DATE: 22 MAY 2000





DAY: 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to you all. Today is the 22nd of May in the year 2000. We are going to sit to hear the application of Mr P J C Loots, which is application number 5462/97. The Panel that will sit to hear this matter comprises myself, Judge Sisi Khampepe, on my left-hand side Mr Ilan Lax, on my right-hand side Mr Wynand Malan. Will counsel who will be appearing on behalf of Mr Loots and the legal representative of the victim kindly place themselves on record?

MR ROUX: As it pleases you. My surname is Roux from the Pretoria Bar. I act on behalf of Strydom and Brits for the applicant, Mr Loots.

MR KOOPEDI: My name is Brian Koopedi, I appear on behalf of the victim in this matter, Father Semangeliso Mkatshwa.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Madam Chair. My surname is Steenkamp. I'll be the Evidence Leader. Thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX: Mr Loots, if you look at the bundle in which your application appears, did you have the opportunity to look at the contents thereof?

MR LOOTS: That is correct, yes.

MR ROUX: Can you confirm the contents of the bundle from page two up until page forty-nine? Can you confirm the contents thereof?

MR LOOTS: Yes, I do confirm it.

MR ROUX: Before we look at the merits of this case, can you just look at the contents as it appears from page fifty-five, from the letter B at the bottom of the page? Can you confirm the contents of that page up to page sixty-six?

MR LOOTS: I confirm the contents thereof.

MR ROUX: Very well. Can you go back to page forty-nine where the incident is described? Can you just explain what the command structure was and how it worked during that time of the Mkatshwa incident?

MR LOOTS: I gladly explain as follows. I was a desk officer working for the Security Branch of the South African Police Section in the Northern Transvaal. I was known as Unit B. Unit B was the unit in the Security Branch that specifically dealt with the Black Forces. There were also other units. The Commander of the Security Branch of the section in the Northern Province, or Northern Transvaal, was Brig Jack Cronje, who was later followed up by Brig Basie Smit, who then retired as a General. The Senior Staff Officer was Gen Martinus Ras. At that stage he was a Lieutenant-Colonel. He held this position during the command of both Brig Cronje and Brig Basie Smit. In other words, as the Section Head, if he was not present then the Senior Officer would have been Martinus Ras of the Security Branch.

MR ROUX: Who was your direct head or Commander during this incident?

MR LOOTS: With regards to the incident in front of me, at that stage it was already Brig Basie Smit who then retired as a General.

MR ROUX: Very well. Can you just explain in more detail the application and the purpose of this application?

MR LOOTS: Just to make it very clear, I would like to explain to you how it worked with regard to the different units. It was my unit, Unit B, we also had a Unit A and this unit worked with the following issues. They worked with white, coloured, Asian matters, as well as churches, Unit B, this is my unit now. Then Unit C was the Terrorist Unit, they worked with the PAC, the ANC, investigations and interrogation matters. Unit D was the Trade Union Unit and maybe less important, Unit E was the Selection Unit who worked with very important people. Then there was a limited unit, where just the personnel had access to. That was the unit that worked with the post and telephone interceptions. They were known as the WH10 and WH11. There were postal interceptions and then as well as telephone interceptions.

MR ROUX: Very well, Mr Loots, in this case could you inform the Committee whether from your own knowledge, you can recall the facts in detail and if not, how you came to recall or know the facts?

MR LOOTS: I would also like to explain the following to you, with regard to my own position as the Unit Head of the Black Power desk, I was also involved with the total administration of the detention in terms of the Security Emergency Regulations, not only for Northern Transvaal, but also with regard to KwaNdebele. The tremendous volume of work simply led to the situation that I was simultaneously involved with many things and so too my staff.

That it is understandable to me that there are many aspects that I cannot recall in detail, although I might want to, I simply cannot because I cannot recall everything, not because I want to be obstructive, or because I'm attempting to withhold anything from the Committee or anybody else who is present here.

MR ROUX: Mr Loots, were you present when Capt Hechter and Warrant Officer van Vuuren appeared before the TRC and gave evidence?

MR LOOTS: More than that, I made it my purpose from the very beginning, from the opening statements made by Gen Johan van der Merwe, to be present at every session, with the exception of those in the Cape, or those that I could not attend. I have attended every session and the purpose was also to see how far I could refresh my own memory or recall incidents and so then I was indeed present during the evidence of both Capt Hechter and W/O Paul van Vuuren.

MR ROUX: With regard to their evidence, are you also in possession of a supplementary bundle, which contains a transcript of the hearings of both Hechter and van Vuuren and have you studied this evidence?

MR LOOTS: Yes, I have studied it.

MR ROUX: Do you associate yourself with the content thereof in as far as it may have any bearing on you?

MR LOOTS: Fully.

MR ROUX: You may continue from page forty-nine and sketch your involvement in the Mkatshwa incident.

MR LOOTS: I will gladly do so.

In the Mkatshwa incident I would like to say at the very beginning that there is tremendous uncertainty in my mind regarding how the planned assassination attack was initially launched. I would also like to make it clear that I do not wish to distance myself at all from the unsuccessful assassination attack.

I associate myself with the evidence of both Capt Hechter and W/O van Vuuren before the Amnesty Committee. It is clear to me that they can recall the incident much better than I can. The confidence which existed among us and still exists is of such a nature that they would not say or testify what I would not have said to them, in other words if they say or testify regarding something that I would have told them, I accept that I indeed told them so.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Loots. We have read this.

MR LOOTS: Oh, then you have read it. As it pleases you Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Perhaps then I could lead your evidence more briefly. Both Hechter and van Vuuren testified that you gave the order emanating from Brig Basie Smit to eliminate Mkatshwa.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Roux, just to be fair to you, you did not allow him to confirm the evidence that he wanted to read. Is there any deviation, or does he also confirm the contents thereof?

MR ROUX: There is no deviation, there has been proper consultation regarding these aspects. Perhaps I could elaborate on certain aspects of his evidence.

Mr Loots, do you confirm Mr Loots, if you look at page fifty-five, I beg your pardon, fifty up to and including fifty-five at the end, do you confirm the contents of your application and the facts presented therein?

MR LOOTS: Yes, I confirm it and all the facts presented therein.

MR ROUX: With regard to singular aspects, just to obtain more clarity, was any post intercepted or were any telephones tapped with regard to Mr Mkatshwa's case, apart from the use of informers and the information in the files of the unit?

MR LOOTS: We were not only interested in him as a person, but also the organisation with which he was affiliated. In this case I think specifically of the South African Catholic Bus Corporation. They were also seated in Khanye House and we also tapped their telephones and intercepted their post.

MR ROUX: Very well. Mr Loots, all the information that you possessed, as embodied in pages fifty-one and fifty-two, with regard to the involvement of Mr Mkatshwa, do you confirm this?

MR LOOTS: Yes, I confirm this.

MR ROUX: Could you tell the Committee how it came to your knowledge that Mr Mkatshwa, according to your information, was abducted from the Hercules Police Station by Military Intelligence?

MR LOOTS: Don't ask me the date or the time, but it was one morning, relatively early, when I felt that all hell was breaking loose around me, whether it was only from Head Office, I cannot recall, but I think that Head Office was involved. The Divisional Commander was at me because Father Mkatshwa was in detention at the Hercules Police Station, according to Security regulations. How Father Mkatshwa managed to get out of the cells, would depend upon me who was in charge of the Security regulations or the Divisional Commander. We would have to give a written permission for him to be taken out of the cells. Neither of us did so.

I was instructed to go to the Hercules Police Station. I cannot recall whether anybody accompanied me. I suspect that I was alone. Whatever the case may be, I drove to the Hercules Police Station. When I arrived there, Father Mkatshwa was fully clothed, but he wasn't wearing any shoes, or let me put it this way, even though he might have had shoes, he would not have been able to wear them. He sat on a little drum or a cupboard in front of the police station, he wasn't inside a cell. Both his feet were severely swollen and one could also see as one approached, that he made an attempt to get up. He smiled. You could see that this man was truly in a lot of pain. He sat down again. I didn't take him back to the cells, I spoke to him there in front of the cells.

As far as I can recall, he didn't tell me that it was Military Intelligence who had abducted him from the cells, but I can recall that at a certain stage we suspected Military Intelligence's involvement in taking him out of the cells.

Father Mkatshwa and I spoke over there and he told me that the people who had abducted him, for the whole time that he was not in the cells, which was about three to four days, they made him stand and I deduced that this was the reason for the severe swelling on the man's feet and in the process of forcing him to stand, they also terrorised or intimidated him by firing pistol shots next to his head, by hitting cans next to his head and allowing grasshoppers or locusts to walk up his legs.

This was a big story. There were many questions. I would go as far as to say that I am quite convinced that Head Office also had questions coming from the Government's side to the extent that this specific case led to the immediate release of Father Mkatshwa. I cannot recall whether it was on that day or the following day, but a telex was sent through for the immediate release of this man and indeed he was released.

MR ROUX: Mr Loots, in other words what you are saying is that you do not know how it occurred that Father Mkatshwa was abducted from the police cells. All that you know is what he told you when you visited him and this is similar to what van Vuuren and Hechter have said?

MR LOOTS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roux, I don't know the relevance of the evidence that has been tendered with regard to Father Mkatshwa's detention at the Hercules Police Station. May I find out, Mr Loots was there any inquiry conducted concerning this alleged abduction?

MR LOOTS: It may be so Chairperson and I believe that there would have been, because as I said, this was a very big story but I was not necessarily involved in the follow-up to the events and the investigation emanating from these events. If these things took place, I would have to say quite honestly that I cannot recall anything about them.

CHAIRPERSON: You must have reported it to somebody senior like Mr Basie Smit?

MR LOOTS: I believe that I did. I believe that I did, I don't know whether it was Smit or Cronje at that stage. I cannot recall that very clearly, but I would have reported it to my Commander definitely because I had been sent to investigate at the Hercules Police Station, so I would definitely have reported to somebody.

CHAIRPERSON: Did your initial investigation at Hercules Police Station involve your questioning of Mr Mkatshwa's alleged abduction by these Military Intelligence people from the Station Commander who was in control of the police station at the time?

MR LOOTS: I cannot recall that I spoke to any policeman there.

CHAIRPERSON: But were you not sent there to investigate?

MR LOOTS: More specifically to speak to Father Mkatshwa.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roux, what is the relevance of Father Mkatshwa's detention at the police station. How does it impinge on the application that we have to decide today that Mr Loots has applied for amnesty for?

MR ROUX: Madam Chair, the only reason why I have presented this evidence, is because I spoke to Mr Koopedi prior to the hearing and asked him whether or not there would be any opposition and what the basis of this opposition would be, so that I would be able to elaborate where necessary, without wasting any time and apparently there was an inquiry by him regarding the substances that Father Mkatshwa had to swallow, the substances which were forced down his throat, that is why I have presented the evidence, so that the Committee can understand that my client does not know anything about it and cannot testify about it, this is the only reason why I have presented this evidence, because there will be examination regarding this by my Learned Friend.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for enlightening us on this issue.

MR ROUX: Mr Loots, if we may proceed then, you have already testified that you don't know how the planned assassination was launched, you heard the evidence given by Hechter and van Vuuren and you have confirmed that you associate yourself with the evidence in as far as it concerns the admissions that they made to you regarding the unsuccessful attempt at assassination.

MR LOOTS: Absolutely Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr Roux? I am more interested on how the order to eliminate Father Mkatshwa came to be issued. Can you lead him with regard to that pertinent issue?

MR ROUX: Mr Loots, you have already confirmed the involvement of Father Mkatshwa in various activist activities and you have also testified that you stood in the line of command after Basie Smit at that particular stage. From whom would the order have come to eliminate Father Mkatshwa?

MR LOOTS: Chairperson, if I could take you back to page fifty of my application, at the very top it says:

"I know that both Hechter and van Vuuren testified that I would have said that the order to eliminate Mkatshwa came from Brig Basie Smit."

Once again, I do not have a problem with this, because both of them testified to this. I also stated that during their evidence and subsequent to their evidence, I thought about the structure and the line of command at that stage, but in all honesty, I cannot say whether or not Brig Smit said so, it would have been easier for me to say so.

MR MALAN: Mr Loots, the question was who would have issued such an order?

MR LOOTS: It would have come from the Divisional Commander I believe.

MR MALAN: And who was the Divisional Commander?

MR LOOTS: It was Gen Basie Smith, at that time Brig Basie Smit.

MR MALAN: Let me just take it further. Would you have been in a position at any stage to give such an order yourself, without receiving an order for this from a higher level?


MR MALAN: So you were in a position to order eliminations without any order from a higher position?

MR LOOTS: If I really wanted to do it, I would have been able to do so.

MR MALAN: Was it within your capacity as you understood it?

MR ROUX: As I understood it, with regard to the general orders yes I would have been able to do so.

MR MALAN: Therefore you cannot recall whether or not you issued this order from within your own initiative, or whether or not an order was received by you?

MR ROUX: No. If I could recall clearly, I would not have hesitated to accept full responsibility for it here.

MR LAX: May I just clarify something for my own benefit, if you'll allow me? Are you saying that you can't remember the exact chain of command as to the origin of this particular order? But if it came from you, you would remember that, if you had personally been the highest point from which the order came, let's put it that way. Have I understood you correctly?

MR LOOTS: Yes, I believe I would have remembered it.

MR LAX: But you don't remember that, it must have come from higher up and that's why you're agreeing with what Hechter and van Vuuren say, that you told them it came from higher up?

MR LOOTS: Yes, you have understood it correctly, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Loots, a last aspect, you also reconcile yourself with the weapons and the illegal use of them in this planned assassination.

MR LOOTS: I cannot remember the page, but I remember that I said in my application that they used this .22 and I know about that, but I cannot remember the 308 weapon that was used. It could have been that I knew about it, and I take responsibility for it, but I cannot remember it. As far as the AK47, I do not have a problem, I had one, Hechter had one and van Vuuren had one, so it could have been that they had these weapons with them, if that is an answer to your question.

MR ROUX: Mr Loots, the last aspect. Do you know anything, or at any stage did you know of a mandrax incident in which Basie Smit and Hechter and van Vuuren were involved and on which they also testified?

MR LOOTS: In this specific incident, I was not involved in this, it was only when van Vuuren and Hechter came to me in an argument between them, according to them that was between them and Brig Basie Smit that led to their transfer, that they received instructions to plant the mandrax on Father Mkatshwa, then also to force mandrax tablets down his throat.

MR ROUX: Did you question Brig Smit about this?

MR ROUX: No, never.

MR ROUX: Thank you Madam Chair, this is the evidence.


MR LAX: Can I just clarify one thing about those firearms? You never had those firearms, the .22 and the 308 in your possession?

MR LOOTS: No, never, I never saw the weapons, but I knew about them.


MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Madam Chair.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Very brief questions for you Mr Loots and particularly on this alleged abduction by the Military Intelligence. Do you know who were the members of the Military Intelligence?

MR LOOTS: No, I do not know.

MR KOOPEDI: It did not bother you to find out who these people could have been?

MR LOOTS: I believe I was too busy with other duties to do the investigation myself, but I cannot remember who tried to find out. I would like to say to you that when we did the emergency regulations for the Security Branch, there were Military Intelligence people who helped us in the processing of the administration and one of the men who worked there was a Lieutenant, his surname was du Toit. I am sure it was du Toit and not du Plooy and I can remember him, he was a very young man at that sage.

MR KOOPEDI: You don't know if he was involved on this day, whether he came to Hercules Police Station or not and he's part of the group that took Father Mkatshwa away?

MR LOOTS: No, I cannot say.

MR KOOPEDI: Now during this abduction, certain things were done to Father Mkatshwa, you therefore would not know what was done to him, because according to your evidence you were not present?

MR LOOTS: No, I was not present. What I know is what I testified on and what Father Mkatshwa told me.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. You told this Honourable Committee that when you arrived at the Hercules Police Station, he smiled at you, that is the time he had no shoes. Why did he smile? Did he know you?

MR LOOTS: Yes, he knew me.

MR KOOPEDI: Were you friends?

MR LOOTS: No, at various stages in the investigation of his home in Soshanguve at the church, I was present. I was in command at certain stages where we searched his house and I was present and he knew me from there.

MR KOOPEDI: Yes. My instructions confirm that, that you were part of the people who'd come to his house regularly. Now, did you ever torture Father Mkatshwa?

MR LOOTS: Never ever. Never ever.

MR KOOPEDI: Was he ever tortured in your presence?

MR LOOTS: No, never.

MR KOOPEDI: Have you ever abused his human rights?

MR LOOTS: No, I don't think so.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, I have no further questions for this witness.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi. Mr Steenkamp, do you have any questions?

ADV STEENKAMP: Sorry Madam Chair, no questions from my side. Thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR ROUX: None.


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

MR LAX: Just a small concern about this Mr du Toit. If I understand you he was just a clerk, who was helping you with processing of detention documentation.

MR LOOTS: Yes, he had insight into the documents and he assisted us. What you said is completely right. He worked in an administrative position.

MR LAX: He wasn't a member of Military Intelligence or anything like that?


MR LAX: Because the name was mentioned, there may be an implication that he's implicated, but I'm making it clear that he can't possibly be implicated.

MR LOOTS: No, no, you're quite right, Sir.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loots, I just want clarity with regard to your assertion that you had the capacity to issue an order to eliminate. In circumstances such as the ones where an order was received by both Capt Hechter and W/O van Vuuren, was this capacity to issue an order such as this one as a result of a general instruction received from either Mr Basie Smit or Brig Cronje?

MR LOOTS: Not Brig Basie Smit or Brig Cronje as such, but Brig J J Viktor, if you can recall his name Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You may respond to may questions using your own language, which I'm sure you'll be more comfortable to use.

MR LOOTS: Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And by alluding to the general instruction of Mr J J Viktor, you would be alluding to the evidence that was previously led before the original Amnesty Committee where Mr J J Viktor was alleged to have issued instructions, not however to people who were in your position but was alleged to have issued a general instruction to Mr Cronje, if I remember the evidence of Brig Cronje himself.

MR LOOTS: Brig Cronje himself.

CHAIRPERSON: Would I be correct?

MR LOOTS: You are right yes, you are correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now would I also be correct in recalling Brig Cronje's evidence that from time to time he gave instructions to various people who were working under his command and to be more specific, Capt Hechter for instance?

Would I be correct?

MR LOOTS: You are correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm trying to understand the chain of command. You were in charge of the Black Power section, you were the head thereof?

MR LOOTS: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And as the head thereof, who would have given you an impression that you had such an instruction or authority to issue such an order?

MR LOOTS: I can understand your question yes, the only answer that I can give is that it had to be from the Section Head.

CHAIRPERSON: And who was the section head?

MR LOOTS: In this case, in this amnesty application in front of you, it was Brig Basie Smit.

CHAIRPERSON: Now would I therefore be correct in understanding the general tenor of your evidence to be saying that if you thought you had an authority to issue an instruction to eliminate a person, such would have come as a result of Gen Basie Smit, or was he a Brigadier at the time?

MR LOOTS: He was a Brigadier at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Such would have been as a result of some kind of instruction you would have received from Basie Smit that you had such a capacity to issue such an order?

MR LOOTS: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: To your recollection, did he in fact ever give you an impression that you had such authority?

MR LOOTS: Not as far as I can remember, no. I cannot recall, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you will also recall the evidence of Capt Hechter specifically, that as far as he can remember the events and he was able to recollect, this is one of the few incidents where his memory was much better with his recollection than in the other incidents, he was able to recollect that the instructions came from Brig Basie Smit through you.

MR LOOTS: That is correct, yes. He did testify.

CHAIRPERSON: His testimony was not that you had given such an instruction, but that you were communicating an instruction that had been given by Brig Basie Smit, do I understand that version correctly?

MR LOOTS: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you reconcile yourself with the version given by Capt Hechter?

MR LOOTS: Definitely.

CHAIRPERSON: And that it removes completely from the picture your capacity to have been able to issue such an instruction, does it not?

MR LOOTS: That is correct, yes.


MR MALAN: Thank you Madam Chair. Just to get clarity, you said that you had the capacity to issue the order to eliminate or to kill somebody?

MR LOOTS: Yes, that's how I felt it and that's how I understood it.

MR MALAN: And you also said in answer to a question of Madam Chair, or somebody else's question, that that capacity that you had came from the general command, from Gen Viktor, so where did you get the information of this general instruction or this alleged authority or instruction from Viktor?

MR LOOTS: We were called in to Gen Viktor's office and I think it was in the evidence here that it was Hechter and somebody else and Viktor then gave them this order.

MR MALAN: Mr Loots, please listen to my question. I would like to hear where you heard it from.

MR LOOTS: I heard it from Hechter.

MR MALAN: Where did you hear it from?

MR LOOTS: As far as I can recall, it had to be from Hechter.

MR MALAN: Were you not his senior?

MR LOOTS: Yes, I was his senior.

MR MALAN: And in terms of information conveyed, you then, Hechter who is in a lower rank than you, you then take the authority, or assume the authority to issue an order to eliminate somebody?

MR LOOTS: Right at the beginning, when Capt Hechter and Paul van Vuuren started with this operation for which they have applied for amnesty, I was not in the office at that stage, or I was not in the capacity of the Commander of the Black Power, I was part of a Special Investigative Team in the Alan Boesak case where we went to Cape Town. The man who was in my place was van Jaarsveld and both van Vuuren and Hechter reported back to Cronje until I came back at a later stage and then I took over, then they were already busy with this operation. And as it appears in the evidence, we were the team who were to wit myself, Hechter, van Vuuren and Jo Mamesela.

MR MALAN: Mr Loots I do not want to waste time, but I think it is an important issue to clarify. You haven't answered me yet. From whose authority, and I realise it's not relevant to this application, but how did you decide that you had the capacity to kill people, or did you just accept that it was done and then anybody can do it?

MR LOOTS: No, it wouldn't have been that way. I would definitely have had to hear this from somebody else, and that is why I believe that it was from Hechter.

MR MALAN: You are not listening to me. I would like to know on what basis did you get the capacity to eliminate somebody, or to issue the instructions to eliminate somebody? If he said not anybody could do it, how could you do it? This is my question. Because Gen Viktor never told you this.

MR LOOTS: No, it was a general instruction, he never told me.

MR MALAN: You do not know of an instruction or not, you only knew about it. All that you know is that Hechter and van Vuuren told you that they had the authority to eliminate people and they do receive such instructions and I would like to know on what basis did you think that you had the capacity to issue similar orders?

MR LOOTS: I do not think that I can really answer you on this.

MR MALAN: In other words, your answer previously that you had the capacity out of the authority or instructions that you got from Viktor is something that you constructed yourself and not got directly?


MR MALAN: Can you tell me then why you had the capacity to eliminate people and to give instructions to others to do it?

MR LOOTS: These operations were already going on and it has been testified that it was also a secret and that people who operated in it or did it, never took responsibility or got reprimanded for what they did.

MR MALAN: In other words you thought it was acceptable that in the fighting of terrorism, anybody could kill anybody else, if it was in the interest of the cause?

MR LOOTS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: You did not need an instruction?

MR LOOTS: Yes, it was the practice.

MR MALAN: Very well. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: If that's what you are now saying, Mr Loots, it's giving me problems. You've alluded to the general instruction that came from Gen J J Viktor, where we have also heard evidence, but that general instruction was only given to Brig Cronje and not to his subordinates.

MR LOOTS: It could be so, I cannot specifically recall, but I do accept what you just said, I will not deny that.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the evidence that was before the Committee then and that's the evidence that's still before the Committee now and that general instruction was only given to Brig Cronje and not to his subordinates and you were not in the same category as Brig Cronje, you were working under Brig Cronje.

MR LOOTS: Yes, that's quite right.

CHAIRPERSON: So you couldn't have known about the general instruction that was alleged to have come from Brig Viktor. Am I correct in stating that you only became aware of that general instruction during the proceedings of the Cronje, Hechter, van Vuuren and others' applications before this Committee?

MR LOOTS: It could be that, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And that would actually be wrong, if you relied on your capacity to order people's elimination and base your reliance on the alleged general instruction from Brig Viktor?

MR LOOTS: I could be wrong, yes.

MR LAX: It's not a matter of it could be like that, either you're clear in your mind that you've reconstructed this, based on what you heard at subsequent amnesty applications.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roux, do you have any re-examination emanating from the questions from the Panel?

MR ROUX: No relevant questions Madam.


CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And are you closing your case on behalf of Mr Loots?

MR ROUX: This is the applicant's case yes.


CHAIRPERSON: Are you in a position to give us your address, or you would like to have a short break?

MR ROUX: I am in a position to now address you.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed then with your submissions.

MR ROUX IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Madam Chair. Briefly I submit with respect that if it is noted without supporting it as such, the decision with regard to van Vuuren and Hechter pertaining to this particular case which can be found in the additional bundle from page thirty-eight, I beg your pardon it is before that, page thirty-four, that with regard to the planned assassination of Father Mkatshwa, there has been a full fulfilment with the requirements of the Act pertaining to the full disclosure of relevant facts as they are know to Mr Loots.

I submit with respect that he ought to be granted amnesty as follows. This can be found on page forty. I have studied these aspects and with the exception of D, I am in agreement that amnesty ought to be granted for conspiracy to commit murder or attempted murder of Father Mkatshwa during 1987, then transgressions of Sections 28, 29, 32, 36 and 39 of the Arms and Ammunition Act, which is Act number 75 of 1960 and then also Section 2 of the Act on Dangerous Weapons, which is Act 70 of 1968. In addition to this the general any other lessor offence or delict which may emanate from these facts.

MR LAX: On what basis is he asking for these, possession of firearms, dangerous weapons? He had nothing to do with it at all. He simply gave an instruction. The individuals who then took those weapons from other people would be entitled to those, but he's not party to that part of the offence at all, he's just party to the general conspiracy.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he ever in possession of what you now seek?

MR ROUX: I submit with respect that in terms of his evidence he was thoroughly aware of the .22 gun, he wasn't that aware of the .308, but he was aware of the AK47 which was in possession and which would have been used in the execution of the Act.

MR LAX: It had nothing to do with this offence, he simply said that: " We all had Aks of our own", it's got nothing to do with this incident. He never used or contemplated using his AK in this matter.

MR ROUX: I do not wish to be legally technical, but the applicant was thoroughly aware of the existence of the ZK47, the possible .38 and the .22 in possession of Hechter and van Vuuren. He associated himself with this and would have been able to foresee the possibility that they may use one of these particular weapons and he also associated himself with the content of the evidence given by Hechter and van Vuuren during his own evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he personally ever in possession of the weapons in question?

MR ROUX: It is his evidence that he was not although he was aware of the fact that these other persons were indeed in possession of these firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: And the sections to which you have referred us to with regard to Act 75 of 1969, do they not require him to have been in possession of such weapons? Would you be correct in persisting with an amnesty with regard to that particular offence?

MR ROUX: Perhaps you have a point regarding the physical possession thereof. The mere fact that he possibly knew about these firearms in their possession, does not necessarily qualify for a charge regarding this particular aspect. I did not attend to this aspect. I beg your pardon and I then withdraw what I have stated with regard to both Acts 75 and 68 and will then pursue conspiracy to murder or attempted murder or any other offence of delict which may emanate from the facts. I offer my apology.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And what do you say with regard to his evidence pertaining to the chain of command specifically in so far as it relates to the order, the order to eliminate Mkatshwa? You will recall that he has already confirmed the evidence of Mr Hechter and Mr van Vuuren, who in their evidence stated that the order came from Mr Basie Smit.

MR ROUX: Indeed he confirmed that it would have come from Basie Smit and that if van Vuuren and Hechter say that he said that it came from Basie Smit, he would concur with this. However, he cannot recall this from his own knowledge but with regard to further evidence given by him that he was in no capacity to give such an order himself, the general inference would be so, despite his lack of recollection, he associates himself with the statements made by Hechter and van Vuuren and this would then be the only inference to draw from the evidence, that it would have been Basie Smit who issued the order and gave it to the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: We are not even talking about inferences here, Mr Roux. The evidence is there from Mr Hechter and Mr van Vuuren, which he has confirmed that the order came from Basie Smit.

MR ROUX: I do not wish to play with words, but the applicant cannot say so with certainty. He has stated in his application that Basie Smit told him to - that he is not certain that Basie Smit told him to give the order to Hechter and van Vuuren, this is his inference, that despite his lack of recollection, it must have been so in the light of the evidence given by Hechter and van Vuuren and the fact that the applicant reconciles himself with the evidence given by Hechter and van Vuuren.

If I may refer you to the specific section or portion on page fifty, which is in the middle paragraph:

"During the evidence"

with reference to Hechter and van Vuuren,

"During their evidence subsequently and up to this point I have thought about the chain of command in this case and it would be easy to say that this was the case. However, I would not be this dishonourable."

This must be read with regard to the previous page, forty-nine, during which he has stated that both van Vuuren and Hechter have testified to this effect and that he concurs that this must be the case. This is the inference that we wish for you to draw.

CHAIRPERSON: That concludes your argument?

MR ROUX: That would then be my argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Koopedi, do you have any submissions to make before this Committee?

MR KOOPEDI: Very brief submissions thank you.

MR KOOPEDI IN ARGUMENT: Honourable Committee Members, my instructions from the victim, Father Mkatshwa are that I should not oppose the granting of amnesty to this applicant but to leave the decision to grant amnesty to this Honourable Committee. However, I wish to raise a few facts which I consider important for this application.

As I understand this application, this application excludes all the incidents that are mentioned on page one of the bundle of documents and this is what we were mainly interested in. This application excludes the torture that Father Mkatshwa endured and it is therefore my submission that even if you were to grant amnesty, I would submit that the granting of amnesty should not be extended to these incidents, the incidents that appear on page one, that is where he was blindfolded, gunshots fired next to him, he was forced to swallow and eat certain things.

My last point goes to the order to kill or to eliminate Father Mkatshwa. It is a little strange that it's not clear even today as to who gave this order. It would appear that this applicant relies on what other people say. Some people say Brig Smit gave the order through the applicant, if I understood the evidence correctly. Now the applicant does not recall that.

Madam Chair, Honourable Committee Members, the question as to who gave the order to eliminate Father Mkatshwa has not been answered. I am not asking you to answer that question, but in making your decision to grant amnesty, I would ask you to consider that. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: So what is your submission with regard to that? Are you not satisfied with the explanation given by Mr Loots?

MR KOOPEDI: It is clearly not satisfying, Madam Chair, in the sense that I would have expected this applicant to remember where the order comes from, he does not, the only thing that reminds him is the evidence from the other two applicants who have applied who say that they heard from him that he said Brig Smit gave the order. My submission is that it is not clear who gave the order and this I suppose is a question that should be answered. The applicant cannot recall as to whether Brigadier gave the order, he thinks that if it did not come from Brig Smit, then he would have given the order. I think that, more than anything else, that is guesswork, this is not what we would expect here and it is my submission that in terms of the requirement of full disclosure we would require more than that, or this Committee would require more than a guess. This Committee would require a disclosure of the fact as to from where did this order come. I mean it would not be difficult to trace where this order came from. It is not as if we sit with a situation where there were a number of people in a chain. The order may have come from Brig Smit to the applicant, from the applicant to the other two gentlemen. We have very few people involved here and my submission is therefore that the question is still not answered and it will be up to the Honourable Committee to decide as to when they grant amnesty, or if the decision is to grant amnesty, can it grant amnesty when this question has not been answered. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp.

ADV STEENKAMP: Honourable Chair, Committee Members, there's no further submissions I can make or take this matter any further. Thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Mr Roux and Mr Koopedi for your assistance in this matter. Our Judgment is reserved.

MR ROUX: As it pleases you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roux I know that you will not be appearing in the next matter, so you are excused.

MR ROUX: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, which matter is enroled for hearing after this?

ADV STEENKAMP: Honourable Chairperson, I see some of my colleagues have appeared here. The next matter will be that of Mr Olifant in the Umzimhlope and Dube Hostels. I see it's 11 o'clock. I don't know whether or not the Committee would like to take a tea adjournment at this stage and we can just rearrange.

CHAIRPERSON: You've been saved by Mr Lax. We'll take a five minute adjournment.





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

CHAIRPERSON: We are now proceeding with the applications of Manuel Antonio Olifant and Mr M P Lingene. Mr Lingene's application is AM4033/96 and Mr Manuel's application is AM4032/96. Who will be appearing on behalf of Mr Olifant and Mr Lingene?

MR COETZER: Madam Chair, I'm Adv William Coetzer from the Johannesburg Bar. I'm acting on instructions by attorney Mr Julian Horwitz of Johannesburg. My instruction extends only in so far as representing Mr Olifant is concerned. I do not believe that there is any appearance for the other applicant, but my understanding is that the other applicant has passed away. I may be correct, or incorrect in this, but that is my understanding.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, can you confirm about Mr Lingene's situation?

ADV STEENKAMP: Honourable Chairperson, Mr Lingene indeed passed away quite recently. In that instance there was the question then raised what is the position of his estate. In that regard his next of kin were then also informed about this hearing. His application is indeed before you, Madam Chair and I would request that his application be dealt with simultaneous with that of the Mr Olifant. That is my information.

CHAIRPERSON: And we don't have anyone representing his estate?

ADV STEENKAMP: No Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Do we have any representations from the victims' side?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, maybe I must just, just for your information just put the following on record regarding this specific incident. I'm talking about now the incident of the so-called Dube and Umzimhlope Hostels. Now in this incident no information whatsoever about the incident itself could be obtained, neither from the next of kin of Mr Lingene, or from the Special Investigation Unit of the AG in Transvaal. At the time I was informed that the attacks in this specific area were investigated by a specific investigation team. We contacted the specific investigation team and we couldn't get any information about the incident itself. The Goldstone records were also checked because at the time of this incident, these types of incidents formed part of the Honourable Judge Goldstone's mandate.

Furthermore the Commission's own HRV and official records were also checked and no information whatsoever was obtained. The research unit was also checked. The records there were checked. No information on this specific incident could be obtained whatsoever. Furthermore the Inkatha submissions were also checked, and any information relating to this specific area was also checked. As you might be aware, the specific Dube hostel came before the Committee a number of times as a matter of discussion. This specific incident could also not be traced via their sources as well.

Furthermore, one of the witness protection unit members, Capt Mike Barnard, also contacted a Mr de Jager, Mr Dick de Jager who is an implicated person in this matter, to recall whether or not he had any information of this incident. His information was that he had no information about this incident and he was not aware of this incident whatsoever.

Furthermore Madam Chair on my own request the Gauteng Investigation Unit was asked to go to this specific police station, a well-known police station in the area, to see whether or not we could find any reference to this incident. Unfortunately there again nothing could be obtained. No further information could be obtained. I personally then contacted the Department of Internal Affairs for missing persons and whether or not inquest records are normally kept there as well. No inquest records could be obtained.

I have also contacted the State Attorney's office because normally inquest records or copies thereof are normally also kept there. No information could unfortunately be there obtained as well.

If I'm not mistaken Madam Chair, there was also a newsreel in the public newspapers of that area that were circulated, I think I've got it here somewhere. No information came forward as a result of that as well.

That is what was done in this matter to get any information on the victims and/or the actual incident itself Madam Chair. I think there's also the question, we've asked the applicant at the previous hearing when this matter stood down, whether or not he could confirm exactly when this happened, at least a date. You will see, I think he's referring to - as far as I'm concerned his not quite sure whether or not it was in 86 or 87 and take it furthermore, unfortunately in this specific time, there's numerous research documents by other NGO offices, which was also - I've also consulted that because there was extensive investigation done in this specific area and no information could be obtained unfortunately, Madam Chair.

As far as I'm concerned Madam Chair and I would suggest with respect, that all reasonable steps were taken regarding Section 19(iv) to obtain victims and/or further information regarding the incident itself. Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Steenkamp. We are satisfied that your office has taken all reasonable steps to identify any victim or victims in relation to this incident. We shall now proceed to hear the amnesty application of Mr Olifant.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetzer, you may proceed with your evidence-in-chief.

MR COETZER: Thank you Madam Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR COETZER: Mr Olifant, first of all I would like to refer to the content of your application form, styled form number one, which comprises pages one, through to eight, that includes a schedule. The information contained herein, do you confirm that to be correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR COETZER: Alright. Now in addition to that, referred to in your application is a statement that you made to the office of the Attorney-General, or the then Attorney-General, now Director of Public Prosecutions, Madam Chairperson the Commission has been placed in possession of the relevant pages thereof, or specifically if I refer to the last paragraph on page one, it is styled page twenty at the top and then the first paragraph on the second page, styled page twenty-one. Do you confirm the correctness of what is stated therein?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That will be Exhibit A.

MR COETZER: As the Court pleases. Thank you. Do you confirm that this forms part of the statement that you made for the purposes of the Attorney-General and which is referred to in your application?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR COETZER: Now if one turns to page sixteen of the paginated numbering in your application, from page sixteen through to page eighteen, this is a portion of an affidavit - is it correct, this is a portion of an affidavit that was prepared by your former attorneys assisting you in your applications for amnesty, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR COETZER: And pages sixteen through to eighteen deal with this particular incident for which you are applying for amnesty?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR COETZER: Right. And therein you give an explanation as to what happened concerning these incidents at Umzimhlope and at the Dube hostels?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR COETZER: Then finally if one turns to the paginated record, page twenty-four, paragraph seventeen on that page, is it correct that this page forms part of a statement that you supplied to the Commission at their request, answering further questions relating to the incident concerned?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR COETZER: And paragraph seventeen relates to the incident for which you are now applying for amnesty?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR COETZER: Do you confirm that what is contained in paragraph 17 and what is contained in the extract from your other statement, pages sixteen to eighteen of the paginated record, are correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR COETZER: Thank you. Good. Is there anything further that you would like to add at this stage in connection with these incidents by way of explanation?

MR OLIFANT: No, there's nothing else.

MR COETZER: Thank you. Madam Chair, I would then make the witness available to the Committee for the purposes of any further questioning which the Committee may deem relevant in relation to these two particular incidents.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetzer, you probably have also been given affidavits signed by Mr Pretorius and Mr Coetzee respectively in relation to this incident.

MR COETZER: Yes, I am aware, yes I have read those affidavits.

CHAIRPERSON: You are aware thereof?

MR COETZER: Yes, I am, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Whilst you are at it, we might as well give them a number. Mr Coetzee's affidavit will be Exhibit B, and Mr Pretorius's affidavit will be Exhibit C.

MR LAX: Have the contents of those two exhibits been explained to your client?

MR COETZER: He is aware of the content thereof and he is aware of the dispute of fact raised in the particular affidavits. However, I have been advised by my attorney and also by my colleague who is leading evidence in this particular hearing that these two particular policemen were not to be present today, nor were they to be legally represented and there was no intention of any cross-examination taking place of Mr Olifant thereon, so in the circumstances, Mr Olifant can only stand by what he has testified to, there's nothing further that he can do.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, do you with to put any questions to Mr Olifant?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, if you can allow me maybe two questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Olifant, can you remember what was your rank at the time, your and Mr Lingene's rank at the time of this incident?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, I do remember. I was a Constable by then, including Mr Lingene as well, he was a Constable.

ADV STEENKAMP: And do you know whether or not there was any police investigation conducted after this incident by any of the units in this specific area?

MR OLIFANT: No I cannot recollect on that one.

ADV STEENKAMP: Were you ever asked to submit a report, a security report to your head or your Commanding Officer at the time about this incident?

MR OLIFANT: Not that I know of.

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


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

MR LAX: Thank you chairperson. Just to pick up on one aspect with regard to the victim, the possible victims. You do say that there was a Sowetan article that you remember reading.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Honourable Chairperson.

MR LAX: It was in - so it was clearly mentioned in a newspaper?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Honourable Chairperson.

MR LAX: That may be a source to follow up to find some possible victims.

MR OLIFANT: Ja, unless well I did not stab him as well, that's former Insp Lazarus Lamolela, he was also involved, but unfortunately at the time when I drafted the affidavit I could not mention his name.

MR LAX: Just repeat the name for our benefit.

MR OLIFANT: Lazarus Lamolela.

MR LAX: Lazarus Lamolela?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: He was attacked to which police station?

MR OLIFANT: He was in the same unit as myself and that is in Soweto.


MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Where exactly in Soweto? Will that be ...(indistinct speaking simultaneously)

MR OLIFANT: Protea Intelligence.

CHAIRPERSON: And how soon after the alleged explosion had taken place, was this reporting done through the Sowetan newspaper?

MR OLIFANT: The following day.

CHAIRPERSON: You are aware, Mr Olifant, that there were numerous incidents such as this one which took place in various hostels in Soweto and Umzimhlope and Umzimhlope/Meadow-lands Hostel as well as Dube Hostels, we had numerous incidents of such explosions.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: How would you tie this particular incident with the incident which was mentioned in the Soweto newspaper?

MR OLIFANT: What really happened is this. After, I mean the following day after the incident had happened, when I read on the newspaper, I saw the article which had happened, similar to the place where we had placed the limpet mines.

CHAIRPERSON: That was in - was that in Umzimhlope?

MR OLIFANT: Umzimhlope.

MR LAX: Thanks Chair. The second aspect that I just wanted to follow up with you on was the question of, what was the purpose of planting these limpet mines?

MR OLIFANT: The purpose was to sort of like enhancing the police ...(indistinct) since he had a close contact with the ANC in neighbouring states, that's Botswana, Swaziland, wherever we went to with the police work and therefore whenever he was with the members of ANC outside the country, we will meet them and they were sort of like tasking him and being tasked, he was actually not able to conduct whatever he was tasked for on his own, he had to actually report to his master, that was by then Capt Coetzee.

MR LAX: You see, I hear that side of it, but here was a man linked to MK who was tasked with blowing up certain people, but they never gave him the ...(indistinct) to do it with. The first question they would ask him when he goes back is: "Where did you get the limpet mines from?"

MR OLIFANT: What happened is this, whenever he went to - had a contact with the ANC outside the country, they will always supply him with the relevant explosive, whether it's a gun, hand grenades, limpet mines and things of that kind, they would supply him.

MR LAX: Ja, but in this case it wasn't from him, it was from another source. It was through the police that the limpet mines were used.

MR OLIFANT: No, they were from the ANC what you call, circle.

MR LAX: So did he have his own limpet mines that you then placed?

MR OLIFANT: He had brought the limpet mines along with, at the time when he went to Botswana.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that you did not supply the explosives? That you used the explosives that had been supplied by Mr Ledwaba?

MR OLIFANT: No, no, no. He actually brought them from Botswana, if I recollect properly.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you used the explosives that were in possession of Mr Ledwaba?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Then what in heaven's name did you have to bring two explosive experts from Pretoria to drive to the two targets?

MR OLIFANT: Well, I did not know whether they were to sort of like, when you're given limpet mines from whoever, from the commanding structures and things like that, they don't actually give you a complete one, they give you separately, now for a safe sake for our people whom we were all in the kombi, I should think that Mr Coetzee suggested that we should bring a member of explosives what you call experts, in order not to make any mistake during the placing of the limpet mines, including whenever the timing had to be placed in the limpet mine.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ledwaba must have been given these explosives by the ANC because they trusted that you would be in a position to do a proper job, is it not so?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, why bring outside people?

MR OLIFANT: Well, for the sake of not having any mistake. I mean, nobody know whether Mr Coetzee had a full trust on the ...(indistinct) experience in limpet mines, but in order for nothing to go wrong, Mr Coetzee might have thought that they should bring people from the explosives experts.

CHAIRPERSON: I still am not on the same page with you, but maybe Mr Lax will proceed with his examination.

MR LAX: You see, none of these mines were placed by Ledwaba himself at all.


MR LAX: Why not?

MR OLIFANT: Why not, I cannot really answer because he was in the kombi, but the right person who placed the limpet mines it was ... (indistinct) Bambo.

MR LAX: You see, how do you even know that these mines came from Ledwaba himself?

MR OLIFANT: Pure of the incident. What happened is this, myself and Mr Tshita Lingene, we were at Romatlabama border working for Ledwaba to cross the border from Botswana and after he had crossed the border, well he brought guns, you know, guns and explosives and things like that with him from Botswana, of which we all collected and put in our car and we drove straight to Johannesburg. After we had arrived in Johannesburg, Mr Coetzee took possession of those explosives and guns and he gave a proper report to Mr Coetzee.

MR LAX: Yes. So in fact you don't really know if they were the same land mines because Coetzee took possession of them and whatever might have been used later, might have been different?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAX: So as far as you know, the purpose of this operation was simply to boost the credibility of this Ledwaba?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAX: It wasn't for example, to foment more violence between the ANC and the IFP?


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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lax. Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Mr Olifant, have you had sight of the application of Mr Lingene? did you see what he said in his application? Was that shown to you?

MR OLIFANT: No, unfortunately I did not.

MR MALAN: You see because he doesn't refer to Ledwaba at all. On the page forty of the bundle of Lingene, and I don't know whether you've had a copy of that bundle Mr Coetzer, he addressed the incident in paragraph sixteen. He mentions Silomolela as being in your company as you've said, but he doesn't mention Ledwaba and apparently according to him the explosives were given to yourselves after you had left the farm in the kombi. Secondly, he refers to your visiting Jabulani Hostel, not Dube Hostel and Umzimhlope Hostel, but he says at Jabulani Hostel you tried to plant a limpet mine, but that was in the final analysis not done because there were some people sitting next to the taxis, you then left Jabulani and went to Umzimhlope, where Adriano placed a limpet mine under one of the kombis and then he also refers to the newspaper article. Now who is right? Was it Dube Hostel or Jabulani Hostel that you visited?

MR OLIFANT: Well, I don't know whether I'm wrong, or he's right, either of the two, but what I know is this. Before we could really plant the limpet mine in one of the hostels, we actually moved around Soweto, you know, in order to get an appropriate, suitable hostel where we could plant, what you call, the limpet mines and I do remember that we passed Jabulani Hostel, but I do not know, I cannot recollect whether we planted the limpet mines in one of the vehicles which we came across, but about Umzimhlope I'm quite correct that it's one of the hostels which we planted a limpet mine.

MR MALAN: Ja, I'm more worried about the Dube Hostel, because you say Dube, but he does not refer to Dube Hostel at all.

MR OLIFANT: Like I'm saying Madam Chairperson, that I might be confusing the matter between Dube and Jabulani.

MR MALAN: In other words, is it possible that you did not plant a limpet mine at Dube, is that what you're saying?

MR OLIFANT: Well, it's possible.

MR MALAN: So why are you applying for amnesty for a limpet mine there, if you didn't plant one?

MR OLIFANT: Like I say Madam Chairperson, I might have confused myself between Dube and Jabulani.

MR MALAN: But at Jabulani, according to Lingene, there wasn't a limpet mine either.

MR OLIFANT: No, I know for a fact that we planted two different places, one was Umzimhlope, I do not know whether it was Dube or Jabulani, but there were two places, because one of the places the limpet mine went off, but it was none of the injured, but at Umzimhlope the limpet mine went off and about two to three people got injured, seriously injured.

MR MALAN: Ja, because he says that the explosion at Umzimhlope hostel, in that explosion some people were seriously injured and that was the explosion referred to in the newspapers the next day.

MR OLIFANT: Well, what I know, I know that there was more than one limpet mine planted in one of the hostels.

MR MALAN: According to your recollection, can you remember the explosions themselves, or simply the planting of the limpet mines?

MR OLIFANT: The explosion themselves, I think it was a TNT.

MR MALAN: Did you witness the explosion?

MR OLIFANT: No, no, no I did not.

MR MALAN: Did you hear the explosion?


MR MALAN: So you wouldn't know whether there was an explosion or not except for what you read in the newspaper.

MR OLIFANT: The article. Ja, you're quite correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Thank you Chairperson.

MR LAX: Can I just follow up on one aspect? You refer to reading something in a newspaper about an explosion, could that have been the Umzimhlope one as Mr Lingene says, and it's possible that the one at Dube didn't actually explode at all, or if it did there was nobody injured in it and therefore it didn't make the newspapers?

MR OLIFANT: Well, it's possible that one of the what you call may not have exploded in Dube.

MR LAX: And it's not possible that you're just mistaken as to the fact that there were two limpet mines that were placed and it might have just been one and you're might be confusing this with another incident completely?

MR OLIFANT: No, no, I'm not confused about that matter because what I know is this, whenever John came out followed by Mr Pretorius, then came myself as a back up of the people planting the limpet mines, so therefore I could really - I could clearly see what happened.

MR LAX: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose? I thought you had already conceded when Mr Malan put it to you what Mr Lingene has stated in his affidavit with regard to the Jabulani Hotel as opposed to the Dube Hostel planting of the limpet mine, that you were not sure whether it was that you placed the limpet mine at Dube or Jabulani.

MR OLIFANT: Madam Chairperson, you know between Dube and Jabulani, I'm not quite clear, I'm not quite sure whether it was Jabulani or Dube, but I know it was one of them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are not sure whether you did anything at Dube or Jabulani.

MR OLIFANT: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: I just wanted to correct that. You say that you read in a newspaper about the explosion that had occurred at Umzimhlope Hostel.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And if you remember the situation at the time, you say it was in 1986 of 1987. Mr Lingene put the incident to have occurred in 1986. Would he be more precise?

MR OLIFANT: Precise I may not be, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, would you agree with Mr Lingene? Mr Lingene says specifically it was during 1986. You are not sure whether it's 86 or 87.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you have agreed with him, had he been here?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: If you recall the period in 1986, were there many incidents of bomb explosions in various hostels in Soweto?

MR OLIFANT: If I do recall, I do recall that there were numerous incidents of explosions at Hostels and things of that kind, but this matter here where it really happened, I should think it was during June month.


MR OLIFANT: During June month because many incidents always occurred during that month, you know, in order to boost the June 16th, things of that kind.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now I am trying to understand why you thought the newspaper referred to your particular operation wherein they planted the limpet mine. How were you able to correlate your explosion with the one that was reported in the newspaper?

MR OLIFANT: Well, the newspaper stated about the kombi, I knew exactly that no, that was the kombi which we had planted the land mine.

CHAIRPERSON: And to your knowledge there were not many explosions in the various hostels around Soweto which happened where an explosion would be placed in a kombi?


CHAIRPERSON: So that stood out as your particular operation.

MR OLIFANT: Yes, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: In your amnesty affidavit which appears on page eighteen, you've stated that the objective of placing these limpet mines in the hostels, was to protect the cover of the police informer who was known as Mr Ledwaba.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how would you have protected his cover by participating in what was given to him to carry out by the ANC? How would that protect his cover?

MR OLIFANT: To give him a good reputation within the ANC organisation.


MR OLIFANT: I should think that when he gave a report to Mr Coetzee and then Mr Coetzee might have seen that no, it's really an appropriate way since he was being given the firearms and the explosives to conduct a certain mission inside the country and you know Mr Coetzee must have felt that no, he alone he cannot do it, but you know to be helped by the unit.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this explained by Mr Coetzee to you?


CHAIRPERSON: How do you know that the reason why you placed these explosions was to protect or to boost the credibility of Mr Ledwaba within the ANC ranks?

MR OLIFANT: Well, I should think, if I'm not mistaken, that we might have had a certain briefing from either Mr Pretorius or Mr Coetzee, not exactly of what Ledwaba might have given as a report to Mr Coetzee, but a sort-of, I should think that he might have given us the reason why we had to go out on that night.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you or were you not given a reason why you had to carry out this operation and not Mr Ledwaba?

MR OLIFANT: Madam Chairperson, I cannot really recollect exactly words which were said by Mr Coetzee or by Mr Pretorius, but a ...(indistinct) of similar indication that no, the reason why we're going out tonight is for, you know is to sort of like give a good credibility to Mr Ledwaba, something like that.

CHAIRPERSON: The reason why I'm asking this is became Mr Lingene stated quite clearly that he was given no reason why this operation had to be undertaken, he was merely instructed as he was inside the kombi, he was given a Makarov pistol and Mr Bambo, Adriano, was given the limpet mine. You can't remember what was given to you, as you say you were simply a back-up team.

MR OLIFANT: Ja, Madam Chairperson, I don't think I can still remember what gun was I given as a back-up team and the reason. Well I only knew that the reason was sort of like covering up Mr Ledwaba, that is it because we have been doing almost on every police agent whom we had.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Was it a normal occurrence for your unit to place such explosions in the various hostels in Soweto in order to boost the credibility of your informers?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You did it over time?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: How frequent were these?

MR OLIFANT: Whenever an agent brought a report concerning that no, he has been given guns and we had to pass on a certain mission in the country and therefore we take these things and make use of them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Why I'm particularly concerned about the reason you have advanced is because on reads your participation in this explosion, one can also read into how you conducted yourselves in these operations. One can simply read the fact that you were merely fanning the violence. You were fanning the violence, you were a third force making sure that the violence would proceed at a dramatic speed as the IFP would see your planting of the limpet mine as an ANC operation and would then retaliate against the ANC, thus fanning the violence.

MR OLIFANT: I will agree with you Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that not the reason? You are here before us now and we are merely interested in finding out the truth.

MR OLIFANT: Well the deepest truth is this, I mean I was a junior.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know that.

MR OLIFANT: I did not know much like Mr Coetzee knew, Mr Pretorius knew. You know, at the meetings whenever they met and take a certain decision, they wouldn't really invite us in order to sit and share the meetings with them, instead they will just come to us and give us instruction and the beat of a breathing and that is it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And would I be correct in saying that the political objective that you stated in your written, in your affidavit is not something that you were specifically informed by Mr Coetzee?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it your own deduction?

MR OLIFANT: Well, I should think that that's what I have assessed, that no, it could be right on my side.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Coetzer, not the implicated party this time, do you have any re-examination?

MR COETZER: Thank you, I do. Arising from just one aspect which Chairperson Malan raised which was fortunately not canvassed, but let me do it now, because it may assist the Committee.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR COETZER: Mr Olifant from paragraph sixteen of Mr Lingene's statement, as was pointed out, it is not apparent, he does not mention this to Ledwaba, the informer mr Ledwaba anywhere. What he says here is:

"As we left the farm I did not know as to exactly where we were going to because I was just told to come into the kombi."

He also indicated here, he mentions various people that were in the kombi but he does not mention Mr Ledwaba, but states:

"and other people that I could no longer recall their names."

Arising out of this, what I'd like to ask you is did Mr Lingene know Mr Ledwaba or know that he was an informer?

MR OLIFANT: He was also a co-handler of Mr Ledwaba.

MR COETZER: Was he? Okay. Right. And can you remember whether he was at any former briefing with your senior Mr Coetzee concerning the exact purpose of that evening? Because it seems to me, judging from the statement, that he was called to this kombi at the last minute, I don't know.

MR OLIFANT: Well, in that regard I cannot really recall whether he was - he knew about the whole set-up beforehand or only after the matter had happened, is when Mr Coetzee by sort of like commenting, he may have sort of like said the reason why he went to go to what you call.

MR COETZER: Thank you.


MR LAX: Thank you Chair. Just one question arising. So you and Lingene were the handlers of Ledwaba?

MR OLIFANT: Co-handlers of Mr Ledwaba, that's correct.

MR LAX: Yes, well there were two of you. How many - who else was his handler?

MR OLIFANT: Well we were in number. The thing is this, we would always go by shift, not by shift by you know what are you doing at that particular moment. If you are not doing anything and Mr Coetzee will want to see Ledwaba, you say okay, "Manuel, get into the car, go collect Ledwaba."

MR LAX: Yes, but the relationship between an informer and a handler is a fairly personal one. You need to establish trust, you need to be able to know each other's details, we've heard that from countless other policemen, isn't that so?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAX: You don't give an informer a thousand handlers or even twenty handlers. You might have two, that's possible, maybe three, but you seldom get five handlers for one informer, isn't that so?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, but depending on what kind of - for better explanation about Ledwaba, I may have stated wrong that he was an informer. He wasn't actually an informer, he was an agent. Agent was actually a policeman, but under cover policeman.

MR LAX: So he wasn't an informer? He was actually a police operative?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAX: Masquerading as an ANC person?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And therefore you couldn't have been a handler. Were you also handling agents?

MR OLIFANT: I was not a handler but a co-handler Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Were you also handling agents? If somebody was a policeman who was posing as an ANC activist, would there be a need for you to call yourself a handler in order to receive information or the briefing that you would give to the Security Police?

MR OLIFANT: Well, I did not perform as a handler, but I was performing as a co-handler.

CHAIRPERSON: Co-handler, handler, it's the same. Would you handle a source which was an agent? I thought you only handled sources which were informers.

MR OLIFANT: No, I may have stated wrongly, as I say Madam Chairperson, that he was an informer. He wasn't actually an informer. An informer and an agent is something different.


MR OLIFANT: Yes, but in that what you call it's stated that no, he wasn't an informer, he was a police agent, a policeman under cover.

CHAIRPERSON: In that case, what was your relationship with him?

MR OLIFANT: Mainly it was just to transport him and bring him to Mr Coetzee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you were not therefore handling him at all, because he was an agent.

MR OLIFANT: No. That's correct Madam Chair.

MR LAX: If your roll was simply to transport him, you didn't brief him, you didn't take his information, he reported to Coetzee?



CHAIRPERSON: Well, that's what you've just said and I would agree with you, if he was an agent you would have nothing to do with an agent. An agent would go to the ...(indistinct) point where he would give in his reports.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Which would be Mr Coetzee and not you.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAX: Then what were you saying no to? What were you saying no to when I put the question to you?

MR OLIFANT: No I might have wrong, Chairperson.

MR LAX: You see your application here is consistent on the basis that he was an informer and you were his handler and your testimony was that not only were you his handler, but Lingene was his handler. Now if he wasn't an informer, then all that evidence can't possibly be correct. He couldn't have had handlers if he was an agent and therefore Lingene couldn't have been his handler and you couldn't have been his handler and why do these mistakes happen in your application? I want you to explain that please. You see, your legal representative asked you to confirm this and you confirmed the correctness of this yourself, you read it and you confirmed the correctness.

MR OLIFANT: Well, I do agree, Chairperson, but I should think there was just a technical mistake which I might have made between an informer and agent, but so I thought maybe I wanted to sort if like clearing up on that matter, no it was not an informer but he was a cover-up policeman.

MR LAX: You see, you still haven't explained to us how you would have achieved any kind of political objective by doing this operation in your own understanding. The Chairperson asked you, you said well it was a deduction that you made but it was a deduction based on the fact that he was an informer, not on the fact that he was an agent. Isn't that so?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAX: So now you - explain to us now on the basis of him being an informer, how being an agent rather, how you made the same deduction.

MR OLIFANT: Well, like I've said to you Mr Chairperson that I made a mistake you know, when I was making the statement, my ...(indistinct) actually that he was an informer, when he was an underground policeman. We may call them an SR, he had a certain number after that, SR number so and so.

MR LAX: Yes. You still haven't answered my question.

MR OLIFANT: Well at the end of the day an informer and a cover policeman always did same job.

MR LAX: Yes.

MR OLIFANT: They had same function, so when I said an informer, maybe somewhere somehow I was puzzled.

MR LAX: Yes and so the object, what was the object then?

MR OLIFANT: Well ...

MR LAX: What was to be achieved by this, was it to boost his credibility again?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well this is again your own deduction, isn't it? This is your deduction?

MR OLIFANT: Well I will assume so, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, as you also conceded that there can't be a reasonable interpretation to your conduct that it was to fan the violence.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Black on black violence.

MR OLIFANT: Well, I will say yes.


MR LAX: You see my concern goes to this simple issue, if you were the man's handler, you would understand his need to have his credibility boosted. If he was just an agent who was reporting to Coetzee, you wouldn't know anything about why this operation was being cancelled, Coetzee didn't tell you directly, you've conceded that you're trying to make deductions now.

MR OLIFANT: Well in that regard when I said that Coetzee never told me anything, I do agree that he never told me anything, but you know there might have been an indication why we had to go out that particular night.

MR LAX: Well, what indication did he give you?

MR OLIFANT: Well a minor briefing about what will happen or what had happened. What was the reason why we had to go there.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't confuse yourself Mr Olifant, you simply deduced that the objective was to boost the credibility and improve this persons's standing within the ANC so that he can be more trusted.

MR OLIFANT: Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You've already conceded that you did not know whatever indications there might have been there, you still did not know, you were not informed.

MR OLIFANT: I will agree with you Madam Chairperson.

MR LAX: You see, you're speaking about a briefing now, did you go to a briefing about this operation?

MR OLIFANT: No, no, no, when I said briefing, I said a minor briefing which he might have just told us on our way or after we had come back from that place.

MR LAX: So you have no specific recollection, you're just assuming there might have been a briefing?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson, I mean, how did I come to know about the matter.

MR MALAN: May I just clear this up for myself now because we've been playing with words of informers, of agents, under cover policemen, of handlers and co-handlers and listen carefully to me because I just want to get the picture, I don't want to have a name for it. You said your relation with Ledwaba was that you acted as a driver to collect him or to drop him off? Was that your relation to him?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR MALAN: You knew that he was an under cover policeman?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Who infiltrated the ANC structures?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Right. Secondly you say as far as you can recall what you think the reason was that night for these limpet mines to be planted was to provide a deeper cover for Ledwaba.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: You cannot recall whether there was a specific briefing.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: But your recollection is that that was the reason.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: You don't know why you think it was the reason, but that's what you remember the reason was.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And that's what you told us in the beginning.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR MALAN: And you cannot remember any specifics of anyone telling you this, its simply your gut recollection?

MR OLIFANT: Well, specific briefing about the matter I cannot really recall but what briefs me - what pictures about the whole matter, I mean how did I have to say this matter, I should think that Mr Coetzee might have said it, or he might have said that okay fine, people we are going to do this and this because of this and that, or after we have done this, he tried to sort of like you know ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I don't want you to tell us why or what might have happened, I want to know in your recollection, do you have a recollection as to why you went out with the limpet mines?

MR OLIFANT: Well the precise recollection, no, I do not have.

MR MALAN: So why did you think did you go out? What was the reason, do you think and did you think at the time, was the reason for putting these limpet mines at the hostels?

MR OLIFANT: Well, I should think that it was to boost Mr Ledwaba within the ...

MR MALAN: Did you think it then or are you thinking it now?

MR OLIFANT: No I thought by then.

MR MALAN: Then you thought so already.


MR MALAN: Okay, thank you.

MR OLIFANT: Thanks a lot.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm getting more confused now Mr Olifant and I really don't want to belabour this point. Did you serious think then that when you participated in these limpet mine explosions in these various hostels, that what you were doing was to boost the credibility of the agent?

MR OLIFANT: I thought by then.

CHAIRPERSON: You seriously thought that way? Are you being honest?

MR OLIFANT: I'm being honest Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it not known amongst yourselves as black Security policemen that there were allegations that the police were involved in fanning the violence between and amongst black political parties which were seen to be opposing one another?

MR OLIFANT: Madam Chairperson that was the general knowledge of police being involved in so-called third force, but in this regard here, Madam Chairperson, whenever I took part in my own capacity, I will say that the way I've seen the whole matter going on, it was to really boost the cover of Mr Ledwaba.

CHAIRPERSON: Why should you boost Mr Ledwaba's cover?

MR OLIFANT: Well so that it could go back I mean to the ANC organisation and say: "Okay fine, I have done this" to claim that: "No I'm Ledwaba who planted land mines at such a place and such a place."

CHAIRPERSON: And why couldn't Mr Ledwaba carry out these operations with ANC people in order for him to really stand out as a true activist within the ANC organisation by including the participation of other ANC members?

MR OLIFANT: Well, he was a policeman, so he had to report matters to the police, I mean to his masters.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but in order to enhance his standing within the organisation, I would have thought he would have included the ANC activists themselves, who then would definitely go out and sing praises about how he had succeeded in the operations. His standing would definitely be boosted.

MR OLIFANT: Well, I do not know why he did not do on his own, but I know for a fact that Mr Coetzee is one who came out with this idea, if I may say.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you have - can you advance any reason why both Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius would deny any knowledge about this operation at all?

MR OLIFANT: Well, Madam Chairperson, that surprises me as well why, I'm not here today in order to answer to this matter, because

CHAIRPERSON: Well they are here. The affidavit is saying they do not know anything about this operation at all.

MR OLIFANT: Well, really, I don't know why. I have tried to figure out why I did not hear, but what I see here, I know for a fact - they know for a fact that the ...(indistinct) passed away and Peter Lingene passed away and I'm the only person to answer to the matter. Maybe they are taking advantage of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you know the whereabouts of Mr de Jager?

MR OLIFANT: Mr Dick de Jager?


MR OLIFANT: Last time when we met Madam Chairperson, I should think you remember, that was last year October/November, somewhere there, he was in the Committee.


MR MALAN: This question of explosions, you say you were involved in other explosions. In your amnesty application you listed only three or three dates, one was an explosion at the Jabulani Amphitheatre in Soweto, you remember that explosions?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: 1986.


MR MALAN: Then the second one was this Umzimhlope Hostel.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR MALAN: That night and whether it's Jabulani or Dube we don't know and the third one you mentioned was an explosion at Jabulani offices, in Soweto.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Were there other explosions that you did not apply for that you can recall?

MR OLIFANT: No, no, no.

MR MALAN: So how often did you go out specifically doing explosions?

MR OLIFANT: Well except doing explosions, we used to sort of like you know go into government offices to burn them, like Ibalageng, the offices and ...

MR MALAN: You mentioned that. But specific explosions, let me ask the question differently. Did you mention everything that you can recall? Was the intention to apply for everything that you can recall?

MR OLIFANT: Everything that I could recall, that's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: In your application you say that you received instructions from both Mr de Jager and Willem Coetzee. From whom did you directly take instructions?

MR OLIFANT: From Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius. Mr Coetzee was the head, not head but was the leading member, I mean was leading what you call member of the unit, Intelligence Unit at the farm, but the head of the Intelligence Unit was Mr de Jager who was sitting at office. Mr Coetzee, Mr Pretorius and others were all at the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but who were you accountable to?

MR OLIFANT: I was accountable to Mr Coetzee.

CHAIRPERSON: And in this case who instructed you to participate in these limpet mine explosions?

MR OLIFANT: Mr Coetzee.


MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.


MR OLIFANT: In person.

CHAIRPERSON: And you only included Mr de Jager because he was the head of the unit?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct and he was there the day when I went to...

CHAIRPERSON: Did he know about this operation? Is that within your knowledge?

MR OLIFANT: Well not that I know of.


MR OLIFANT: I do not know whether he knew literally about the whole set up of the planned operation or he knew at the time when we were going to the hostels.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Coetzer, your position is still the same, you don't want to ask anything emanating from the questioning of - the latter portion of the questioning of the Committee?

MR COETZER: I have nothing further to ask, thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: And you close your case?

MR COETZER: Yes, that is the applicant's case.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I am not intending to call any further witnesses, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetzer are you in a position to make your submissions?

MR COETZER: Yes, certainly, Madam Chairperson.

MR COETZER IN ARGUMENT: If one looks at the concerns and the questions that have been canvassed by the Committee concerning this particular incident, there are one or two comments that I'd like to make, perhaps just as a legal person and an analyst. As regards the distinction between an informer and an under cover police operative, it seems to me that in the particular circumstances, it would appear on the evidence to be no fundamental difference between the two in the sense that it is apparent that this particular individual was involved in going under cover into the ANC for the purposes obviously of discovering what the ANC were getting up to at any given point in time. It was an information gathering exercise. It would appear to have gone somewhat further in the sense that it would seem that this under cover police operative chose to allow himself to become, although for the purposes of under cover operations, a recruit of sorts to do positive acts on the part of the ANC.

Madam Chairperson raised an issue for example as to why he did not go and conduct operations together with ANC operatives but I would submit that the evidence that we have is unfortunately too sparse to be able to draw any firm conclusions or inferences from the fact that he chose rather to operate back in South Africa with his police handlers as opposed to conducting operations with ANC operatives. We don't know what was going on at the time for example in Botswana or wherever he was in Swaziland, Mozambique, who knows. There may not have been operatives to go with him, he may not have trusted them. Going with ANC operatives he may well have run the risk of walking into the police himself not know that he's an undercover policeman and getting shot, etc, so it does seem to me that his choice in coming back and securing the assistance of the Security Police to perform operations that he was asked to perform by the ANC, is not entirely unreasonable, if one imagines the inherent dangers of other options which may have been available, or may not have been available.

But at the end of the day also if one has regard to the affidavit, yes and Mr Lingene's application, that is paragraph sixteen, where he does not mention this particular under cover operative, if one looks at this particular paragraph, it would seem to me that it is rather sparse in it's description of what happened. I get the impression, just reading this in paragraph four myself that what he is describing here or the intention of the paragraph, is simply to describe physically what happened and his physical involvement. No attempt would have been made to explain why it is that this particular operation was taking place.

Now it may well be ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Would that be correct ...(indistinct - mike not on) Would that be correct because he states quite clearly that he didn't know where they were going to, he was simply instructed to get into the kombi, that would explain the reason why he's unable to give any reason for the motive for that trip.

MR COETZER: That's right. It would seem the employment of his services that night was a last minute decision by somebody who effectively hauled him into the taxi. Whether that was - whether the purpose of this particular incident was explained to him afterwards or not, we don't know. What his particular memory is, he says there were other people there, he could no longer recall their names. It may well be, without having had the operation explained to him beforehand, he didn't notice the significance of certain individuals there, we don't know. Unfortunately I would say and submit that the absence of him mentioning this informer or any particular reason why this operation took place, ought not to impact upon the credibility of this applicant's testimony, particularly in circumstances where we don't have the opportunity to cross-examine him further on this aspect.

So dealing with those two particular aspects, I would submit, looking at the totality of the evidence that he's given before the Committee, he's a credible witness. I would submit that there's no particular justification to suspect that he has come here and explained what has happened concerning this incident with an idea of pulling the wool over the Committee's eyes in any particular respect.


MR COETZER: And if the Committee is prepared to accept his credibility, I would submit that in other respects, he satisfied the requirements for being granted amnesty in so far as this matter is concerned.

If there are any other aspects which Madam Chairperson would like to raise with me, I would certainly try and deal with them in any event.

CHAIRPERSON: In respect of which offence are you seeking amnesty?

MR COETZER: Well, I must confess that I'm not totally familiar whether there is a requirement that we must specify specific offences or whether we may leave it up to the Committee and ask that any offences which patently arise out of the admissions, and arise out of the admitted conduct, he be granted amnesty for, but obviously one would be dealing with three offences particularly and that is malicious damage to property and an attempt thereto, attempted murder. We don't know unfortunately whether anybody was killed in these explosions, so under the circumstances, obviously one would have to leave it in the hands of the Committee to decide whether or not, for the purposes of being fair and equitable to the applicants, one would include the charge of murder, but I would leave that in the hands of the Committee, but certainly it's quite apparent that an explosion, well as I say, it's difficult but on all the information it would appear that an explosion did go off at Umzimhlope. There is an admission that that mine was put under a kombi that had people in it. It's reasonable to assume that injuries must have occurred. That's the furthest one can take the evidence, so one ...

MR LAX: Doesn't your client go further than that? He says that there was a newspaper article saying people were injured.


MR LAX: I mean on that basis clearly, there is an attempted murder and obviously it's admissible or competent verdict on that assault GBH, all the rest of that, we don't need to worry.

MR COETZER: No I would agree. The only ...

CHAIRPERSON: May I just interpose Mr Coetzer, I don't have a problem with what you have listed so far, my only problem may be, to be precise, is would you be able to request for attempted murder in respect of the Dube Hostel incident because there the evidence is not crystal clear whether it's the Dube Hostel which was a target of attack through the use of explosives, or the Jabulani Hostel.

MR COETZER: If I may just say, Madam Chairperson, in his affidavit he says that he's not sure if there were people inside this kombi, that is where the limpet mine was planted at the hostel other than Umzimhlope. He remembers it as Dube.

CHAIRPERSON: But he also conceded under cross-examination that it's possible that he could have been mistaken by saying Dube, it could have been Jabulani as alluded to by Mr Lingene, when he still was in his affidavit.

MR COETZER: The way I understand the amnesty process, as I say I may be wrong, having regard to the finer technicalities thereof, but the way I understand the amnesty situation is that one is applying for amnesty arising out of incidents, omissions, or offences. It would seem to me logical that if one is not able to identify the exact offences that may well have been committed during a particular incident, the Commission may have the authority to grant amnesty for all offences that may arise out of a particular incident, but I don't know. I don't know.

MR MALAN: The Act provides for amnesty to be granted for any act constituting an offence or a delict. Now the question really is which acts are being applied for? Would it not be best to summarise it indeed as an explosion at Umzimhlope hostel and secondly an attempt an/or explosions at either Jabulani or Dube, if we want to cover him as far as possible?

MR COETZER: I would agree with that.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR COETZER: Sorry, the only remaining issue as I was going to mention are possible offences in terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act or Explosions Act, but I take it the Committee will take that into account.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you actually sought amnesty in respect thereof?

MR COETZER: The description and the indication is as per statement in possession of the Attorney-General, so what has been done is that per that statement, the description of these two incidents concerned have been included. I would, with respect, submit that it is wide enough. The Amnesty Committee itself did not, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, appear to have requested him to have particularised his application any further.

CHAIRPERSON: No. I think if you have recourse to his amnesty application, paginated number sixteen, it has been covered, it's wide enough to cover for that.

MR COETZER: Yes, I would say so.

MR LAX: Just the one thing that I forgot to ask him when he was testifying because I wasn't clear that you'd covered it, was you didn't get him, as far as I recall, to confirm pages sixteen, seventeen, eighteen and so on of that bundle. Somehow you overlooked it. You may well have, maybe I ...

MR COETZER: Sorry no, I did go back and have him confirm.

CHAIRPERSON: No, you did.

MR LAX: Well, in that case it's frankly covered by 9(a)(i) of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Roux, for having represented Mr Olifant, sorry Mr Coetzer. We will reserve Judgement in respect of this application. Mr Steenkamp, does this bring us to a close with regard to applications moved by Mr Olifant?

ADV STEENKAMP: Indeed that's the position Madam Chair. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: In that case Mr Coetzer, you are excused.

MR COETZER: Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp can you give an indication whether we would be in a position to proceed now or adjourn for lunch and proceed at half past one in respect of the application brought by Mr van Heerden wherein Mr Cornelius and Mr Koopedi would be appearing before us?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I would from my side not dare to ask for a five minute adjournment but I know my colleague Mr Cornelius would like to speak to his client before the matter is actually, sorry, Mr Brian Koopedi would like to - there's one or two difficulties I think that need to be sorted out before this matter starts.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll then take a lunch adjournment and reconvene at half past one.