkhumishe on page 1, the third paragraph:

and then a little lower down he says:

Would you agree with that description?

MS COOK: I would agree that it was dark and that we were fumbling, but not in thick darkness.

MR HATTINGH: Not in thick darkness.

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: And when you got into the passage, were the others already there? Were you the last one to get into the passage, apart from the lady who was still asleep?

MS COOK: I heard Bishop Verstrate's voice, I heard Bishop Umkhumishe. I of course heard Rob and I heard Jonathan. I didn't hear Roddy's voice and also I didn't hear Sister Bridget Flannagan.

MR HATTINGH: Now were you able to determine what had caused the, where the explosion had come from?

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did you try and establish?

MS COOK: I was so afraid, no. I was not thinking in that way.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, well that is something that I was going to deal with, but whilst you're mentioning it now, it must have been a terrifying experience.

MS COOK: Yes, it was.

MR HATTINGH: And you're now in darkness, you heard an explosion and you couldn't determine what it was and where it had come from. You must have been panicking.

MS COOK: I was.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. What did you do once you got into the passage?

MS COOK: After they had said we must get out of the building, "fire, fire", I ran towards the main staircase because that was the route, exit route I knew.

MR HATTINGH: Right. Just before you get to that stage, when somebody was shouting "fire, fire", could you see any fire?

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: Could you see the glow of a fire?

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: So it was still dark in that passage?

MS COOK: In the passageway, yes.

MR HATTINGH: You then ran towards the main staircase?

MS COOK: That's right.

MR HATTINGH: On the, I think you said southern side.

MS COOK: That's right.

MR HATTINGH: And when you got there?

MS COOK: I ran down a few of the steps.

MR HATTINGH: At that stage, could you see any fire or the glow of any fire?

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: And that staircase leads all the way down to the ground floor?

MS COOK: It leads to the first floor and then onto the ground floor.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. So you ran down a bit, how far did you go down?

MS COOK: A few steps before I came to the place where the stairway changed, you know it came up like this, an angle like that and I got only a few steps, I couldn't even get there to the end of that little section. So I was not on the first floor, I was still on the second floor.

MR HATTINGH: You were still on the second floor, or in-between floors?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now do I follow you correctly, my impression of what you're trying to tell us is that the stairs go down and then there's a bit of landing and then it goes down and then ...(indistinct) opposite direction, further down in the opposite direction. Had you reached that little landing yet?

MS COOK: I had not reached that landing yet.

MR HATTINGH: Right. And why could you not go any further?

MS COOK: I was just met by this intense heat and smoke.

MR HATTINGH: But still you could see no fire?

MS COOK: I could see no fire.

MR HATTINGH: Not even a glow of a fire?

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: So there was just intense heat and smoke?

MS COOK: That is right.

MR HATTINGH: Could you see or feel where it was coming from?

MS COOK: I felt it was coming right from there.

MR HATTINGH: From below?

MS COOK: From that floor, but I could not see it, I couldn't.

MR HATTINGH: When you say "that floor", which one?

MS COOK: I would presume the floor that I was going to then enter, which was going to be the first floor.

MR HATTINGH: The first floor. So you then - and what had happened to the other people? Were they following you or ...?

MS COOK: No, they were - I didn't look back at that stage, I presume they were still in the corridor.

MR HATTINGH: That was after somebody had shouted, "fire, fire"?

MS COOK: Yes, "get out."

MR HATTINGH: At that stage when someone shouted "fire, fire", was there any smoke in the passage?

MS COOK: It was filled with smoke.

MR HATTINGH: Filled with smoke.

MS COOK: It was filled with smoke.

MR HATTINGH: That must have impaired your vision as well?

MS COOK: Yes, yes it did.

MR HATTINGH: Was the smoke already there when you came out of your bedroom?

MS COOK: It was.

MR HATTINGH: So you then turned around and went back up the stairs?

MS COOK: I went back up a few stairs, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you go back into the passage on the second floor?

MS COOK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: How far was the staircase from your bedroom?

MS COOK: It was the other side of the corridor.

MR HATTINGH: So it was the length of the corridor?

MS COOK: That is right.

MR HATTINGH: Can you give us an estimate? I haven't been to the building. Can you perhaps indicate in this room, is it longer than the length of this room or ...?

MS COOK: It probably was the length of this room, it started with bedrooms and the bedroom, there were three bedrooms.

MR HATTINGH: The three ...(intervention)

MS COOK: ...(indistinct) that on this side there were three bedrooms.

MR HATTINGH: That's now on the northern side?

MS COOK: Yes. So yes, it could have been the length of this room. I'm not good at estimating, I really ...

MR HATTINGH: It's more than 20.

CHAIRPERSON: 25/30?

MR HATTINGH: 25, approximately 25. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Do I understand you correctly that the bedroom where you were sleeping was on the northern end of this corridor? You follow what I mean? I understood you to say that the corridor runs from north to south.

MS COOK: To south, yes, yes, it did. The bedrooms were placed on the right-hand side as I ran along and on the left-hand side. Yes, towards the north of that.

MR HATTINGH: Of the passage?

MS COOK: Of the passage, yes. Of the stairway.

MR HATTINGH: And then the rest of the rooms along that passage, what were they? Were they offices?

MS COOK: No, there was bathrooms.

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

MS COOK: And that was all. There was a lift and the stairway and the bedrooms.

MR HATTINGH: So only bedrooms and bathrooms on that floor?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Can you tell us how many bedrooms?

MS COOK: Well as I say, on this side there was, where Sister Bridget was and Robs and myself and then there was the lift and the staircase and bathrooms and on the other side, to the best of my knowledge, there was where the two Bishops were sleeping and where Jonathan and Roddy were sleeping. So that makes four. I can't recall whether there were more bedrooms than that.

MR HATTINGH: Alright. Now you don't know what the others did when you ran to the main staircase, but did you then return to your room when you got back into the passage?

MS COOK: Yes, I ran back along the passage as I said.

MR HATTINGH: At that stage it was filled with smoke?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the lights were still off?

MS COOK: The lights were still off, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you felt something?

MS COOK: When I started running along the corridor I felt something that I had knocked into and it fell over, spilling its contents onto the floor.

MR HATTINGH: How do you know that there was anything in it?

MS COOK: Because I could feel it was wet, it actually spilt on me.

MR HATTINGH: Spilt on you?

MS COOK: On my feet.

MR HATTINGH: But didn't you knock it away from you?

MS COOK: No, when I knocked it down it must have obviously been facing this way because I actually ran through it then.

MR HATTINGH: Were you not wearing shoes?

MS COOK: No, I was barefoot.

MR HATTINGH: Barefoot. You couldn't see the contents?

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: You could just feel it.

MS COOK: I could feel the contents.

MR HATTINGH: Could you smell it?

MS COOK: Yes, there were fumes coming from it?

MR HATTINGH: The same fumes that you detected earlier when you woke up?

MS COOK: That's right, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And where did you go to then?

MS COOK: I carried on running, but being more careful where I was trying to go, although I couldn't see very much and in the darkness I could, as I said I saw this glow coming from the floor just ahead of me.

MR HATTINGH: Now that, I'm not sure what you are trying to describe to us there. Whereabouts did you see this glow coming from?

MS COOK: It was on the floor on the side of the passageway and it was a bluish/green glow, and from that glow I could make out that there was some type of cord either attached to it or running next to it.

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

MS COOK: And that is all I saw.

MR HATTINGH: Now you mentioned in your evidence-in-chief - may I just consult my notes, you said as you rushed along the corridor or the passage, you could feel the carpets were wet.

MS COOK: Ja.

MR HATTINGH: Was that on your way to the main staircase?

MS COOK: That is right.

MR HATTINGH: And the carpet was wet all along?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now when you saw this glow, was it coming towards you?

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: Where was it going?

MS COOK: It wasn't going anywhere, there was just this, as though, as if it was coming from something on the ground.

MR HATTINGH: But I mean, was it confined to a small area, or was it ...(intervention)

MS COOK: Yes, yes.

MR HATTINGH: It was just - it just started glowing in one particular area?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: In the middle of the passage?

MS COOK: On the side in the passage, yes.

MR HATTINGH: On the side of the passage?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: How far from your bedroom door?

MS COOK: Oh that was some way from my bedroom door. It was approximately outside Sister Bridget Flannagan's door.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, alright. Now ...(intervention)

MS COOK: Which was at the southern end.

MR HATTINGH: Now would it have been more-or-less in the middle of the length of the corridor?

MS COOK: No, at the beginning.

MR HATTINGH: At the beginning?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: At the beginning where the staircase is?

MS COOK: On the south side, yes.

MR HATTINGH: So you saw it there and then?

MS COOK: And I continued running, shouting "we can't get out that way."

MR HATTINGH: But you saw this glow and you could see the cord, but no flames?

MS COOK: No, there were no flames.

MR HATTINGH: Despite the fact that the carpets were soaked?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And did you then go back into your room?

MS COOK: We said we - I said we couldn't get out that way and I didn't know where else to go.

MR HATTINGH: And did none of the others know where to go? Didn't you know where the fire escape was?

MS COOK: I had no idea where it was.

MR HATTINGH: Didn't any of the others know?

MS COOK: I found out later that they did know.

MR HATTINGH: No, but at the time, did somebody say to you, "Let's go down the fire escape"?

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: Nobody mentioned the fire escape?

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: So did you then decide to go back into your room?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And did the others follow you?

MS COOK: Yes. Not everyone followed me.

MR HATTINGH: Some of them followed you?

MS COOK: Yes, some of them followed me.

MR HATTINGH: I understood you to say, and if I'm mistaken please tell me so, that you say that where you saw the glow was more-or-less opposite the door of one of the people who were sleeping there?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Opposite whose door was that?

MS COOK: It was more-or-less in the vicinity of Bridget Flannagan's bedroom.

MR HATTINGH: And that was more-or-less towards the end of the corridor?

MS COOK: It was towards the southern staircase, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. And your room was on the other side of the corridor?

MS COOK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you enter your room then?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And when you saw the glow come from that area near her door, did you become concerned about her safety?

MS COOK: It made me think of her then as we rushed into our, into my bedroom, it reminded me that she wasn't with us.

MR HATTINGH: How did you determine that she wasn't with you?

MS COOK: I could hear who was with me and see.

MR HATTINGH: How could you see?

MS COOK: They were so close - we were so close together, pushing our way in.

MR HATTINGH: By then, when you came out of your room you must have left your door open.

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: By then your room must have been filled with smoke as well.

MS COOK: It was.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. Didn't it do anything to your eyes, the smoke?

MS COOK: My eyes were burning.

MR HATTINGH: I notice that you wear glasses, did you have your glasses on that ...(intervention)

MS COOK: I didn't wear glasses then, no.

MR HATTINGH: You didn't wear glasses then. And the fact that your eyes were burning must have also interfered with your ability to see.

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Alright. You somehow gathered that she wasn't in the room, and what did you do then?

MS COOK: We were then on the balcony by this time ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: The balcony, it's not in sections, it runs along all the rooms?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So you could move to her room along the balcony?

MS COOK: The balcony, yes.

MR HATTINGH: But you're not referring to the balcony that we see on page 2 of Exhibit E, or are you?

MS COOK: No, I'm referring to the balcony on the opposite side.

MR HATTINGH: The other side, right. And did you then - what did you do when you got to her room?

MS COOK: Her windows were closed and so we, Rob Lambert broke her window and he entered.

MR HATTINGH: Through the window?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And did you get her out of her room through the window?

MS COOK: Onto the balcony, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And that's where you remained until you were rescued.

MS COOK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Now did you go back into the building the next day?

MS COOK: No, I didn't.

MR HATTINGH: Did you go back into the building that same night, after the fire was put out?

MS COOK: No, I didn't. I tried to access the building the next day, but it was cordoned off and I was refused access.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know if one of the other people, one of the other six people went back into the building, either the same night or the next morning?

MS COOK: Yes, I do believe some of my colleagues did.

MR HATTINGH: Go back into the building?

MS COOK: The following day.

MR HATTINGH: The following day. After you were rescued, where were you taken to, Mrs Cook?

MS COOK: We were taken to the Cathedral which is next door to Khanya House.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, and for how long did you remain there?

MS COOK: We remained there until after breakfast.

MR HATTINGH: Did some of the others leave - were all seven of you there?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Because I notice in Bishop Umkhumishe's statement again, on page 3 thereof he says:

Did you go back?

MS COOK: I don't - no, I did not go back.

MR HATTINGH: Can you say whether they went back?

MS COOK: I don't know whether they went back that evening, I was invited to a room where I stayed for the rest of the night.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ever collect your belongings?

MS COOK: During the fire itself, I had, when we were exiting onto the balcony I grabbed my hand luggage, which was all I had with me on my way out.

MR HATTINGH: And so you had ...(intervention)

MS COOK: And so I did not need to go back. The only reason I went back the following day to find it cordoned off, was to get a prayer book which I had not been able to grab.

MR HATTINGH: From this statement I get the impression that at least some of the people went back that very same evening, that same night after the fire was put out, and collected clothes and belongings. You don't know about that?

MS COOK: I don't know about that.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know whether any damage was caused inside the rooms on the second floor where you'd been sleeping? Any fire damage?

MS COOK: We did return to the building days later and we were taken into the building by, I don't know whether he was General or whatever, Krappies Engelbrecht, and then we accessed the building and I could see the extent of the damage then. My bedroom was not burnt inside.

MR HATTINGH: Not burnt inside?

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did you go into the other bedrooms?

MS COOK: No, I went into my own.

MR HATTINGH: What about the carpet on ...(intervention)

MS COOK: The carpet was burnt.

MR HATTINGH: Totally?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Any other fire damage along the passageway?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What?

MS COOK: There was holes in the floor.

MR HATTINGH: Holes in the floor?

MS COOK: Mm.

MR HATTINGH: So were they wooden floors?

MS COOK: Well I would presume from that.

MR HATTINGH: You were telling us what you saw now.

MS COOK: Yes, there were holes in the floor.

MR HATTINGH: Wooden floor? Or couldn't you see?

MS COOK: I didn't notice whether it was wooden.

MR HATTINGH: You didn't notice. When you were asked to give a statement or a report of the events, were you told what it was for?

MS COOK: This report here that you're referring to?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, yes, your statement.

MS COOK: No, I was under the impression that it was just a summary of events for record keeping because I had already submitted a report to the police and we also submitted a report to Gen Engelbrecht or whatever his name was.

MR HATTINGH: Did you at any stage see flames in the corridor on the second floor?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: When was that?

MS COOK: That was after I had run down the passage, I turned around before entering my bedroom and there were flames at the end of the second floor.

MR HATTINGH: And did the flames remain there, or did it come towards you?

MS COOK: I didn't wait to find out.

MR HATTINGH: But it didn't come towards you at a great speed?

MS COOK: I never looked again.

MR HATTINGH: And could you determine whether the fire had actually reached the area where the door to your bedroom was?

MS COOK: At what stage?

MR HATTINGH: At any stage, either that night or later when you went back there to have a look at the building.

MS COOK: Yes, it had.

MR HATTINGH: Why do you say that?

MS COOK: Because it was burnt.

MR HATTINGH: And the door, the door to ...(intervention)

MS COOK: The hole that I'm talking about was very close to my bedroom.

MR HATTINGH: And the door of your bedroom, was that damaged at all?

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: No.

MS COOK: Not that I can remember.

MR HATTINGH: Now is there any reason why you make no mention of the fact that you bumped against something and that it fell over and the contents spilt onto the floor and even onto yourself? In your statement.

MS COOK: I didn't complete this in great detail as I have testified here, and this was merely a summary.

MR HATTINGH: But surely ...(intervention)

MS COOK: I had reported already to the police who I thought were the relevant bodies.

MR HATTINGH: Surely that's a most important detail, not so? That could explain what caused the fire.

MS COOK: No, I don't agree with you.

MR HATTINGH: Why not?

MS COOK: Because that could not have caused the fire, I was not below that level.

MR HATTINGH: Well it could have accelerated the fire. Let me put it to you this way, it was very clear proof of the fact that somebody had deliberately set the building alight and that they'd been to your floor and that they'd left the container with some liquid in it on your floor. Why did you not mention that?

MS COOK: I cannot explain why, as I said I had reported it to the police and I had reported it to Gen Engelbrecht.

MR HATTINGH: In your statement the next day you say you did report it.

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And this statement was made, how long after the event?

MS COOK: It was on the 23rd, was it not?

MR HATTINGH: Just refresh my memory, the date of the ...

MS COOK: 23rd of October.

CHAIRPERSON: 11 days.

MR HATTINGH: Some 12 days later?

MS COOK: That is right.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. And the next day you must have been still in a state of shock?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Yet you remembered to mention it then?

MS COOK: I did.

MR HATTINGH: And when you 12 days later sat down in your home, did you type out the statement yourself?

MS COOK: Yes, I did.

MR HATTINGH: And when you typed statement, you omit to mention it?

MS COOK: That is so.

MR HATTINGH: There's something else that you didn't mention and I'm just trying to look for it now. Yes, the cord, the glowing cord that you observed, why do we not find any reference to that in your statement?

MS COOK: As I said, this was a summary and was not in great detail. ...(end of side A of tape)

MR HATTINGH: According to Bishop Umkhumishe, he managed to climb down the fire escape, right down to the ground and then he returned to the second floor and shouted to everybody to escape along the northern exit. Did you hear him say that?

MS COOK: No.

MR HATTINGH: It must have taken him a while to climb down to the fire escape to the ground floor to come back, not so?

MS COOK: I really don't know.

MR HATTINGH: At the time when you saw the fire going in the passage, going into your bedroom, was he still in the corridor?

MS COOK: I'm not sure.

MR HATTINGH: He says also in his statement, on page 2 thereof, that when you observed, you people - I'm reading from about the middle of the second paragraph:

One would have expected there to have been flames as well, not so, on your version? By that stage.

MS COOK: I would imagine so.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. Somebody mentioned the fact that empty containers, I think it's Bishop Umkhumishe again, were found inter alia on the second floor - if you'll bear with me a moment please, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 3.

MR HATTINGH: Page 3, thank you Mr Chairman.

Yes, he says:

Now that creates the impression with me that there was at least an office on the second floor as well.

MS COOK: There could have been that I was not aware of.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I have no questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel?

MR NEL: Likewise, Mr Chairman, I've got no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, I'm not sure, may I at this stage request from Ms Cambanis who will be testifying in this matter tomorrow, and what is the positions they held within the church? Because that may influence whatever questions I may ask to any witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you able to ...(indistinct) information?

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, I suspect Mr Wagener is interested in Brother Jude who will be testifying tomorrow, who was the Secretary-General of the Catholic Bishops Conference at the time of the incident.

MR WAGENER: Maybe I was asleep, but Mrs Cook was only in an administrative capacity. Is that what was said?

CHAIRPERSON: Verstrate was the Chair and Umkhumishe was the Deputy-Chair, Lambert was the Secretary.

MS CAMBANIS: The other two persons will be Mr Nunes ...

CHAIRPERSON: And Williams?

MS CAMBANIS: And Mr Williams, yes. They do not hold positions in the hierarchy of the ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: No, I was referring to Mrs Cook, or maybe I should ask her herself.

Exactly what position did you hold within the church at the time?

MS COOK: I was the Administrative Secretary of one of the Commissions which was called The Church and Work Commission.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, then I have no questions to this witness, except if I may be permitted I'll try and contact Gen Engelbrecht tonight, just to get instructions on one small bit of evidence given here by this witness, but apart from that I've got no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying the witness should stand down until tomorrow?

MS COOK: No, Mr Chairman, if anyone else wants to proceed, they're welcome. If I would then only be allowed to ask, or depending on what Mr Engelbrecht may say, just to put that to her, whether her evidence in respect of his position is correct or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me find out this, because initially when Ms Cambanis approached me, Mrs Cook is from Durban, what her flight arrangements are because that would be important for your purposes.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, if that's the position, Mrs Cook is welcome to leave.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You need not answer that, Mrs Cook. Thank you. Counsel?

MR BUNN: I have no questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Counsel?

MR JOUBERT: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Chairperson, just one question.

Mrs Cook, who requested - I just want to get clarity, who requested you to make this report, this document which you call a report?

MS COOK: No-one spoke to me personally, but I was told by the Secretary, Rob Lambert, that it was required by the Bishops Conference.

MR LAMEY: You don't know for what purpose?

MS COOK: I presumed it was for records.

MR LAMEY: And you typed it out yourself?

MS COOK: I did, yes.

MR LAMEY: I see the wording:

Did you type that in?

MS COOK: I did, yes.

MR LAMEY: Did you also type the statement of Mr Lambert?

MS COOK: It is possible that I typed it, I cannot remember.

MR LAMEY: Because I see the set-out and the wording is exactly the same as in your statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Shouldn't we rather say "the ending"?

MR LAMEY: The end, the end thereof, yes Chairperson.

MS COOK: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Now did you know how to word the document to indicate that it's an affidavit and statement under oath?

MS COOK: No, I had no legal knowledge of how to draw up a document at all, it merely was a report that I put in my own words.

MR LAMEY: Where did you get the wording of that last paragraph from?

MS COOK: I was told that would be the wording to put at the end, by Rob Lambert.

MR LAMEY: But you didn't sign it under oath.

MS COOK: No, I didn't.

MR LAMEY: Could you give any reason why not?

MS COOK: Because I thought it was merely for record keeping.

MR LAMEY: But you're signing a document below which states that:

...(intervention)

MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, if my learned friend could just explain the reference of this. She said that it's a statement, repeatedly, that it was for record purposes, as far as she understood. She has never claimed that she was signing an affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: If you can look at also the opening, probably, sentence, it doesn't say I'm doing this under oath, then immediately it would not fall under an affidavit as we know it, you and I.

MR LAMEY: Yes, Chairperson, but I would submit that from the closing paragraph it appears to be prima facie an intention to make it under oath and therefore it's just a peculiarity that I've picked up, which I fail to understand from the purpose of this document and which I tried to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But she's just answered and said somebody told her to put in those words. I think she said Lambert, if I'm not mistaken. She was not consciously saying to herself, 'this is an affidavit', they said 'end it this way' and she did exactly that.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but it's also relevant to a person signing a document and not putting a portion of the contents in the document that is in fact meaningless.

CHAIRPERSON: That is a matter for argument, you cannot take it up with the witness.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson. I've no further questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mrs Cook, how many statements did you make after the incident?

MS COOK: I made one to the police on the day after, or on the 12th of October, the morning of the 12th of October, and then again to Gen Engelbrecht.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you make a written statement to Gen Engelbrecht?

MS COOK: No, I think I made a verbal statement.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then the one that you made here?

MS COOK: This a report that I made, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: When you made this statement, did you have the statement that you made to the police in your possession?

MS COOK: No, I didn't. I never got a copy of that statement.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now Mrs Cook, have you had sight of the other affidavits of the other parties that we have been presented with?

MS COOK: Yes, I can see them.

MR DU PLESSIS: The statement of Sister Flannagan, Mr Lambert, Mr Verstrate and Bishop Umkhumishe.

MS COOK: I see them.

MR DU PLESSIS: Have you read them?

MS COOK: I have read them briefly.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is there anything in those statements that you disagree with?

MS COOK: I would have to re-read them in order to see that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well I would appreciate it, Mr Chairman, it's important for purposes of the future cross-examination and argument, that I have an answer to that question.

CHAIRPERSON: I will allow her, if that is going to the crux of your questioning.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. I don't know if we should perhaps give her an opportunity to go through the statements to be able to give an answer, that's the problem.

CHAIRPERSON: It would be advisable not ...(indistinct) of all of us sitting here. We will adjourn shortly, please advise us when you're ready.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Through Ms Cambanis. Thank you, we'll adjourn.

ROSEMARY FLORENCE COOK: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Cook, have you had sufficient time?

MS COOK: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have had I think.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr du Plessis.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: (Cont)

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

You've had an opportunity to read the statements?

MS COOK: Yes, I have.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you. And is there anything on those statements of the other parties that you differ from?

MS COOK: I'm not able to comment in full on these statements as there are many things in here that I'm not aware of, but what I am aware of, I can tell you what I do not agree with.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, would you please.

MS COOK: On the first page of Bishop Umkhumishe's statement, towards the bottom of the page it says:

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MS COOK: I would say it wasn't that thick, although it was dark. And then on page 2, the first paragraph, I see it is not the same as mine and I would dispute some of that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well give us an indication exactly what would you dispute. Are you referring to the first paragraph on the second page of Bishop Umkhumishe's affidavit?

MS COOK: That's is right.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now what exactly do you not agree with?

MS COOK:

We didn't go to her room, it appears as though we went back down the passageway to her room, from how I interpreted that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but he doesn't say that, he simply doesn't say, he doesn't refer to the route that you took to the room, but you surely don't dispute that you all went to her room, remained outside and the window was broken and - just tell us who went into the room.

MS COOK: Rob Lambert went into the room.

MR DU PLESSIS: He was the only one who went into the room?

MS COOK: He opened the door so that we could go in as well to assist her.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right, so you all went in? You all went in?

MS COOK: It was, I think it was Rob and Roddy and myself.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. So if he simply says:

that more-or-less accords with your version?

MS COOK: Sort of.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right, what else do you disagree with there?

MS COOK: They said they closed themselves inside that room, but the smoke began to get in at the bottom. We weren't enclosed in that room. I don't know what room he was talking about.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. It seems that they're talking about Sister Bridget's room, but we'll have to ask him. But you say you were not, you didn't close yourselves in that room?

MS COOK: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. What else do you disagree with?

MS COOK: That is it.

MR DU PLESSIS: You agree with the rest of the contents of that affidavit?

MS COOK: The sections that I'm aware of.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, the sections - obviously, I'm not asking you to confirm under oath those sections that you are not aware of, but the places where you were present.

MS COOK: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: You agree with the version. In any of the other affidavits, is there anything else you disagree with?

MS COOK: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. This light that you saw on the floor, was the light on the stairway or was it in the passage?

MS COOK: It was in the passage.

MR DU PLESSIS: And I gathered from your evidence you saw it clearly.

MS COOK: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you also saw the cord clearly?

MS COOK: I saw a section of cord next to it, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. You saw it clearly?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. Do you know if there - or let me ask you this, did you at any occasion whatsoever, see any flames on the second floor, while you were there?

MS COOK: Yes, I did.

MR DU PLESSIS: When?

MS COOK: When I was about to enter the bedroom, my bedroom, after running down the passage.

MR DU PLESSIS: Where were the flames?

MS COOK: At the beginning of the second floor corridor.

MR DU PLESSIS: That was at the beginning of the southern staircase, is that correct?

MS COOK: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see, because when you testified previously during cross-examination of Mr Hattingh, you testified that you saw a glow in the vicinity of Bridget Flannagan's door.

MS COOK: I saw a glow on my way when I was running. When I had reached my bedroom and had turned back, I then saw flames.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see, Mrs Cook, you said you saw a glow in the vicinity of Bridget's door, towards the southern staircase, "I entered into my bedroom and we determined that she was not with us." You did not testify that you had seen any flames.

MS COOK: As far as I recall, I think I did. In my telling of the story, I think I did.

MS CAMBANIS: That is correct, Chair. I will find the reference.

CHAIRPERSON: Bluish and green glow, as if coming from the ground on the side of the passage, more-or-less to the vicinity of Sister Bridget Flannagan. More-or-less.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but I understood that to be flames not in the passage on the second floor, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You understood that to be the cord, the bluish/greenish?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, no, I understood that she saw flames coming from the ground floor, but not flames inside the passage. But I won't make anything further of this if you say that the evidence was that she saw flames. I can't recall that.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I don't have it as flames, I have it as a glow.

MR DU PLESSIS: As a glow. Yes, that is - sorry, Mr Chairman, that is my note as well, it was a glow. She didn't testify that there were flames.

MS PATEL: Sorry, Honourable Chairperson, if I may come in - well I note the subject of what we think we heard, I've got a note that the witness said that "I was afraid", she was set on getting out, shouted to her colleagues that she can't get out that way, then went back to the bedroom noticed a fire along the corridor and realised that it was outside Sister Flannagan's room and that "she was not with us." That's what my note says.

ADV SANDI: Well my note only refers to bluish/green flow on the second floor.

ADV BOSMAN: I have a note saying, Chairperson, "I saw flames before entering my bedroom."

MS COOK: Sorry, if I can perhaps give a bit of clarity. It was at that stage that I looked back and I saw the flames, just as I was entering the bedroom and I reported that it was that that made me think that, of Sister Bridget Flannagan, as it was outside her bedroom, and then on that we remembered that she was not with us.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you are quite certain that you saw flames outside her bedroom door. You saw flames outside Bridget Flannagan's room, is that correct?

MS COOK: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Clearly?

MS COOK: Clearly.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. Where were the flames situated? On the floor, on the roof, on the wall, or where was it burning from? From the floor?

MS COOK: It was burning from the floor.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. And this little light with the cord that you saw, where was that situated?

MS COOK: That was also situated in that same vicinity.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now let us just take the moment before you entered the bedroom. You saw flames burning at Sister Flannagan's bedroom and before that, not behind the flames but before the flames, you saw this little light glow on the floor, is that correct?

MS COOK: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right. When you went down the staircase you did not reach the first floor, is that correct?

MS COOK: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall - you couldn't see anything, could you?

MS COOK: No. I could not see any flames, no.

MR DU PLESSIS: You testified that you were met by intense heat and smoke.

MS COOK: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you saw no glow of fire.

MS COOK: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: What did you hear?

MS COOK: I didn't hear anything.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. So at that moment you didn't hear anything.

MS COOK: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right. Now during the course of these hearings you consulted with Ms Cambanis, is that correct?

MS COOK: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: You told her what you told us now.

MS COOK: I don't think I went into detail, no. I never sat with her and explained what I was going to say, no.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you never ever explain to her what you were going to testify?

MS COOK: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: When was the first time that she saw this statement of yours?

MS COOK: It was during the course of this morning.

MR DU PLESSIS: I must say, Mrs Cook, I find that very strange that you, throughout the course of these hearings which has lasted from Monday until today, had not once, before you testified, that's how you want us to understand it, explained to Ms Cambanis what your view of the matter was and what happened.

MS COOK: I did not explain to her in any detail.

MR DU PLESSIS: So she called you as a witness not knowing what you were going to testify?

MS COOK: She had read my affidavit by then, when she called me this afternoon.

MR DU PLESSIS: And did she consult with any of the other people, any of the other representatives of the church here, who were present here throughout the week?

MS COOK: Not in my presence.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you don't know if they had told her what they know about the matter?

MS COOK: No, not in any detail.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see, because the reason, and I want to put this to you, this is the last point I'm going to make, I want to put this to you, is that quite a lot of the evidence that you have presented here today could have been dealt with especially by my clients as experts, explosive experts, in respect of, for instance, the fire, what you perceived of the fire and the question of the possibilities of what you saw and the probabilities of what you saw in respect of the fire. Now because nothing was said to them of your version, they obviously couldn't comment on that and they couldn't testify to that and for that reason I will argue that your evidence would have no weight whatsoever in these hearings. Do you have any comment on that?

MS COOK: I do not know the procedures.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis. I see Mr Cornelius is ...

MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairman, I have instructions from Mr Cornelius, he has no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Let's ask Ms Patel first before you re-examine, Ms Cambanis.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any questions?

ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: No questions as such, Mr Chairman, except that I want to apologise to Mrs Cook, because I said to her I could not find in my notes anything that refers to flames on the second floor. I've since found it as I went down my notebook. Sorry about that, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: He's got a tiny bit, Mr Wagener. You may, Mr Wagener.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Mrs Cook, thank you. I spoke to Gen Engelbrecht during the brief adjournment, so I can perhaps just put one or two things to you. Did I hear you correctly that you said that you gave a statement to him the day after the fire?

MS COOK: No, it was some days later, probably about a week or ten days later that we were called to Khanya House to meet with him.

MR WAGENER: Yes, because he told me that on Wednesday the 19th of October 1988, he was at the scene of the fire with Gen Jaap Joubert and a local Detective, a Mr Karelse, where he met Brother Jude. He can remember him. Were you also present on that day?

MS COOK: No.

MR WAGENER: Well he further tells me that he never took a statement from you, as far as he can remember you victims supplied statements via your own lawyers or the lawyers for the church, but he, Engelbrecht, never took a statement from you.

MS COOK: It was a verbal statement as far as I can remember, he was taking notes.

MR WAGENER: But you can't - it was not on the 19th?

MS COOK: No.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, I can't take this any further at present.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Wagener. Ms Cambanis, any re-examination?

MS CAMBANIS: None, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mrs Cook, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: This brings us to the end of today.

MR VAN DER MERWE: We were just wondering about the time to start tomorrow, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Would the usual time be alright?

MR VAN DER MERWE: I was wondering whether 9 o'clock would not be better, Mr Chairman. I say that with all due respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis was complaining bitterly to what I've subjected her to, coming at nine thirty, because of the traffic. Could we reassemble tomorrow, our final day, at nine thirty. We adjourn until tomorrow.