DAY: 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. My colleagues are taking off their jackets in response to the weather and nothing else, it's not indicative of any state of mind, and you're welcome to do so if you wish to.

For the record, it is Tuesday the 10th of October 2000, it is a continuation of the sitting of the Amnesty Committee, in Nelspruit. The Panel is constituted as would be apparent from the record. Ms Coleridge is the Leader of Evidence. The first series of applications that we'll be dealing with are those in respect of Mr Nortje. Mr Rossouw, are you going on record on behalf of the applicant?

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that's correct. Mr Chairman, I represent Mr Nortje, as well as the other two applicants who will testify today, Bosch and Fourie. Mr Chairman, with your leave I would call Mr Nortje. He will testify in Afrikaans and we'll start with the Vryburg Church incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Thank you, Mr Rossouw.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated. Please proceed, Mr Rossouw.

EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Nortje, your copy of your amnesty application appears before you, could you please go to page 24 in the bundle, is that the beginning of your amnesty application?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And do you confirm the content of it and the background as summarised up to page 38?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Then Mr Nortje, I would like to take you to your initial amnesty application which was submitted in handwriting on page 39, do you also confirm the content thereof?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Page 40?

MR NORTJE: Correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And on page 41, just for commencement I will refer to paragraph (d) at the very top of the page, where the request is to indicate whether or not you benefited financially or in any other way and you stated there that you received financial remuneration, as well as a promotion in rank. Could you indicate to the Committee whether or not that response has anything to do with the incidents for which you have applied for amnesty for today?

MR NORTJE: No, it is not applicable to today's applications.

MR ROSSOUW: Could you briefly tell the Committee to which applications it indeed applies.

MR NORTJE: There were incidents for which I received remuneration and that is why I stated it as such and the promotion came at another stage. It wasn't specifically for this case, but I assume that it was a promotion in rank. It was in 1991 when this took place.

MR ROSSOUW: Is it correct that you, where applicable, applied for other amnesty cases?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I have done so.

MR ROSSOUW: Then Mr Nortje, you had a general annexure to your initial amnesty application, which appears on page 42 to page 43, is that correct?


MR ROSSOUW: And then with regard to this specific incident your amnesty application was supplemented after consultation and this can be found on page 44.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Then to get to the Vryburg Church arson incident, which took place in 1987, could you tell the Committee where you were working at that point and what your rank was.

MR NORTJE: I was a Sergeant and we were working in the Mafikeng environment when Mr de Kock telephoned us, he was the Commander at that stage, and he notified me that we should prepare, that we were going through to Ovamboland, but that we would stop at Vryburg. I cannot recall whether he mentioned it to me at that point, or whether he told me later, but there was a stage where we stayed over at a farm near Mafikeng, and he arrived there and we drove to Vryburg the next morning. I think on the way there he told me that Gerhard Bruwer from Vryburg had a request regarding a Church which was giving them problems or something and that we were supposed to burn the Church, but he didn't tell me specifically what the plan was. I knew why we were going to Vryburg.

MR ROSSOUW: In other words, you were a part of a team of C1, Vlakplaas members which was working in Mafikeng and Mr de Kock was still in Pretoria?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And this Mr Bruwer that you have referred to, was he the Commander of the Vryburg Security Branch?

MR NORTJE: That is correct, he and De Kock were friends.

MR ROSSOUW: And according to the information which was conveyed to you, Mr Bruwer requested Mr de Kock to assist him and he then contacted your group and you went with him.

MR NORTJE: Yes, there were two objectives. The one was to go to Ovamboland, this would have happened anyway, and on the way there we would have gone to Vryburg and stayed there for the day or for the night, we would have done the job and then continued on the Journey.

MR ROSSOUW: And when you arrived in Vryburg, did you have a meeting? Did you receive any instructions there?

MR NORTJE: Mr de Kock and Mr Bruwer had a discussion, I cannot recall whether I was part of that discussion, but I know that it was about the Church. Or it was actually the building adjacent to the Church. It was a printing press hall that they were using to print propaganda material, placards, T-shirts. It was either the UDF office or it was some or other affiliate to the UDF, but it was causing problems for the Vryburg Security Branch, apparently.

MR ROSSOUW: And what instructions were given to you, what did you have to execute?

MR NORTJE: I would recall that Mr de Kock sent me to purchase the petrol and I would recall that I bought three or four 5 litre plastic cans in town somewhere, I think it was at the Co-operative, and I filled them with petrol, because it would have been our plan to break the place open, to enter the place and to douse it with petrol and then to set it alight.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you know where this church building was?

MR NORTJE: No, we didn't know at that stage yet.

MR ROSSOUW: And how did you arrive there?

MR NORTJE: When it began to get dark, I would recall it was approximately at 9 o'clock that evening, one of the Security Branch members accompanied us and identified the place to us. We stopped on the highway and walked through a veld to a residential area, we went in among the houses and then we arrived at the Church.

Subsequently I was at the place, but I didn't know it very well from that side, because it was from the opposite side. I know that there was a small Church and that there was a building adjacent to this Church, and we were shown that that was the building. I cannot recall whether the Security Branch member accompanied us up to the building itself, but we saw the premises and we entered.

MR ROSSOUW: Could you just tell the Committee how you managed to enter the premises.

MR NORTJE: I'm not certain how we gained access, whether we kicked the door in or whether we broke it open or broke the lock, but I know that I entered the room. There was a photocopying machine there, a photostat machine and then on the walls there were posters and all sorts of things with ANC slogans of that time, and we poured the petrol out. I'm not sure whether I assisted in pouring the petrol out, but we took the photostat machine with.

I don't know if Mr de Kock said that we were supposed to take it, or whether we just took it in the heat of the moment, thinking that it could be used. We carried it out, and somebody, it could have been, I'm not sure, allowed the petrol to run for a distance. We set it alight and then ran away.

MR ROSSOUW: Although you cannot recall who precisely did what, could you possibly recall by name which of the persons were with you in the building? Was Mr de Kock in the building with you, for example?

MR NORTJE: I'm saying he would have. I believe that he and I opened the door together and that we went in together, because we had to see what was going on inside. There were others members as well, Mr Bosch was there. I would also place Mr Jaap Raap on the scene and in the building, but Mr Bosch and I discussed it and he told me that he is certain that Mr Jaap Raap was there as well, but I cannot recall precisely who was there. There may also have been one or two additional members. I think that we were five members or persons who entered the premises and doused it with petrol and then set it alight.

MR ROSSOUW: And if you refer to members, do you refer to Vlakplaas, C1 members?


MR ROSSOUW: Were there members of the Vryburg Security Branch who went with you into the building?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall it, I would recall that the Security Branch persons simply identified the place to us and then returned to the vehicle, because the idea was that the Security Branch members not be identified a the scene or near the scene, so that any fingers could be pointed to them after the fact. That was the idea, that's why they used us to do the job, so that they could divert any possible attention away from them.

MR ROSSOUW: And then on page 45 in the bundle, you state that the room was set alight by means of pouring out a 25 litre can of petrol in the room. You've referred to three or four 5 litre cans that you purchased, could you just cover that aspect with us.

MR NORTJE: I think that the 25 litre petrol can is not entirely correct, it makes more sense to me that we had black cans. I've thought much about this aspect, I would say that there were four or five 5 litre cans.

MR ROSSOUW: And the photostat machine, you said that it was carried out, that it was removed from the premises, what happened to it?

MR NORTJE: We carried it with us to the vehicle and placed it in the vehicle of the person who was waiting near the highway, the person from the Security Branch. We placed it in his vehicle, we climbed into out vehicles and drove to Upington and he departed.

MR ROSSOUW: So if I understand you correctly the photostat machine was not taken by Vlakplaas members or brought back to Vlakplaas, it went to the Vryburg Security Headquarters?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And you don't know what happened to it subsequently?


MR ROSSOUW: And you said that you drove to Upington, did you depart immediately after the operation for Ovamboland?

MR NORTJE: Yes, we went to Upington and stayed over there first and then we drove to Ovamboland. I cannot recall what time we arrived there, I think it was in the early morning hours, and then the following day we drove through to Windhoek.

MR ROSSOUW: So if I understand you correctly, the course of time was that on the same day that you were joined by Mr de Kock, you went to Vryburg, executed the operation and departed that very same evening for Ovamboland?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Then Mr Nortje, you are applying for your involvement in this incident, more specifically for burglary, malicious damage to property, aiding and abetting and the theft of a photostat machine, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Were there any persons in the building?

MR NORTJE: No, and we did not expect to find anybody in the building.

MR ROSSOUW: And you didn't receive any reports of anybody having been injured during the incident?


MR ROSSOUW: With regard to the political objective, you have testified about the premises which was used as a printing press for the purposes of printing material in support of the ANC, do you support the contents of paragraphs 10(a) and (b) on page 46 of your application?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And then you fell under the direct command of Capt de Kock, and acted accordingly?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And you did not receive any remuneration for this particular operation?


MR ROSSOUW: Then I would like to take you to the following incident, the damage ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Just before you continue, I just want to be certain of the time.

You state in your written application that it was approximately 11 o'clock that night.

MR NORTJE: It was late at night, because the idea was that there wouldn't be any people in the vicinity who could spot us, so if I said 9 o'clock, it may have been too early, I think it was a bit later. I do recall that it was very quiet, that no-one was out and about.

MR MALAN: And in your original application you stated that it was a 25 litre can, why wouldn't you have been more correct then than now?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

MR MALAN: Mr Mosiane testified yesterday in another application that he also made use of a 20 or 25 litre can of petrol to set fire to a Church and he was also part of Vlakplaas, do you have any knowledge of that size of can at least?

MR NORTJE: If I could explain. Whenever we purchased petrol it would be in 25 litre cans, but it doesn't make sense to me that we would have carried only one can, it makes better sense that we would have purchased separate smaller cans.

MR MALAN: Mr Nortje, you would recall that I've interrupted you during many other previous applications, not in order to construct what makes sense to you, but to establish what you can recall, so if you state now that it was a number of four or five litre cans, and I don't know how a five litre can looked because I don't believe I've seen one myself, aren't you busy with some form of construction?

MR NORTJE: That is not my intention, I am just trying to explain. I may have stated 25 litres, but it was 25 litres collectively, it may also have been 20 litres, but it was approximately 20 litres of petrol. It makes more sense to me that ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I don't want to know what makes sense to you, I want to know what you recall.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall specifically.

MR MALAN: Then don't testify to us about what you cannot recall, you must state if you cannot recall something. Thank you, please continue.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Chairperson.

Then, Mr Nortje, I would like to take you to the next incident which can be found on page 46 and onwards, which is "Damage to the Motor Vehicle of ANC activist Galeng, in 1985".

Just for initiation, can you tell the Committee when you joined Vlakplaas.

MR NORTJE: It was approximately during August 1984.

MR ROSSOUW: And you came from Ovamboland.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: You were a member of Koevoet.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And at that stage, who was the Commander at Vlakplaas?

MR NORTJE: Mr Jack Cronje.

MR ROSSOUW: And was Mr de Kock at Vlakplaas already?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: This incident took place when Brig Cronje was still the Commander of Vlakplaas.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And you have stated that the incident took place in 1985, could you affix a closer time to this?

MR NORTJE: I would recall that it was in the beginning of 1985, because it was still before Mr de Kock assumed Command of Vlakplaas, because he took over in July.

MR ROSSOUW: Could you tell the Committee what the preamble of events was which led to Vlakplaas' involvement in this operation.

MR NORTJE: Once again, it was a case where Paul van Dyk and I were working in the Northern Cape, between Vryburg, Mafikeng and surrounding environment. I would say Vryburg, Kuruman and surrounding environment. And the Vryburg Security Branch approached us with a problem that they had with this person called Galeng, he was an attorney in town and he was involved with the UDF. They had arrested him a number of times, and at a certain stage they wanted to know if we could assist them, because they wanted to intimidate him, because there wasn't really anything that they could do to him.

MR ROSSOUW: Could I just interrupt you there, you said that they requested you, did they request you directly or did they reach you via that command structure?

MR NORTJE: The branch command at Vryburg, at that stage, requested us, or requested Paul van Dyk and I happened to be with him. I was new at the unit at that stage.

MR ROSSOUW: Can I just ask you what rank Mr van Dyk had.

MR NORTJE: He was a Warrant Officer.

MR ROSSOUW: Was he your senior?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Were you still a Sergeant at that point?

MR NORTJE: That is correct. I am not certain whether we returned to Pretoria first and were redeployed the following month, but Mr Cronje was informed regarding the situation and subsequently I believe that he would have issued his permission because no-one told us that we were not allowed to do it, and they were informed that we were going to do it.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you tell this to Mr Cronje, or was it Mr van Dyk?

MR NORTJE: No, I didn't, I was not present during the discussion but I do know that we basically had permission to continue with the operation, because we had the keys made in Pretoria.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well. Could you just tell the Committee how you had the key made, what were the events surrounding this?

MR NORTJE: The planning was conducted by the Vryburg Security Branch, because Galeng was in Kuruman at a certain point and they phoned him to come into the Security Branch office on that particular day. This was before the vehicle was taken. Then the plan was to make a copy of his car keys.

MR ROSSOUW: And how did this happen?

MR NORTJE: Mr van Dyk had a device with him with which you could make a clay print of a key and then you could manufacture a proper key from that print. He took the key and inserted it and then we had a copy. We drove back to Pretoria and had the key made at Technical, the key was cut at technical and then we drove back to Vryburg.

This took place during the course of two days, because we came here and then we drove back the same day and on the following day we took the car, or perhaps it was the day after that. The car was parked in front of the offices of Mr Galeng, in Vryburg, and we sent Almond Nofomela to go and take the car.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well. I just want to point out to you, on page 47 of your amnesty application you stated that Albert M eventually stole the vehicle.

MR NORTJE: No, that is entirely incorrect, it was Nofomela. There is no such person.

MR ROSSOUW: Therefore it was a typographical error?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Does a person such as Albert M exist?

MR NORTJE: No, no such person exists.

MR ROSSOUW: And after the vehicle was stolen by Nofomela, what did you do furthermore?

MR NORTJE: We conducted observation and saw when he took the vehicle, because the local police didn't know about our activities, only the Security Branch knew, so we dealt with it very cautiously. He took the car and started driving. We told him to take the Revelo road. We drove via that route through the Botswana border and at Severne there's also a police station, it's close to the Botswana border, we entered Botswana and this was already late afternoon/early evening, I think it was already getting dark, and we pulled the car into the bushes, doused petrol over it and set it alight.

MR ROSSOUW: Where did you get the petrol from?

MR NORTJE: We took it with.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you recall how it was transported and in what sort of container?

MR NORTJE: I would recall that it was a 25 litre can. That could be a possible reason for my confusion, but it was definitely one can. I remember that Paul stood next to the car and doused the petrol over and inside the car, like this.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Nortje, you are applying for damage to property, theft of a motor vehicle.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And then with regard to the political objective, do you confirm the contents of paragraph 10(a) and (b) on page 48 of your application?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And at all times you acted under the direct command of Mr Paul van Dyk.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you receive any remuneration for your participation in this action?

MR NORTJE: No, I didn't.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman, that's the evidence-in-chief.


CHAIRPERSON: Are those the only incidents that Mr Nortje is applying for here?

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, Mr Chairman, in respect of the motor vehicle - sorry, those are the incidents that the applicant's applying for.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Ms Coleridge.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson. I just want to place on record that for the Vryburg incident, Mr de Kock was notified, Gerrit Bruwer was not notified, Chairperson. We believe he worked for the Security Branch in Vryburg and he's not working for the SAP any longer, Chairperson, so we had difficulty in tracing him.

And then for the motor vehicle, Mr Paul van Dyk was notified. Albert M, we only discovered now that it was Nofomela, so he was obviously not notified regarding this incident, Chairperson.

And then for the Vryburg incident we believe that no-one was injured in regard to that matter.

MR MALAN: Can you tell us whether you managed to liaise with Mr Galeng, the attorney?

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, attempts were made to track down Galeng, we wrote to the ANC branch and we didn't get a response regarding that, but now there's more details regarding that he was an attorney and that was not available to us, so I could even just contact the Law Society and just check whether we could get hold of him in that respect.

And then it's also a non gross human rights violation, but obviously because it's a public hearing the Commission will definitely, with this new information, notify and try and attempt to again get hold of Mr Galeng.

MR MALAN: He will certainly be a victim in terms of the Act, so we will need his particulars please.


I just want to ask you a few questions in relation to the Vryburg Church, just in terms of the theft of the photocopying machine. Who gave you instructions to do that?

MR NORTJE: As I have stated, I cannot recall whether Mr de Kock said to take the machine, or whether we took it in the heat of the moment, but it was something that we could carry out which could be used later. I think that was our reasoning. It was with his permission. As I have stated he didn't say to leave the thing. I cannot say precisely whether he said: "Take the thing", but it was with his knowledge and with his permission that we took the machine, because we could carry it.

MS COLERIDGE: And then you stated that the machine was used at Vryburg Security Branch.

MR NORTJE: I cannot say whether it was used there, because I never saw it again. We simply placed in the vehicle of the security branch person that evening and he drove off with it. We never saw it again, we never made any enquiries about it afterwards.

MS COLERIDGE: Why I'm asking you is because Mr Bosch says that eventually the photocopy machine was destroyed at Vlakplaas. I can refer you to his ...

MR NORTJE: I don't know, I don't know about that. I cannot agree with it, I cannot say whether it took place as such. I cannot recall that this took place, but we didn't take it with us, I didn't take the machine to the farm and I cannot recall that the machine was picked up at a later point. I'm not certain.

CHAIRPERSON: While you were on your way to the premises, what was the plan, was it to burn the place down? Was that the basic plan?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it was.

CHAIRPERSON: Please switch on your microphone.

MR NORTJE: Yes it was the plan.

CHAIRPERSON: To burn the place down?


CHAIRPERSON: And the plan was not to steal anything from the premises?


CHAIRPERSON: Was this something that occurred in the heat of the moment at the scene of the incident?


CHAIRPERSON: You didn't know what you were going to find in the premises, except that you had an idea that it was being used to produce documents and propaganda?

MR NORTJE: I think they said there was a printing press in the place that they were using to make these documents with, but I think that we took the machine in the heat of the moment, it wasn't part of the plan.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say that you cannot recall that De Kock specifically and expressly instructed you to take the machine, but that you do know that he didn't stop the process?


CHAIRPERSON: Do you know whether there was any objective with the theft of the machine?

MR NORTJE: No. We might just as well have burnt that as well.


MS COLERIDGE: In relation to the Galeng incident, which persons from the Technical Unit was involved in the cutting of the key?

MR NORTJE: Mr Japie Kok and Kobus Kok were the people who were the specialists who did those types of things. I do no think that we told them what it was for, I think we just asked them to make this key because they've got a certain type of metal that they use to make that form and they were the only ones who could do it. I do not think we informed them about it, what the purpose was for it.

MS COLERIDGE: Was there any plan to eliminate Mr Galeng?

MR NORTJE: No, there was never such a request or instruction.

MS COLERIDGE: And then just one last question in relation to Jaap Raap, which branch did he fall under?

MR NORTJE: He was also at Vlakplaas, he was the builder at Vlakplaas, but he was also a policeman though. The reason why he was at the scene was because he drove with us to Ovamboland. He drove a specific vehicle and that's how he ended up at the scene. He was taken with.

MS COLERIDGE: And Mr Cronje - did you report the Galeng incident to Mr Cronje?

MR NORTJE: Not personally, but Mr van Dyk did report it.

MS COLERIDGE: How do you know that?

MR NORTJE: It is difficult to say if I was present or if there was a phone discussion or how it was reported, but he reported it, because he knew about it.

MS COLERIDGE: And who was more senior, yourself or Mr van Dyk?

MR NORTJE: Mr van Dyk was my senior.

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


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Coleridge. Has the Panel got any questions?

ADV SANDI: No questions from me, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination, Mr Rossouw?

MR ROSSOUW: I have none, Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Nortje, thank you, you are excused.


CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Rossouw.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I beg leave to call the next application which is Mr Bosch. You'll find his amnesty application from page 1 in this bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. And he'll testify in?

MR ROSSOUW: Afrikaans. As it pleases.





IZAK DANIEL BOSCH: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please be seated. Mr Rossouw.

EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Bosch, your amnesty application appears on page 1 and furthermore do you confirm the contents thereof, the formal section of your application, page 1 to 7?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Can I just take you to page 5, where you answer a question if you received any financial benefits, can you see that?

MR BOSCH: I can.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you tell the Committee whether the bonus and cash which you received has any relation to the incidents for which you today apply for amnesty?

BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you maybe mentioned what incidents were these?

MR BOSCH: It was an incident in Lesotho where Mr de Kock gave us each R60 when we went home.

MR ROSSOUW: This was after the operation?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: You have also applied for that incident?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Bosch, can I take you to the initial annexure of your application that you find on page 8 up until page 10, do you confirm the contents of it?


MR ROSSOUW: And the specific incidents annexed to your application, you mention in paragraph 11.3 and 11.6 in your initial annexure to your application.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Then Mr Bosch, I'd like to take you to the supplementary statements on page 11 and 12, do you confirm that?

MR BOSCH: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Then we can begin with the arson of the Vryburg Church, that you will find on page 20. Mr Chairperson, you'll find that on page 20.

Mr Bosch, can you mention to the Committee - or you make mention that you looked at Mr Nortje's application, can you tell the Committee where you were working in 1987 during this operation.

MR BOSCH: I was working at Vlakplaas.

MR ROSSOUW: And what was your rank?

MR BOSCH: I was a Sergeant.

MR ROSSOUW: And during that time how did you become involved in this operation?

MR BOSCH: Mr Chairperson, we were on our way to Ovamboland, we drove through Vryburg, we stayed over and that's where Mr Bruwer contacted Col de Kock to ask us to assist him with the church hall which is a problem.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you stay over or did you just arrive there and execute the operation on the same day?

MR BOSCH: We did not stay over. We stayed over close to Mafikeng on a farm and from there we drove to Vryburg and that's where he asked us if we could assist him.

MR ROSSOUW: What was the specific request?

MR BOSCH: That's there's a facility where there is a photocopier and these old copying machines and that they were making pamphlets there and that they were distributing it from there.

MR ROSSOUW: And can you tell the Committee what your role was in the execution of this operation.

MR BOSCH: Mr Chairperson, I also entered, I think after Col de Kock and Jaap Raap opened the door. I had a 5 litre container of petrol.

MR ROSSOUW: And what did you do with that petrol?

MR BOSCH: I doused the items in the building, but Col de Kock told us before that we should not pour anything over the machine itself, it had to be taken out.

MR ROSSOUW: Who asked this?

MR BOSCH: It was Col de Kock, that's why we did not pour petrol over it. We poured petrol over the rest of the items, except for the photocopy machine.

MR ROSSOUW: Who provided the petrol?

MR BOSCH: Mr Nortje went to go and buy and then we just poured it over into smaller containers. Because I think we were four people in the building, myself, Mr Nortje, Jaap Raap and Col de Kock who poured the petrol and we all withdrew and it was just Jaap Raap who stayed behind and he set the place alight.

MR ROSSOUW: What is your recollection, were there members of the Vryburg Security Branch there?

MR BOSCH: Yes, they went to identify the place, but the didn't go to the facility itself. They just told us there is a road, a fence and in the distance you can see the hall and they told us: "There's the hall" and he remained there. He drove in a station wagon that evening, because we loaded the photocopy machine in that station wagon.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you help carry it?

MR BOSCH: Yes, it was very heavy.

MR ROSSOUW: And you also mention in your amnesty application that this photocopy machine was removed and it was destroyed in Vlakplaas, with dynamite.

MR BOSCH: We did not take it with us to Ovamboland, but when we returned to Vlakplaas, Col de Kock told me to go and blow it up and that's what we did.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you just shortly tell the Committee what your function was? We heard that Jaap Raap was the builder at Vlakplaas, what was your function? You were in the technical side of it?


MR ROSSOUW: Do you know if there was anyone injured or killed in this operation?

MR BOSCH: No, we did not receive any reports of it.

MR ROSSOUW: Then on page 21 where you describe the political motive in the arson of this church building, do you confirm the contents of it in your application?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: And did you receive any remuneration for this operation?


MR ROSSOUW: And you acted on the direct instructions of Col de Kock.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: You then also mention that Maj Bruwer was the Commander at Vryburg Security Branch, did you see him on that day?

MR BOSCH: I think yes, that was the first time that I ever saw him.

MR ROSSOUW: And did he speak to Mr de Kock?


MR ROSSOUW: Were you there?


MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, if you'll then grant me leave, I'll move onto the next incident.


MR ROSSOUW: Mr Bosch, can I then take you to the arson of various houses in kaNyamazane, in 1986 to 1987.

Mr Chairman, in that respect you'll find it in the bundle on page 13 and it was also supplemented in response to specific questions by the Amnesty Committee. You'll find the answers on page 52 and further in the bundle. 52 and 53.

Mr Bosch, during that time where were you working? Not at Vlakplaas, but where were you deployed from Vlakplaas?

MR BOSCH: Our basis was at Badplaas, but we worked in Nelspruit.

MR ROSSOUW: In the Eastern Transvaal?

MR BOSCH: The Eastern Transvaal, that's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: During that time can you just shortly tell the Committee what was the political state or circumstances in the Eastern Transvaal?

MR BOSCH: Houses were burnt every night, the comrades burnt council members' and policemen's houses in the evenings and then we received the instruction from the Security Branch in Nelspruit.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you recall who was the Commander of the Security Branch at that stage?

MR BOSCH: I think it was Maj Gert Visser. And the instruction we received was that as soon as the comrades burnt houses, we also had to burn houses. In other words it would have been an "eye for an eye" and "a tooth for a tooth" situation?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: How did you go about executing these attacks, what was the modus operandi?

MR BOSCH: Mr Chairperson, we made petrol bombs, glass bottles with soap powder and a cloth fuse, then we waited till the evening and we met the people from the Security Branch, three people. We would not go together, it would be Dan Greyling, John Walters accompanied us once and then Vincent Malaza also accompanied us to identify people.

MR ROSSOUW: You then mention in your amnesty application that it happened at three opportunities.


MR ROSSOUW: Then on page 52 you mention that there were approximately 20 petrol bomb attacks, can you just explain to the Committee how it fitted in?

MR BOSCH: When they burnt five, we burnt five. This is now with certain periods of time in-between, that's why I say it's approximately 20. I cannot recall the exact amount.

MR ROSSOUW: But over three opportunities?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: These houses, the addresses and the inhabitants, did you receive any information about them?

MR BOSCH: No, they just took us to the houses and said: "You have to burn this one and this one or that one".

MR ROSSOUW: Then Mr Bosch, can you tell the Committee if you foresaw that there were people in houses.

MR BOSCH: Yes, Mr Chairperson, it was in the evening and there had to be people sleeping in the houses.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you describe to the Committee, were all the houses similar looking or could you possibly give them a description?

MR BOSCH: I cannot say that they all looked the same but most of them were these four-roomed houses, they had a front door in the middle and then two windows on either side and sometimes one window at the back.

MR ROSSOUW: And the petrol that were thrown, did you yourself participate in that?


MR ROSSOUW: Did you throw the petrol bombs through the windows or against the walls or what was the plan?

MR BOSCH: We always tried to throw it through the windows but it did not happen that way, sometimes the bombs fell outside. Some of the houses were set alight or caught alight.

MR ROSSOUW: Then on page 53 you mention in paragraph 4.4. that as far as you know the properties were damaged but there was only one incident in which a person was not very seriously injured.

MR BOSCH: Yes. Stan Greyling told us that according to information that they received the next day, there was one person who was injured.

MR ROSSOUW: Was there askaris involved in these petrol bomb attacks?

MR BOSCH: Yes, we were a large team going in the evening.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Bosch, your direct Commander in the group who participated in these attacks, who was this?

MR BOSCH: It was Paul van Dyk.

MR ROSSOUW: And you've just mentioned you were a Sergeant, what was his rank at that stage?

MR BOSCH: He was a Warrant Officer or a Lieutenant, I cannot recall.

MR ROSSOUW: And you can you tell us if Mr de Kock knew about these actions?

MR BOSCH: I do not know if Mr van Dyk discussed it with Mr de Kock. We fell under the Security Branch of Nelspruit and we executed their instructions.

MR ROSSOUW: You therefore then apply for amnesty for your participation in arson of these properties, as well as attempted murder.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, if you will allow me I'll move onto the next incident which you will find on page 16 in the bundle, which is the "Abduction of an Unknown Person from kwaNdebele. Mr Chairman and similarly, there were questions posed by the Amnesty Committee and answer were provided. You'll also find that supplementary on page 54 in the bundle, to 56.

Mr Bosch, I would like to ask you to tell the Committee how it came to your knowledge that this alleged shop owner ...

MR BOSCH: The Commander of the Murder and Robbery Unit in kwaNdebele, Leon Boshoff knew Col de Kock and he contacted Col de Kock and told him that there's a person who is providing weapons to the ANC. Then we went to go and execute a false recruitment project. Mr Chairperson, what happened was that the askaris who were members of the ANC would go that person and say: "Look we want to see you, we're members of the ANC and we want to know where all these weapons are, we need it". So they tried to recruit him under the auspices of the ANC.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you then tell the Committee if you had knowledge of how the askaris made contact with this person.

MR BOSCH: Mr Chairperson, I think they went to the shop or they contacted him telephonically and then he arrived ...

MR ROSSOUW: At what point?

MR BOSCH: Well they made an appointment. There was some holiday resort in kwaNdebele and he met them there.

MR ROSSOUW: Were you present or were you observing from a distance?

MR BOSCH: No, there were no whites in that area.

MR ROSSOUW: In other words what you are testifying now is actually hearsay?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, if you'll allow us to proceed on that basis.

Mr Bosch, according to what was conveyed to you, what happened at the point where the askaris met this person?

MR BOSCH: They loaded him into the kombi and then they brought him to a rondawel at the holiday resort, they took him into the rondawel and they started talking to him.

MR ROSSOUW: And they also wanted to gather information then concerning the weapons.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Do you know if this person was assaulted by the askaris?

MR BOSCH: Yes, they assaulted him, they slapped him. This is what I heard afterwards.

MR ROSSOUW: You said that there were approximately 10 askaris in this group, can you maybe mention a few names?

MR BOSCH: I can recall Capt Moss, he's died, he was present, Simon Radebe - Mr Chairperson, it's very difficult to recall the names, I also do not want to speculate.

MR MALAN: Then rather not.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Bosch, did you ever see this person after he was assaulted, so that you can give a description of what he looked like?

MR BOSCH: No, Mr Chairperson, we did not see him.

MR ROSSOUW: What was told you, what happened to him?

MR BOSCH: They took him back to his family.

MR ROSSOUW: Do you know if this person laid a charge at the police against these people?

MR BOSCH: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Bosch, you said that you were under the direct command of Mr van Dyk.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And can you tell the Committee what would be the political objective ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I'm sorry Mr Rossouw to interrupt you.

In your application on this matter you say that De Kock was in command and you say that the askaris interrogated the abducted person under the command of De Kock, and you also say that some of the white members were present, but he could not identify them because he was blindfolded.

MR BOSCH: Yes, Mr Chairperson, he was in a rondawel - I made a mistake, I said Paul van Dyk, Paul van Dyk placed me, but Col de Kock was also there, he was the Commander. This person was kept in a rondawel so there were no white members who went into the rondawel, so some of the black members would come out and speak to Col de Kock, then Col de Kock would say: "Well ask him this or that". So there was no direct contact with this man or with the white members or Col de Kock.

MR MALAN: Then on page 18 you still mention that Col de Kock, Riaan Bellingan and Joe Coetser's names, but you do not mention Van Dyk's name, are you sure that Van Dyk was present in this matter?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I am sure, because we worked together on this.

MR MALAN: Why did you not mention his name in your application?

MR BOSCH: Did I not mention it?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, in the supplementary answers you'll find that in paragraph 3.1, where Mr Bosch states that the members of Section C1 was deployed here, Paul van Dyk and Eugene de Kock. He wasn't sure about Eugene de Kock being deployed here.

MR BOSCH: No, Col de Kock was not deployed here, he just came down, but Paul van Dyk was deployed.

MR MALAN: Thank you very much. I beg your pardon, Mr Rossouw.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Bosch, on page 19, do you confirm the contents of your amnesty application concerning the political objective?


MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, if you'll then allow me to move onto the last incident.


MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, you'll find that first of all, in the annexure to Mr Bosch's initial application, you'll find that on page 9, the reference to it, paragraph 11.3, Mr Chairman, where reference is made to the office building in Manzini, where documents were stolen and then the last sentence in that paragraph, the same evening a house near the Oshoek border post was burnt. Now Mr Chairman, in respect of that incident the amnesty application was also supplemented and you'll that on page 50 of the bundle.

Mr Bosch, you mention on page 50 that as far as you can recall this incident took place the same evening after the searching of the Sida offices in Swaziland. Were you involved?

MR BOSCH: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you explain to the Committee how it happened and on whose request this happened, that you went to this specific house close to the Oshoek border post.

MR BOSCH: Mr Chairperson, after we stole the documentation at Effesis House, we drove back to the Oshoek border post, then Lappies Labuschagne asked us if we could accompany him to this house ...(intervention)

MR ROSSOUW: Can I just interrupt you there. Who was Lappies Labuschagne and what was his rank?

MR BOSCH: He was a Sergeant at that stage and he worked at the Security Branch in Eastern Transvaal.

MR ROSSOUW: He requested you to accompany him to that house?

MR BOSCH: Yes, and he told Col de Kock as well. We drove to that house, we did not know where it was, what it looked like or what the set-up was, we stopped at the house and I think we were in three vehicles, so all the three vehicles switched their light on, facing the house.

INTERPRETER: The Interpreter requests that the applicant please repeat the answer.

MS COLERIDGE: We've got a request if the applicant could repeat the answer.

INTERPRETER: There's something wrong with the microphone, I couldn't hear.

CHAIRPERSON: You want the last answer to be repeated? Is that in regard to the safehouse?


CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Bosch, I asked you who Mr Lappies Labuschagne was.

MR BOSCH: He was a Sergeant who was stationed at the Security Branch in Ermelo and Swaziland was his area in which he worked.


MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Bosch, you say that this house was used as a safehouse, what was the information that was provided to you by Mr Labuschagne?

MR BOSCH: Mr Chairperson, that this house was used as a safehouse and that they used the weapons there and the weapons would be brought into South Africa from that house.

MR ROSSOUW: Was the plan to eliminate the owner of the house?

MR BOSCH: Well first we wanted to abduct him, interrogate him and then we wanted to eliminate him.

MR ROSSOUW: You mention on page 51, paragraph 3.3, that there was a possibility that he could have been eliminated. When you arrived at the house what happened there?

MR BOSCH: As I have testified before Mr Chairperson, it was an unknown place, to us as a team there were no lights, we did not have a map or a sketch of the house, all of us got out. Not all of us had weapons because we came from Effesis House. Col de Kock had a weapon and I think somebody else, I cannot recall who. Then somebody shouted that somebody had an AK, AK, then Col de Kock jumped through the window. The weapon that Col de Kock had was a silenced weapon, a weapon with a silencer on. I cannot recall the shots being fired.

MR ROSSOUW: You mentioned that you looked at the amnesty application of Mr Fourie and that you saw there that Col de Kock fired some shots.

MR BOSCH: That is correct. Col de Kock entered the house and I think it was Lappies Labuschagne, and after a while they said there was no-one in the house and then the house was burnt down.

MR ROSSOUW: Was petrol doused in the house and was it then burnt down?

MR BOSCH: I don't know if they found anything in the house. We didn't have petrol on us. I don't know how they managed to set the house on fire.

MR ROSSOUW: You were in the house?

MR BOSCH: No, I wasn't.

MR ROSSOUW: So you don't know how it happened?

MR BOSCH: No, I don't know.

MR ROSSOUW: And did you return, did you see how the house was burning?

MR BOSCH: Yes, we drove off and we could see the house in a distance, it was quite a long gravel road, we could see that the house was in flames. We reached the tar road on our way to Oshoek, and we saw a blue light approaching, presumably a light on a police vehicle, but they couldn't apprehend us. We crossed the border over the fence, because the border post was already closed by that time.

MR ROSSOUW: So you crossed the border illegally?

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And then Mr Bosch, in as far as it involves this incident, you are applying for amnesty for arson in relation this property.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Was there any conspiracy to kill the person or was it simply a possibility that you foresaw?

MR BOSCH: It was a possibility that I foresaw, I don't think there was much planning regarding this particular incident. Not as an afterthought, but while we were on our way back, Lappies asked Mr de Kock whether we couldn't do this while we were there.

MR ROSSOUW: But what I want to ask you is whether or not it was ever mentioned that this person was to be eliminated if you were to encounter him, or was it simply foreseen as a possibility?

MR BOSCH: I saw it as a possibility.

MR ROSSOUW: And then you are also applying for the illegal crossing of a border.

MR BOSCH: That is correct. I entered legally but I exited illegally.

MR MALAN: Mr Rossouw, certainly if you wish to be specific you would include conspiracy to abduct the man, at the very least.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, Mr Chairman.

Then also, Mr Bosch, you foresaw that if the person was there your instruction would be to abduct the person and to bring him back.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And the political objective would be to obtain information from him regarding the weapons which were stored there and those persons who had infiltrated the country.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And a further political objective would also have been the destruction of this house which was being used as a safe house.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Furthermore, Mr Bosch, you executed your instructions under the direct command of Col de Kock.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Mr Bosch, may I just ask you this. In your evidence you stated initially that when you drive, and you refer to this in the same terms as page 51 of the bundle, that Lappies Labuschagne had information and that while you were driving he asked Mr de Kock if it was possible to go to the house and to tell him what it was about. Later in your evidence you used the words that: "Lappies told De Kock: 'While we're here, can't we just do the thing?" And what I want to ask you is to understand how these things operated. Did you have the impression that this was on the agenda and that it was simply a suitable or convenient time to execute it, or was De Kock reacting upon a request from Sgt Labuschagne to go and abduct a man while you were driving? What was your impression, did De Kock have prior knowledge?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, as I understand it, it was not on the agenda. Our agenda was to break into the house and that was that for the evening.

MR MALAN: But when I refer to the agenda, I'm referring to an agenda that Mr de Kock would have been aware of, that at some or other stage - because that is also you interpretation when you spoke of this for the second time, the impression is: "While we're here, let's do the thing" which would actually have been done at another time. What was your impression at that point? Or was it your impression as I understood you initially, that De Kock simply responded there and then to a request by a Sergeant, to enter a house, abduct a man and to interrogate him based upon information that De Kock could not verify because this was his first knowledge of it, with the consequential possibility that the man could be eliminated? What were the circumstances?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, my personal feeling is that if we had not attacked or destroyed the house that evening, we would have done so upon a subsequent occasion, because it was also a thorn in the side of the Ermelo Security Branch. So it had already been determined as a target at an earlier stage.

MR MALAN: And what was your impression regarding Mr de Kock's knowledge thereof?

MR BOSCH: I don't believe he had much knowledge regarding the house, not in terms of what I know.

MR MALAN: Well I don't know if you've really assisted me in this regard. When it was mentioned, did he request any background information from Labuschagne, regarding why they would have to abduct the man, or did it sound as if they had already discussed it at a prior stage?

MR BOSCH: As I've already stated, we were there vehicles driving, I was not in the same vehicle with Lappies and Mr de Kock, so I cannot really testify about it.

MR MALAN: But you did. Your evidence is that Lappies had the information and that he said this to Mr de Kock.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, it was my evidence and that is how it was, but I didn't have the details of the discussion within the vehicle. Col de Kock stopped us at the side of the road and said: "Well now we're going here".

MR BOSCH: Then how do you know that it wasn't on De Kock's agenda? I cannot say.

MR MALAN: But you said that Labuschagne told De Kock, while you were driving Labuschagne suddenly told De Kock.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson. The attack on the house was not a planned attack and Labuschagne was working in the area, he knew everybody, he knew were the transit houses were, where the arms caches were, because he worked with the informers in Swaziland. I cannot say today that he had already requested this from Mr de Kock on a previous occasion or whether it was on that very same night, but it must have been on that same night because otherwise we would have been much better equipped to launch the attack.

MR MALAN: All you know is that at a stage all three vehicles were stopped and you were told that you were going to this house, that is all that you know?

MR BOSCH: Yes, Chairperson. On the way to Oshoek, Mr de Kock called us off the road and told us that we were going to a transit house, that we would find a man there and that is all that he told me. He told us to follow them and that is what we did.

MR MALAN: Is that all that you can recall, and if that is the case, why have you implicated Mr Labuschagne, saying that he was the one who started it while you were on your way?

MR BOSCH: Because he was the man who had all the information about the area.

MR MALAN: Very well, thank you.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that is the evidence-in-chief.


CHAIRPERSON: Does that cover all the incidents that you want to place before us?

MR ROSSOUW: That is so, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Ms Coleridge, cross-examination?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Yes thank you, Chairperson.

This abduction of this unknown person in kwaNdebele, do you have any other information that would assist us in trying to locate this person?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, all I know is that at that stage this man or his father had a shop somewhere in kwaNdebele, and the reason why I know this is, after they took him we had to guard the bakkie because someone had to stay there to look after the bakkie and there were gas containers on the bakkie and somebody said that they had a shop. And that is all that I know of that man.

MS COLERIDGE: And in relation to the burning of the houses in kaNyamazane, did you do any follow-ups after the incident, if anybody was injured or killed?

MR BOSCH: Yes, Chairperson, the people from the Nelspruit Security Branch gave us feedback the following day, and it was only upon one occasion that they said that someone had burnt, and the person who reported this to us was Dan Greyling.

MS COLERIDGE: Was it serious burns, did the person die as a result of the burns, or was it just injuries?

MR BOSCH: As far as I understand it was light injury.

MS COLERIDGE: And the Oshoek incident, was the operation planned outside the borders of South Africa, or inside the borders?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, this operation for Effesis House, was planned on the outside, from the South African side, but the house that we burnt was not planned on the outside. I'm not aware of any prior planning, we were told at the side of the road that we were going to this house.

MS COLERIDGE: And then the last incident, the Vryburg incident, the photocopy machine, why did De Kock instruct you to burn the photocopy machine?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, I think that he wanted to get rid of it. I didn't burn it, I blew it up, I used explosives and I blew it up.

CHAIRPERSON: I was just distracted, what did you blow up?

MR BOSCH: The photostat machine

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, very well, I understand, I was just distracted for a second.

MS COLERIDGE: And the Oshoek incident, Mr Bosch(sic) states that there were shots fired into the house, why were there shots fired into the house?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, as I've stated, Col de Kock jumped through the window with a firearm and I don't know whether he jumped through and opened fire in the room, because someone shouted: "He's got an AK, he's got an AK", but we never found this man, there was no-one in the house. It was very confused at a certain stage, everything happened very quickly.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Bosch, wasn't it your evidence that you cannot recall the shooting?

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry Mr Chairman, I think the confusion flows from the question by my learned colleague who says that Bosch says this, she actually referred to Fourie's application which refers to the shooting.

MS COLERIDGE: That's correct, it's Mr Fourie.

MR MALAN: Yes that is indeed correct, but the question is that Mr Fourie referred to the shots and you testified that you recall seeing Mr de Kock jump through with the firearm and then someone shouted: "He's got an AK, he's got an AK" and the shots followed, but your testimony was that you didn't recall the shots because you don't know anything about it.

MR BOSCH: I didn't hear the shots.

MR MALAN: Thank you. Ms Coleridge.

MS COLERIDGE: Did you see anybody run away from the house that evening?

MR BOSCH: I personally did not see anybody run away.

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


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Coleridge. Panel, questions?

ADV SANDI: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Re-examination, Mr Rossouw?

MR ROSSOUW: I have none, Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bosch, you are excused, thank you.



MR ROSSOUW IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I'm not sure if Mr Fourie is here yet, if you'll allow me I can present you with my very short argument on these two applicants in their various applications. If you'll allow me I'll start with Mr Nortje.

Mr Chairman, in respect of the Vryburg incident I submit that - let me argue both Mr Bosch and Mr Nortje at the same go in this instance. Mr Chairman, I submit that firstly, they have complied with the requirements of the Act, the formal requirements. It's common cause that they will both be covered by Section 200(b) or (f), Mr Chairman, as far as their qualification for amnesty is concerned.

These were really the footsoldiers who carried out the operation, there were senior people there, they had to rely on the information provided to them. Corroboration for the fact that the Church was in fact used for ANC or UDF purposes, Mr Chairman, flows from the evidence by Mr Nortje, that there were pamphlets found put up against the walls and T-shirts found. You'll find that in his application as well. So I submit as far as the political objective is concerned, Mr Chairman, that they have made out a case that this was an arson attack with a political objective.

Mr Chairman, as far as full disclosure is concerned, I submit that they have given you the information that they possess at this stage and they've told you all relevant facts relating to this incident. I therefore submit that both the applicants, Mr Chairman, that you should consider it favourably to grant them amnesty and that your Committee can be satisfied that they have qualified for amnesty in respect of this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: And the photocopier, what's the position with that?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I would submit that it is really immaterial whether it was stolen or whether it was burnt. The purpose was in fact to deny the Church or the people using that Church, the use of this photocopying machine in the means distributing propaganda, Mr Chairman. Whether it was achieved by removing it or destroying it totally, Mr Chairman, is really immaterial, the purpose ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But what is the offence? Because if it was stolen, and of course you're asking for amnesty in respect of theft.

MR ROSSOUW: Theft as well, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Whether it was destroyed, then you're asking for amnesty in respect of malicious injury to property and in respect of both of those you must make out a political objective.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes. Mr Chairman, I would submit that the political objective lies in denying the users of that Church the use of this machine, it doesn't matter by which offence it was achieved, Mr Chairman, that would be the political objective. And I would submit that both offences did occur here because there was a time lapse. Firstly, it was stolen with the intent of denying the owner of that machine, the use thereof ... (interven-tion)

CHAIRPERSON: That is the problem, I mean what evidence have we got in that regard? Nortje says it was just done on the spur of the moment type of thing, he's not sure whether there was any direct instruction from De Kock to remove this thing. He sketches the situation almost of having fortuitously come across something and then it's just removed. Bosch comes, Bosch says yes, well the other people said you must take that photocopier, what for we don't know. And then it's blown up later on, at some later stage at Vlakplaas. How do we conclude that this has got anything to do with politics or anything to do with the main objective of attacking this particular premises?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, let me first say to you, and there are three aspects I wish to address you on. The first one is that one should follow, or one should consider the evidence in toto, not only Mr Nortje's evidence, but Mr Bosch who specifically said that De Kock said: "Do not throw petrol over this photocopying machine". Now Mr Nortje's evidence as far as I can recall, is that he cannot recall that De Kock gave an order that it should be removed, but the possibility at least existed, Mr Chairman.

Now if you consider that together with the evidence by Mr Bosch, I would submit that there's a clear instruction. Whether it was tacit, whether it was implied, Mr Chairman, I would submit there's a clear instruction from the Commanding Officer, Eugene de Kock, that this photocopying machine should not be destroyed here and it was removed with his consent, he didn't object to it.

So firstly, the chain of command, Mr Chairman, that's my first argument. Secondly, Mr Chairman, how does it relate to politics? I would submit that coming back to what was the initial purpose, destroy this building because it was being used for the distribution and production of propaganda material.

Now Mr Chairman, that would include everything inside that building, the means by which the propaganda material was produced. And whether they then destroyed it or blew it up right there or outside, or 10 kilometres away, or two days later, becomes immaterial Mr Chairman, because the evidence before you is that in fact by any of these means the political objective of prohibiting the distribution and production of propaganda material, was achieved. That is how it's got to do.

And Mr Chairman, the third argument and this is the one which I suspect you wish to hear me on, was this not just thing for personal gain, wasn't it just on the spur of the moment that somebody decided but here's a nice thing, let's steal it, let's take it away, and it's really got nothing to do with the political objective. Mr Chairman, these two applicants were the footsoldiers, they carried out instructions, definitely on their part there was no personal gain in this. Whether it might have existed with Mr de Kock or the Vryburg Security Police, well definitely it won't be with them, they weren't present, but whether it was a thought in the mind of Mr de Kock, Mr Chairman, is not something that can be imputed to these two applicants.

And I submit that there are instances, Mr Chairman, I know of one, I know you're not bound by the decision of the previous Amnesty Committee Panels, but there's a decision where a Commanding Officer instructed personnel to fire on a bus, apparently carrying IFP supporters and he had no instruction, Mr Chairman, he acted on the spur of the moment and amnesty was denied to that person. But the footsoldiers who carried out his orders, Mr Chairman, were granted amnesty. And ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I follow all that, the problem is just that the applicants before us must have acted bona fide in furtherance of some or other struggle, political struggle. So the point is, Nortje says - I asked him whether this could have any political objective and he said no, but he can't think of any political objective, and I can understand the basis for his response. Because if they wanted to just destroy whatever was used to produce what they referred to as propaganda, why don't they just burn everything out like they've done with the other things, why did they remove this thing? They obviously removed it to get some benefit out of it. Now that benefit could be political, it could be personal, but we don't know, there's nothing before us to draw any clear inferences. And under those circumstances, can you submit that we must be satisfied that this is associated with a political objective, the theft at least there on the scene, the theft of the photocopier? That's the only query that I have.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, I understand your concern Mr Chairman. Firstly, I would submit that you have to look - we know according to the Norgaard Principles, that the test is a subjective one, certainly Mr Chairman, there cannot be any inference that there was any intention for personal gain by these two applicants, they did not make use of this photocopying machine, they did not keep it for themselves. So firstly, on the subjective level there would not be a personal gain for these two ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, there's not, I'm just - the thrust of the query is, is this associated with a political objective and can we be satisfied on what is before us at this stage, that this was anything but just a spur of the moment theft?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, at the risk of belabouring the point, I would submit yes. The simply fact of the matter is that the means, or rather the ends was achieved, it does not matter by which means Mr Chairman. That would be my answer to your question. Eventually Mr Chairman, the photocopying machine was destroyed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that might be so, but we are on the scene, we are dealing with the offences on the scene and that is respect of which they are asking for amnesty. Now if they want amnesty for the theft of the photocopier there on the scene, forget about what happened later on, perhaps that was destroyed, but it could have been used for something personal in the meantime by somebody else, nothing to do with politics. So I'm focusing on the scene where the offences were committed. Is there sufficient before us to satisfy us that that theft occurred with a political objective.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, yes, because it was stolen, the use and the means of production, producing the propaganda material was removed. It could also have been done by just blowing it up right there on the scene, Mr Chairman, but the same result was achieved by a different means. And if you see it like that, I submit that there is a political objective that was achieved by stealing it ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr Rossouw, sorry for interrupting you. But if the objective of the individual was to get that, of course, the political objective is to deny the UDF or its affiliate the use of the machine, but if there was a second objective to have this machine for personal use, then clearly that would have the theft of an instrument, which would not qualify, because his motivation was to keep that for himself. My question really is, should we not look - and I'm not sure, but my memory serves me that Nortje said something about the photostat machine or the copier, whatever he called it there, removed and then he simply mentioned something about a possible use, for possible use. He didn't expand on it. Could we make an argument that that machine clearly was not found in the possession of anyone for personal use, but was found at Vlakplaas and destroyed at Vlakplaas? What should we make of that?

MR ROSSOUW: Unfortunately Mr Chairman, if we had a little bit more indication as to the timeframe, it might have been a little bit easier, when it was found at Vlakplaas. Mr Bosch just said later, we didn't go into specifics there.

MR MALAN: Why is the timeframe important? Let me just put it to you, and assume for the moment it was taken, your argument that they were to be denied the use of it as the political objective. Secondly, have they intended to use that at Vlakplaas, because they could have used it, it could fall under the type of example where motor cars were stolen and the past for use by the Security Police, where amnesty was granted. We've had such incidents. Why is the timeframe important if the machine is found at Vlakplaas? It might have been used, it might not have been used. Change of intention. And it's destroyed.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, my reference to timeframe will only be relevant, or is relevant Mr Chairman, if we could have determined that it was removed with the intention of eventually destroying it at Vlakplaas, but it could not be done immediately because they first had to go to Ovamboland. Coming back it was found at Vlakplaas, say two days later and then they blew it up.

MR MALAN: Mr Rossouw, I think we can really accept that the intention was not to remove it in order to destroy it, otherwise it could have been burnt there and then on the premises.

MR ROSSOUW: I agree with that, Mr Chairman ... (interven-tion)

MR MALAN: The question is really, are we in our own minds and in your mind, and you can address us on this, what should the deduction be that it was removed? The probabilities, for personal use by one or other of the individuals, De Kock? Clearly, De Kock if the instructions came from him, or by Vlakplaas, for potential use by Vlakplaas.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, let me first - addressing you on the probabilities, the reference that Mr Nortje made, you are correct he did mention some possible use thereof, but I think that was in regard to the Vryburg Police Security Branch, because Mr Nortje's recollection is that it went to the Vryburg Security Branch. We now know that it did not go them, it found its way to Vlakplaas. And I submit, Mr Chairman, that on the probabilities, ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: You see there are so many possibilities, we don't have the evidence here. It might have been intended for Vryburg, they might have found themselves in the position where they said we don't want this here, it can be recognised, people may identify ...(inaudible) may eventually be linked to that office again, that they might have sent it to Vlakplaas. If we're satisfied that it's the same machine that was eventually destroyed at Vlakplaas.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman yes, the probability that I would submit is that it was in fact, or could have been in fact been intended for use at Vlakplaas for their own, not personal gain, but for Vlakplaas use, Mr Chairman. And this not evidence before you, but I would submit that you can take notice of the whole of Eugene de Kock's application, I'm sure of which you've seen the better part, Mr Chairman, and as far as I recall his evidence in other matters dealing with Vlakplaas, the intention of Vlakplaas, Mr Chairman, the only aspect where personal gain came into it is where claims were falsified by members of Vlakplaas. And the evidence as far as, and I'm speaking under correction, Mr Chairman, was that that only started happening after 1990, when the political winds of change were coming into play, then it was sort of decide but, look everybody is abandoning us, let's try and make some money for ourselves out of this. But before that, Mr Chairman, Vlakplaas was run as an operative unit and everything that was done was done with the aim of achieving political objective, there was no personal gain in any of the instances before at least 1990. I know it's not evidence before you, Mr Chairman, but it's evidence before the Amnesty Committee as a whole, from Mr de Kock. And on that basis I can make the submission that there's a probability that it could have been stolen for use at Vlakplaas.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we've heard your submissions on that, Mr Rossouw. I've interrupted you, do you want to carry on?

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Then as far as the application of Mr Nortje is concerned, relating to the burning of the motor vehicle, Mr Chairman, I think in the application mention is made of arson, this would definitely not be arson, it's a moveable asset, so it would be malicious damage to property and theft, Mr Chairman, that he would be applying for in that respect.

I submit that there's no contradiction, there's nothing in his application or the evidence that suggests that he should not be granted amnesty as far as full disclosure or political objective is concerned, Mr Chairman.

Then Mr Chairman, turning to Mr Bosch and the first incident which we dealt with him on the latter three, the burning of the houses at kaNyamazane. Mr Chairman, I submit that the applicant should provide you with all relevant facts. You've heard that from what happened there and the instructions that he received, that he's in possession of the facts to give you the names or the addresses of these houses. It would have been so much easier. He's told you, Mr Chairman, that they were taken there and the house was identified, "this is the one, target it", that's it, by the personnel from the local Security Branch. So as far as his knowledge is concerned, he's given you all the relevant facts, Mr Chairman. It would have been very helpful if he was able to identify.

As far as the political objective is concerned, Mr Chairman, you must have heard on numerous occasions that there were retribution attacks or attacks in a similar vein, fight fire with fire, from politicians those statements were made, Mr Chairman, and that was in fact the orders, as you've heard from commanding officers. And this is in fact what happened here. You burn one of the informers houses or members of the town council or policemen, we'll burn one of your houses.

I would submit that on the political objective, Mr Chairman, and full disclosure, that the applicant has qualified for amnesty, and I would request you to grant him amnesty for arson, malicious damage to property, which I forgot to mention to him, but obviously there will be some moveable assets inside the house as well, and then attempted murder Mr Chairman, in that respect. You've heard the evidence that he did foresee that there would be people inside the house and by going ahead and accepting that risk, that is in fact dolus eventualis. That's the intent and he went ahead with it and he did it, so that would be attempted murder.

Mr Chairman, then the second one dealing with the abduction of the unknown person. Initially I had my doubts as to whether there was an offence committed here by the applicant, he was not involved in the abduction, he was not involved in the assault and he was also not involved in the questioning of this person, but thinking about it again, Mr Chairman, he could be an accomplice to abduction and that's the only thing that I would submit that he can apply for, because he knew about what was going to happen.

ADV SANDI: Didn't he, as a member of the Police Force, didn't he have a statutory duty to do something about this? He knew that this abduction had taken place and he took no action whatsoever.

MR ROSSOUW: Afterwards, Mr Chairman, that could be defeating the ends of justice, but initially he knew about the planning, so he would be an accomplice to abduction. He was not a co-perpetrator, but he was definitely an accomplice. And then Mr Chairman, yes, as a police office he is - we know that he's not supposed to unlawfully, or if that comes to his knowledge he should act on that. Mr Chairman, I would submit that that is a duty that would cover every single instance for which a Security policeman would apply. So yes, there would be some thought given to that.

But Mr Chairman, you are also aware that there are two schools of thought on the defeating the ends of justice doctrine, whether it should be an active step, interfering in an investigation, or whether you are just by omission, not providing information is, one school of thought says that's not really defeating the ends of justice.

MR MALAN: Mr Rossouw, from the evidence is it not clear that the applicant, Bosch was part of that team, he was outside with the other white officers, the feedback in terms of what was said to De Kock he's overheard, in that sense wasn't he part of the team?

MR ROSSOUW: He was indeed part of the team, Mr Chairman, I'm not trying to place him away from away from the incident, all I'm trying to say is that he was not part of the carrying out of the abduction, he was not part of the carrying out of the questioning and assault.

MR MALAN: But he did know of everything, so as you say at least he's an accomplice, but I'm not sure that he wasn't a co-perpetrator in this, even though he happened to find himself under orders.

ADV SANDI: He associated himself clearly with the abduction.

MR ROSSOUW: That is so, Mr Chairman, that would make him an accomplice, not a co-perpetrator. If the Committee is of the opinion that he should be a co-perpetrator, Mr Chairman, because my definition of a co-perpetrator should be somebody who actively partakes. The old textbook example, Mr Chairman, of 20 people in the Orient Express who puts the knife inside the body, that's co-perpetrators. Accomplice would be somebody who knew about what was going to happen, but didn't put the knife inside the body. Mr Chairman, I've got no hesitation to ask for amnesty in respect of a co-perpetrator if that's your feeling and if you come to decide, but I would submit that the evidence is really not, according to my definition, not really in that respect covers it, not a co-perpetrator here.

Mr Chairman, then the last incident, the burning of the house at Oshoek, or close to the Oshoek border post. The offences, Mr Chairman, I know this happened outside the border ... (intervention)

ADV SANDI: I understood the last witness on this particular incident to say even the decision to carry out this act took place outside the borders of the country.

MR ROSSOUW: Indeed, there was no conspiracy which would be an offence inside the Republic, for which he can apply, this all took place in Swaziland. But Mr Chairman, the Act makes mention of applications for incidents inside and outside. So the specific offences that I would be applying for here, what the legal status of that might be, we'll debate in another forum one day, but I would be applying for - well Mr Chairman rather, the applicant would be applying for arson, malicious damage to property, the conspiracy to kidnap the owner of the house and also the illegal crossing of a border.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so that's what your client is applying for, and you say that you concede that all of the elements of this occurred outside of the borders, but you are submitting that it is an incident, an offence that is susceptible to amnesty in terms of the Act, in spite of the authority of the Supreme Court of Appeal in respect offences which are not extraterritorial, in terms of our law. You say that we should disregard that and we should grant your client amnesty?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I'm not saying you should disregard it, all I'm saying is that the Act calls upon an applicant to apply for incidents inside and outside, which was carried out inside and outside the borders of the Republic. This is in fact what the applicant has done. Whether, Mr Chairman, it will in the end boil down to a comprehensive application which must be seen in the light of full disclosure with reference to his other incidents for which he's applying, Mr Chairman, might be so.

I would submit that what the applicant has done here is, he's applied for this, whether you are in a position to grant him amnesty and whether that amnesty would have any legal affect, Mr Chairman, is something which is immaterial at this stage for his application purposes. And that's as far as my argument goes.

CHAIRPERSON: You say we should take our jurisdiction very seriously and defend it very jealously and leave it for the other authorities to come and frown on us, that we've acted in breach of South African law, or international law. I'm not sure what kind of law this is, but in any event ...

MR ROSSOUW: No, Mr Chairman, I'm not saying that, what I'm saying is this Mr Chairman, that theoretically, should there be an application for extradition of Mr Bosch, with reference to this incident, the Magistrate who will first decide it, or eventually the Minister who will decide on whether he should be extradited, Mr Chairman, will take notice of his application before in this respect. And whether that was done as a full disclosure in respect of the total of his amnesty application, or it was not done with the intent of getting amnesty to refute or to block an application for his extradition, we know it will not have affect on Swaziland should they apply for his extradition. But Mr Chairman, with respect, I know where my problems lie in this incident and what you are entitled to, I'll leave it in your hands. I can take it no further than what has been placed before you.

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't affect the illegal entry issue, that seems to be on its own, separated from the house.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, it would seem to be on its own.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we understand each other.

MR MALAN: Mr Rossouw, will you or Mr Lamey be representing Mr Fourie?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I will be representing Mr Fourie.

MR MALAN: So we will still be hearing Fourie's evidence on this incident?

MR ROSSOUW: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Which will also inform our decision.

MR ROSSOUW: That's correct, Mr Chairman. I don't know if Mr Fourie has arrived yet, Mr Chairman, but ... he seems to have arrived. Can I just ask for a short adjournment, maybe it's convenient to take the tea adjournment now, Mr Chairman. I have not had the opportunity to quickly consulting with him, it won't take longer than half and hour.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we'll take the short adjournment at this stage.




CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw, just in respect of the matters that we were engaged in earlier, have you concluded what you wanted to submit in respect of those matters?

MR ROSSOUW: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Is your argument concluded in respect of the other matters?

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, my argument is concluded there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Coleridge, did you want to make any submissions on those issues before we go to Mr Fourie.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I have no further submissions to add, unless the Committee requires me to address a certain issue.


CHAIRPERSON: No, that's fine. Thank you.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairman, the next amnesty applicant is Mr Eugene Fourie.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: We'll then proceed to hear the matter of Eugene Fourie, AM3767/96. Just for the record, the Panel is constituted as is apparent already from the record. Ms Coleridge is the Leader of Evidence, Mr Rossouw again appears for the applicant and Mr Ngobe is back on behalf of the victims.

EUGENE FOURIE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please be seated.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, for the purpose of the record may I just enquire from my learned colleague whether this application is opposed or not.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know whether you're in a position to state at this stage, Mr Ngobe.

MR NGOBE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My instructions is not to oppose the application per se, or my instructions to listen attentively to the submissions and establish that the whole truth has been revealed, it's only then that the victim can exercise her right to oppose. Thank you, Chairman.


MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, just before we proceed I'd just like to place on record that the implicated persons that have been notified in this incident are Mr de Kock, Solomon Nicholson Ryan Verster Attorneys, and Mr Martin Naude who is with Wagener Muller Attorneys. Thank you, Chairperson.


EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Fourie, you submitted an amnesty application and we will first deal with the Thami Zulu incident. The formal section appears on page 1 and later in the bundle as well. Can you just tell the Committee if this is your own handwriting, did you compile it yourself?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Do you confirm the contents thereof, this is from page 1 up until page 3?

MR FOURIE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Then there's an Annexure A on page on page 4 which is hand-written, is that also your handwriting?


MR ROSSOUW: And this gives the background and motivation for your involvement. Do you confirm the contents thereof and do you also request that it must be read into your evidence and your testimony as a whole?

MR FOURIE: That is correct, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: And on page 9 and 10 there is a typed version of it.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: The specific incidents for which you are applying for now are mentioned on page 10, paragraph 4 and 5, and is it correct that from page 11 there is also a supplementary application that was made on your behalf, as well as an annexure from page 16 onwards? Do you confirm the contents of page 11 to page 15?

MR FOURIE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: If we can then go to page 16, the general background, up until page 22, at the top of the page - sorry, page 21 at the bottom of the page, is this just a repetition of what you already attached to your application?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Then Mr Fourie, this specific incident from page 22 onwards, can you just tell the Committee, during the operation where were you working and what was your rank?

MR FOURIE: Mr Chairperson, I was working at Unit C2, which is basically a subdivision of C1. Our overhead Commander was Brigadier Schoon, he was the group head of Group C and Eugene de Kock was the Commander of C1, and Col Martin Naude was the Commander of C2. Our work at C2 was the identification of terrorists as well as research on MK and APLA members.

At that stage, I cannot specifically recall this, but I assume that I was working at Piet Retief during an interrogation of arrested terrorists when I was approached by Col de Kock to accompany them to Swaziland ...(intervention)

MR ROSSOUW: Just before we continue, the co-operation between yourself, a member of C2 to then join the operational team, C1, did this happen before at other opportunities? Have you worked with them before?

MR FOURIE: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I was also a member of C1 before.

MR ROSSOUW: And the command structure, how would this work when you join C1 while you are a member of C2?

MR FOURIE: I would fall under the command of Eugene de Kock.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you discuss this with your Commander, Naude?

MR FOURIE: Sometimes I would - Col de Kock on short notice would approach me to accompany them and if I could not get hold of Naude, I would at a later stage inform him about it.

MR ROSSOUW: And was there ever an indication from his side that you were not allowed to act in that way?

MR FOURIE: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: So in all the cases where you could not get hold of him he confirmed it afterwards?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Now in this specific incident when you were working in the Eastern Transvaal, you said you could not recall if it was in Ermelo or in Piet Retief, you were approached by Eugene de Kock to accompany them, did you in this case contact Naude and clear this up with him first?

MR FOURIE: I cannot recall if I notified him before, but I know that afterwards I told him what happened at the house of Thami Zulu.

MR ROSSOUW: Do you know if there were any standing orders concerning co-operation between different units within the Security Branch?

MR FOURIE: Within the Security Branch everybody assisted each other, for example, C1 and C2 who operated for a long time, would work with different sections like the Eastern Transvaal or the branches in Piet Retief.

MR ROSSOUW: I would like to continue with this aspect and I'd like you to show the Committee to what extent, let us say the pure function of C2's terrorist identification function, overlapped with C1, which was the operational unit.

MR FOURIE: Well basically both units dealt with the terrorists.

MR ROSSOUW: And for this specific operation if you now - when you went to Swaziland, let us look at it from the viewpoint of C2, what direct advantage would you then gain as a member of C2?

MR FOURIE: For me as a member it was important to visit Thami Zulu's house because we as a unit had a photograph system of exiles of approximately 7 000 people, in which identified exiles, where the received training and what their movements were abroad. So it was also important to get photographs of the Transvaal Machinery and maybe find these photographs in Thami Zulu's house in Swaziland. I see I forgot to write in my application that we also knew who Thami Zulu was. We had a file on Thami Zulu, we had a photograph of Thami Zulu, but we never knew what his true identity was. At that stage we did not know that his real name was Ngwenya from Soweto, and I tried to get hold of the true details of him in his house.

MR ROSSOUW: We'll get to the later objective, but if you'll on page 23, paragraph 3, you will notice that he was a Commander of the Natal Machinery. Can you just in short tell the Committee what this structure was.

MR FOURIE: The Natal Machinery was a section of MK, the military wing of the ANC in Swaziland and they were divided up in Special Operations, Natal Machinery, Transvaal Machinery and they also had - the Natal Machinery was subdivided under Natal Rural Machinery and then Natal Urban Machinery and Thami Zulu was the Commander of the Natal Machinery, as a whole.

MR ROSSOUW: Was this the operational description of the structure through which MK members infiltrated the different areas in South Africa?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Also pertaining to acts of terror?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: You also say in paragraph 4 on page 23, that the Security Police knew about his house in Mbabane.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Was this information that you received or collected from C2, in the files which you referred to?

MR FOURIE: This was information from C2 that we got from arrested terrorists as well as informers who were handled by the Eastern Transvaal branch.

MR ROSSOUW: You then also say on page 23, because of the security risk and because of his role as leader, you attempted to kill him at his house. Now I would like you to tell the Committee what the orders were that Mr de Kock conveyed to you, what was the purpose of going to his house.

MR FOURIE: The action would be that first of all, that we get hold of Thami Zulu personally and then to kill him in Swaziland, because he was a prominent MK figure and he followed Chris Hani in that regard. The plans were to succeed Chris Hani as the next person. He was also very well known and popular under the MK members. The first thing we would do is to kill him when we entered the house and we would then search the house for weapons and other documentation.

MR ROSSOUW: Those instructions from Mr de Kock, was this done within the South African borders?

MR FOURIE: I assume it was done at Piet Retief.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well. Then on page 24, paragraph 7 you now started describing the operation, can you in your own words tell the Committee what the execution of the operation entailed and who accompanied you, which members.

MR FOURIE: Well early the morning we entered Swaziland legally through the Oshoek border post and that morning we went to his house and did some reconnaissance to establish if he was still living there and to see what movements there were.

We returned for the second time because it was very quiet the first time. It was still in the day. I think it would be around lunch time. We returned to the house and we saw that there were no other vehicles, there was not a lot of movement, it looked safe to penetrate the house. We stopped with two vehicles.

I knew Col de Kock was there and I think Lappies Labuschagne was there as well. The other members of C1, I cannot recall them by name, because we entered Swaziland at so many opportunities doing reconnaissance that I cannot really exactly recall who was involved in which incident.

We then entered the house through the back door, through the kitchen. We then found two young children and an aged lady ... (intervention)

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Fourie, you yourself entered the house?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Were you armed?

MR FOURIE: I had a 9mm pistol with a silencer.

MR ROSSOUW: And the other persons you mentioned, were they also armed?

MR FOURIE: Not all of them but most of them were armed with various weapons, Uzzis. I think Col de Kock had an Uzzi, but we all had weapons with silencers on.

MR ROSSOUW: You now entered the house, you now found two children and the elderly lady.

MR FOURIE: I later heard that she was the caretaker or the nanny. I think we were approximately six people because we came in two vehicles. Then one or two of the policemen remained behind in the house and Eugene told us to go through the house to see if we could find Thami in the house.

We then went to different rooms in the house. I accompanied Eugene de Kock and another member where we went to the bedroom of Thami Zulu, where we found his wife. Eugene and I think it was Lappies Labuschagne, I'm not quite sure, took her. Eugene said that she must be locked up in the bathroom so she cannot yell and see what we are doing. We then tied her feet and arms. We then covered her mouth. I do not know if we took a pillowslip to put it in her, stuffed it in her mouth so that she cannot shout. Eugene then told us to search the whole house to find what we can.

I know that the elderly lady and the two children were placed in a bedroom and the door was closed. Because in the kitchen on the floor I think there was a, on the one side of the room there was a section where there were a lot of photo albums and documents in the kitchen. We were very interested in that, but we also searched all the cupboards, under the beds, under the mattresses to also look for weapons, limpet mines or any documents that we could find, possibly DLB sketches. We just searched through the whole house to see what we can find.

MR ROSSOUW: You now mentioned that Thami Zulu was not in the house. The people who you found in the house, were they assaulted?

MR FOURIE: No, they were not assaulted. Thami Zulu's wife could have been injured when she was placed in the bath, but nobody was assaulted or killed or injured.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you personally tie the lady?

MR FOURIE: No, it was Col de Kock and I think it was Lappies. Eugene then, while we were in the bedroom of Thami Zulu, he then asked me to start searching the cupboards to see what I can find there.

MR ROSSOUW: After you found the photo albums and documentation, where did you go?

MR FOURIE: We loaded everything in the boot of the cars and we returned to the Piet Retief Security Branch in South Africa.

MR ROSSOUW: In your statement on page 25, paragraph 13 onwards you stated that it came to your attention at a later stage what happened to Thami Zulu, can you just tell the Committee what you heard and how you heard about it.

MR FOURIE: Thami Zulu, after we searched his house he moved to another house in Mbabane and through informers we found out that he went back to Lusaka, because he disappeared from Swaziland, we could not find him again. And after other terrorists were arrested in South Africa, they told us and also informers revealed the information that Thami Zulu, because they said he was searched so often in Swaziland and where people were killed and he got away, they then thought that he was a South African spy. They then took him to Lusaka where he was interrogated by the Security department and then poisoned. In the same way in which the previous Transvaal Machinery Commander Ralph Petersen was poisoned. He was also suspected of being an RSA agent, he was also taken to Lusaka where he was interrogated by the Security department and then poisoned. Those who saw him being arrested and who worked at the department, their skin became green, I do not know what poison they used, but somebody said that they were green because of the poison. I do not know how they were killed.

MR MALAN: Do you know if he provided you or any other section of the Security Police with information?

MR FOURIE: No, Mr Chairperson, he was one of our biggest enemies. He was very popular amongst the footsoldiers, the rank and file of MK, and because he was not a Xhosa, he was seen as a threat by the hierarchy and he could have gone further if it wasn't for that.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Fourie, I maybe did not put the second part of my question clearly, but this disclosure of what happened to him, who told you this?

MR FOURIE: This came from arrested terrorists in South Africa, it was also reported by informers from the various sections of the Security Police.

MR ROSSOUW: And this documentation that you found at his house and took, could you do anything with it at C2?

MR FOURIE: Yes, we did make use of it and we found a lot of photographs of people who we did not have photographs of, exiles and trained people, and we also got information on names, notes on people who infiltrated South Africa, who were not sure about, but we did receive a lot of information from his documentation and his photographs did assist us a lot.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Rossouw, can I just ask Mr Fourie, this information which you obtained in the form of documents and things like that, were you able to arrest people inside the country as a result of the information obtained?

MR FOURIE: Not directly on that specific day or in that specific week, but at a later stage we could identify exiles and trained members in the country because of the photographs that we got on that day, and at a later stage we could make use of it.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well. Mr Fourie, during this operation you were with Mr de Kock and he was in command of the group.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you receive any remuneration apart from your normal salary, for your participation in this operation?

MR FOURIE: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you take part in this because of a feeling of personal malice or vengeance against Thami Zulu or any of the members of his family?

MR FOURIE: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Then on page 27 in the bundle, under the political objective that you describe there, do you confirm the contents thereof on page 27, 28, at the top of page 29?

MR FOURIE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: You have already testified concerning the command structure and your Commander, do you also confirm the paragraph 11(b) on page 29?


MR MALAN: Can you just tell us before you conclude your evidence, when you took the documentation and photographs, what did you to with the lady and the children who were locked up? What did you do with Thami Zulu's wife who was left in the bathroom?

MR FOURIE: Mr Chairperson, we left her in the bathroom with the door closed and we also left the elderly lady and the two children in the bedroom with the closed door. We did not want them to leave before we left, because we were scared that they make alarm and we could then be followed by the Swaziland Police or other MK members who lived close-by.

MR MALAN: If you say you closed the door, did you lock the door?

MR FOURIE: Mr Chairperson, I cannot recall if we locked the door with a key but we did close the door, or pulled it closed.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Fourie, on that aspect you have said now that you took the documentation and returned to Piet Retief, did you cross the border legally or illegally on your return?

MR FOURIE: I cannot recall if we went through the border post legally. I think we did cross legally, but I'm not quite sure.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I don't know if this would be more convenient if we proceed with this application, cross-examination by Mr Ngobe before we go onto the other incident for which the applicant is also applying.

CHAIRPERSON: I think why don't you just proceed and lead your client on that and we'll deal with cross-examination in one sitting.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'll do that.

Mr Fourie, then the second incident for which you apply is the arson at the house approximately seven kilometres from the Oshoek border post, and you can find that on page 30 and further on in the bundle.

Mr Fourie can you just once again tell the Committee, at that stage where were you working?

MR FOURIE: I was once again working at C2 and I was stationed at Piet Retief and I was approached by Eugene de Kock to accompany them to Swaziland, first of all to Manzini, where we broke into the Effesis House and that same evening we also searched this house and this house was also burnt down.

MR ROSSOUW: This will then be a case where the function of C2 overlapped with that of C1, because you would be interested in the documentation that was found at Effesis House.

MR FOURIE: That's correct. I have already testified about Effesis House incident.

MR ROSSOUW: And the application showed there computer disks were stolen by the members who searched or entered that house.

MR FOURIE: That's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Fourie, after the Effesis House break-in, on the way back to the South African border, in which vehicle were you driving and what happened there?

MR FOURIE: I think I was with Col de Kock and Lappies in one vehicle ...(intervention)

MR ROSSOUW: Is this now Mr Labuschagne of the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch?

MR FOURIE: That is correct. ... and he told us just, before we broke into the Effesis House, he mentioned to Col de Kock that while we are in Swaziland and we are not going to return back through the border post and we are going to cut the border fence, he knows about a person who assisted the ANC, who is on the route, on the way back to South Africa and if there was time and we finished the Effesis House, we must go and search that house as well and possibly we will find weapons or MK members, because this was used as a safehouse of the ANC.

MR MALAN: Where were you when this discussion took place?

MR FOURIE: We were in Swaziland, in Manzini.

MR MALAN: This was before you searched the Effesis House?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: How you know you were not between Piet Retief and the border post?

MR FOURIE: No, I know specifically it was in Manzini. We were in a restaurant, in a Portuguese restaurant in Manzini, where we discussed the Effesis House incident and where Lappies told De Kock about the possibility to go and search that house as well.

MR MALAN: Can you recall who ate there?

MR FOURIE: No, we did not eat, we only drank.

MR MALAN: I'm asking this question because these things you do recall very well and the other things you do not recall. Anyway, you can continue Mr Rossouw.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Chairperson. Mr Fourie, on your way to the border, back, after you had broken into Effesis House, you said that you were in the vehicle with Mr Labuschagne and Mr de Kock, a further discussion took place, or the road was indicated, who indicated the road? Did you know where the house was?

MR FOURIE: Mr Labuschagne identified the house to us. He handled informers in Swaziland and his area of work was also Swaziland, he knew Swaziland tremendously well. He also suggested that he wanted to visit the house while we were on our way out, and that there was still time to do so and that we should go and see what was happening there and that we might possibly find something. Lappies showed us the road and we went to the house upon his instructions.

MR ROSSOUW: And once you arrived at the house, what happened?

MR FOURIE: When we arrived at the house, I think we were in three vehicles, we arrived there and Lappies told us to park our vehicles in such a format that the lights would shine onto the house, because there wasn't any electricity there. Mr de Kock told me to guard the vehicle because we didn't know who was there or how many people were inside or what it looked like inside. We were not aware of the circumstances there at all. We had not reconnoitred the house previously, so to us it was a strange place and I didn't know how well Lappies knew the house.

The other members ran toward the house. We didn't stop very far away from the house, and then Mr de Kock said that he had an AK, someone shouted: "He's got an AK" and I think it was Mr de Kock who shouted that, and then Col de Kock jumped in through the window of the house, but it was dark and I heard shots being fired inside the house.

The reason why I also say that shots were fired inside the house is because Mr de Kock sent one of the members to me. I cannot recall who it was, but he was sent to me to fetch my spare magazine for my pistol, because he needed extra bullets. He said that his bullets were all fired up and then he required extra bullets and he sent someone to fetch my spare magazine, because I was guarding the cars and they took the spare magazine to him. But I definitely heard shots being fired inside the house, because at one point I walked in the direction of the house and back, to see whether they were being overwhelmed or to see if there was any problem.

MR MALAN: Didn't you testify regarding the other case, that you had a 9mm and that Mr de Kock had an Uzzi? Did you have the same weapons?

MR FOURIE: Chairperson, is this regarding Thami Zulu's house?

MR MALAN: Yes. Which weapons did you use in this case?

MR FOURIE: There were pistols and Uzzis as well. It wasn't on the same night.

MR MALAN: Yes, I know. You said that De Kock sent the person to you to fetch your magazine because his ammunition was finished.


MR MALAN: But did you have the same type of weapon?


MR MALAN: Both of you? Did he have his Uzzi?

MR FOURIE: He may have had his Uzzi, but the bullets fit on both weapons because both are 9mm Parabellums.

MR MALAN: And did both have silencers?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Who did De Kock shoot?

MR FOURIE: He fired into the house. He was inside the house, I couldn't see what was going on inside the house because it was too dark, but I know that he fired shots, because otherwise he wouldn't have requested more bullets. And I heard shots being fired in the house and he was the only one who I saw running into the house, the other members ran around outside the house and someone shouted: "There they go, there they go", and it was in the opposite direction to the place where the noise were coming from. But shots were fired in the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Bosch says that no-one was inside the house.

MR FOURIE: Chairperson, I just heard them shouting: "He's got an AK" and that's when Col de Kock jumped in through the window of the room and then someone else shouted: "There they go", towards the other side of the house. In the opposite direction someone shouted: "There they go, there they go" and Mr de Kock shouted that there was someone in the room and that we had to be careful.

CHAIRPERSON: So your impression is that there were people who were armed inside the house and that a shooting ensued?

MR FOURIE: I suspect that Gene fired at him or that he fired at Gene, that is why we weren't certain of how many people there were. He simply shouted: "He's got an AK".

CHAIRPERSON: Was this before De Kock jumped through the window?

MR FOURIE: As he jumped through the window, he shouted: "Be careful, he has an AK".

CHAIRPERSON: Was it De Kock who shouted that?

MR FOURIE: Yes, it was De Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, proceed.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, before you continue.

The shots that you heard, did they come from one firearm or more than one firearm?

MR FOURIE: It sounded like the same calibre to me, it sounded like our weapons, it didn't sound like an AK.

MR MALAN: And were the weapons fitted with silencers?


MR MALAN: So these were shots which were fired with a silencer, that you heard?


MR MALAN: Did you ever hear a full-blown shot without a silencer?


MR MALAN: So you only heard the shots fired by your own people?


MR MALAN: And if the others were firing, then they must have also had silencers.

MR MALAN: Yes, but I didn't hear any loud shots.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well. Mr Fourie, we know that the house was then set alight, can you tell the Committee how this was done, do you know?

MR FOURIE: Chairperson, I don't know at all, my only suspicion is that - I didn't hear someone say expressly that the house had to be set alight, or that they were going to set the house alight. I suspect that they tried to achieve some kind of light inside the house by means of a candle or matches and that as a result of this, the house may have burst into flames. But this purely speculation.

MR MALAN: But then why wouldn't they have burnt the house intentionally?

MR FOURIE: It wasn't discussed before me, I don't know.

MR MALAN: But isn't it more probable to burn the house intentionally than to burn it due to an accident with matches and a candle?

MR FOURIE: It may have been done intentionally, but I'd be speculating if I were to give a reason why the house was burnt down and who burnt it down and the way it was burnt down. It was never discussed prior to the incident.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman, maybe I can just clear this up.

Mr Fourie, was it your impression that the house was set alight, or that it caught fire by accident?

MR FOURIE: My impression is that the house was set alight.

MR ROSSOUW: I just asked you about the manner in which it was done, whether or not you could shed any light on this. Was any petrol taken with, with the intention of setting the house on fire?


MR ROSSOUW: Therefore you are simply speculating regarding the method by which was set alight?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Then Mr Fourie, do you know whether any persons were killed or injured?

MR FOURIE: No, I don't know. At no later point did I receive any report of any person who was killed or injured during the incident.

MR ROSSOUW: And did you draw any financial or other benefit from your involvement in this case or arson?

MR FOURIE: No, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And on page 33 and furthermore in the bundle, you summarise your political objective, do you confirm this?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Also on page 34?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, that's the evidence-in-chief.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Rossouw. Mr Ngobe, questions?


Mr Fourie, can you just tell the Commission how did you get to Swaziland.

MR FOURIE: We travelled by means of vehicles.

MR NGOBE: Did you have a passport to get in?

MR FOURIE: An illegal or false passport. We went through the Oshoek border post.

MR NGOBE: The place where the first incident took place, where you said there was an old woman and two children, were you alone when those people who were there were tied up?

MR FOURIE: The elderly lady and the children were not tied up, they were put in a room and the door was closed, but they weren't tied up. Only the woman who was Thami Zulu's wife, as I later heard, was tied up.

MR NGOBE: Do you remember the other members who were with you in that house?

MR FOURIE: I know that Col Eugene de Kock was there and I would have to speculate regarding the other members, because I cannot say with certainty.

MR NGOBE: Can you remember the specific incidents which, or what they did specifically, separately from you?

MR FOURIE: The two members bound the wife of Thami Zulu and put her in the bath and then pulled the door of the bathroom closed and then other members also searched the house. Other members also helped me to search through the built-in cupboard in the bedroom. We felt through his jacket pockets for notes and we also checked to see whether or not there were any firearms or ammunition in the house.

MR NGOBE: You testified that you had a photo album of all the people that you were looking for, were those people that you found there one of the people in your photo album?

MR FOURIE: We found a photo album of him and his wife and children and his family and other adult men. There were also some loose photos of scenes at parties with adult persons. We took everything with, back to South Africa.

MR NGOBE: Could you regard an old woman and two children as a political threat in your view by that time?

MR FOURIE: An elderly lady and two children?


MR FOURIE: No, I did not regard them as a threat and that is also why we didn't do anything to them, we simply tried to put them in a safe place.

MR NGOBE: How many houses did you visit on that particular day?

MR FOURIE: On that specific day?


MR FOURIE: As far as I can recall, on that day it was only that house.

MR NGOBE: Will you prefer to extend a hand of gesture to say I'm sorry to the people that you attacked on that day?


MR NGOBE: Will you be prepared to do it soon after this hearing?

MR FOURIE: Now, here?


MR FOURIE: Yes, certainly.

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


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Ngobe. Ms Coleridge.



CHAIRPERSON: Are you able to resolve the query of your client?

MR NGOBE: Chairman, I think the Evidence Leader will take over from here.

CHAIRPERSON: Will she take - okay, very well, thank you. Ms Coleridge, would you do your best to cover whatever else?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Yes, thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Fourie, let me just get this straight now, Ms Mgade's saying that there was only the daughter and the older woman in the house and there was not two children in the house as you testified, can you comment about that?

MR FOURIE: She may be correct, Chairperson, but according to my recollection there were two small children and an elderly woman. That is my recollection.

MS COLERIDGE: And that her daughter was also tied up and put into the bathroom, what is your comment about that?

MR FOURIE: In as far as I know, only Thami's wife was put in the bathroom and the elderly lady with the two children were put into the bedroom and the door was shut.

MS COLERIDGE: Because Ms Mgade's saying that the child was placed into the bathroom.

MR FOURIE: I don't know about that, unless it took place later on after I'd left the bedroom, but while I was there, the elderly lady said she was looking after the children and we put her with the two children in the bedroom and we only put Thami Zulu's wife in the bathroom. Unless something else took place later on behind my back, after I left the room, but I don't know about it.

CHAIRPERSON: But is it possible that the child was also bound and put in the bathroom and that you may not be aware of it?

MR FOURIE: It is possible that it could have taken place after I left the room.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, continue.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, just for the record, just to get the names of the persons that were in the house. It was Ms Eunice Themba, she was the older woman, she was the housekeeper at the time, Chairperson. And Lindiwe Ngwenya.

Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Are those the only people that were in the house?

MS COLERIDGE: And then Ms Mgade.

CHAIRPERSON: So there were three people?

MS COLERIDGE: Correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The child, or the daughter, is the daughter Lindiwe?

MS COLERIDGE: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what was her age at that time?

MS COLERIDGE: 10 months, Chairperson.


MR MALAN: I think it was put to the applicant that her daughter was also bound and put into the bathroom, is this the 10 month old child?

MS COLERIDGE: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge, is there anything else?

MS COLERIDGE: No, Chairperson, I've no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Panel, any questions.

ADV SANDI: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Rossouw?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you. Mr Chairman, just to clear up one aspect with regard to the passport.

Mr Fourie, you testified that you crossed the border legally and during cross-examination you stated that you used a false passport, could you just clarify that for the Committee.

MR FOURIE: By that I mean that we drove legally through a border post, but we also made use of false passports with false names. But we did cross the border by means of a border post and border control, we did not go over the fence, as such. That is what I would like to clarify.

MR MALAN: But clearly, you did not cross the border legally, at the border post.

MR FOURIE: That is correct, I meant that we went through a border post.

CHAIRPERSON: So you crossed illegally at a legal point?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you Mr Fourie, you are excused. ...(intervention)

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I'm sorry to do this but just to get the facts straight of what happened in the house, Chairperson. Ms Mgade's stating that she was never locked up in the bathroom, she actually ran out of the house and the child and the older woman was locked up in the bathroom. So it seems that Mr Fourie is getting the incident a bit confused with probably another incident, or just memory.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm just reminded - Mr Ngobe, are you going to lead any evidence, do you want to present all of this in the form of testimony or?

MR NGOBE: No, that's our case, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You're not going to present Ms Mgade's evidence about it?

MR NGOBE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Well just give me that information again, I'm going to put it to the applicant. It's that Mrs Mgade ran out of the house.

MS COLERIDGE: That is correct, Chairperson, the back of the house. And her housekeeper and the child was locked up in the bathroom and tied.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MS COLERIDGE: Yes Chairperson, and the daughter.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Fourie, just for the sake of thoroughness, I would like to put to you what the allegation is, the recollection of the occupants of the house. It is that Mr Mgade, and I accept that this is the spouse, in this incident, ran away from the house and that the housekeeper, Mrs Themba, and the daughter, Lindiwe, were bound and locked in the bathroom. What is your commentary regarding that?

MR FOURIE: Chairperson, I don't know about that. As I have said, it could have occurred after I left the room and went to search for documentation, but my evidence is my recollection.

CHAIRPERSON: You said that De Kock bound those who were bound.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you yourself were not involved with that?

MR FOURIE: No, he told me to search the cupboards in the meantime to see what I could find there.

CHAIRPERSON: That is my recollection of what you said. Basically you were more involved in searching the house?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct, I was searching for documentation and photographs, which was my primary function ultimately.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that was your focus area as a member of C2?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And De Kock and the others were the operatives who did more physical work?

MR FOURIE: Yes, they were operational, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is possible that it may have happened at some or other point, that the spouse ran away and that the others were locked in the bathroom?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Not that it makes much difference to you what happened, but we must try to get as thorough a picture as possible.

MR FOURIE: That is correct, I was focusing more on the documentation and the photographs, but it is possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Then you are excused.

MR FOURIE: Thank you, Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Rossouw.

MR ROSSOUW ADDRESSES: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I promise I'll be brief.

As far as this incident is concerned, let me first of all say that I'm not going to deal with the formal requirements of the Act, I submit that it is common cause - or rather, that you can accept that there has been compliance and as well as the qualification under Section 22(b) or (f).

Mr Chairman, the one aspect that I would like to address you on is the aspect of the chain of command, should you have a problem with that.

CHAIRPERSON: I just wanted to give you an indication, you don't need to address us on the chain of command.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Before I proceed, the applicant has requested if he can have an indication before he leaves to go back to the audit in Johannesburg, if he can meet, or where Mrs Mgade would like to meet him.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to ask Ms Coleridge to facilitate that. You have indicated to us that you won't be extensive in your address, and if you really want to be, I'm going to ask you to do written Heads of Argument, but if you're going to stick to what you've said, then I'll allow you to proceed.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you. Then I won't be longer than five minutes, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, if I need not address you on the chain of command, for which I thank you, then I submit that there's been a full disclosure. There is no contradictory evidence before you as far as the operation is concerned, Mr Chairman, and I think, rightly, the applicant has conceded the possibilities of something which could have happened, done by other operatives where he would not necessarily have been involved. That's always a possibility. I'm not going to even deal with the probabilities of Mr de Kock allowing anything like that, I think that would be purely speculative.

Mr Chairman, then as far as the offences for which the applicant can apply in this instance, I submit that there's clearly a conspiracy to commit murder. You've heard that the decision was taken at Piet Retief. Also the conspiracy, I would submit, to commit theft of the documents. And then lastly, Mr Chairman, I would submit the illegal, or rather the use of a false passport to cross a border.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know what that all entails, but we have the drift of what happened, they forged some documents and presented them as if they were genuine passports. It might be fraud and forgery and all sorts of things.

MR ROSSOUW: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: But we've got the drift of your submission.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, Mr Chairman, the use of a false passport might be forgery, yes. Although, Mr Chairman, I don't think it will be forgery, it might be fraud, but not forgery. It was a genuine passport that these people produced at Vlakplaas. At other hearings that evidence was placed before the Amnesty Committee. They actually built up a history for the person with his photograph, but a different name.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought that they produced it themselves, not the Department of the Interior.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, they created it, but it wasn't a forged document which was an existing document which was altered.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm under the impression this is entirely a false thing, this thing was produced.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, that's why it's fraud, Mr Chairman, it represents something which is different from the truth, but it was forged in the sense that it was a stolen passport or so, which they then inserted a different name or a different photograph.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well I'm not going to debate that, I think I understand what the facts were. It might very well be forgery, it might very well be fraud when they presented it to the control authorities as if it was a genuine passport, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. But it doesn't seem to be the thrust of this case at all, so.

MR MALAN: I don't think that's the issue, the issue is the illegal crossing.

MR ROSSOUW: That's correct, Mr Chairman, illegal crossing at a legal point at the border.

Mr Chairman, once again I don't think theft can be applied for, or attempted murder. There was in fact - you know Mr Chairman, this was outside the borders of South Africa, so I don't think he will qualify for that. Then, Mr Chairman, turning to the other incident, I find myself in the same position as with Mr Bosch, now you've got more information, you know that the decision was taken in Manzini, so there can be no conspiracy offence committed inside the borders of South Africa. And for the same reason, Mr Chairman, as what I've submitted in Mr Bosch's application, I stand by that. If you feel that the only thing which you can grant amnesty for here, should you so consider it, would be for the illegal crossing of a border, because they did not use the border post, they just went through the fence here, coming back, Mr Chairman, then I will abide by that.

Those are my submissions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Rossouw. Mr Ngobe, have you got anything?

MR NGOBE IN ADDRESSES: Thank you, Mr Chairman, it is not much.

I'd like to request the Commission to exercise its powers vested in it in terms of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, Section 20, to grant or deny an application, whether it's based on the fact that he has fully disclosed or not. So I'll request the Commission to exercise its powers in terms of this Act. Thank you, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no submissions to add.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Coleridge. Have you got anything else you wanted to add, Mr Rossouw?

MR ROSSOUW: Maybe I can just express thanks on behalf of the last applicant for the Committee's willingness to accommodate him, him not being here yesterday. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. That concludes the public formalities in regard to this application. The Panel will now have to retire and consider the matter, and to prepare a decision in the matter we would need some time to do that. We will endeavour to produce a decision as soon as we can, given the rest of the demands that are placed upon the Committee, but even so, we always endeavour to do this as soon as circumstances permit us to, and this will be no exception. Once the decision is available, we will notify all of those parties with an interest in the matter, as to the decision to which the Panel has come on this application.

We take the opportunity to thank the legal representatives for their assistance, Mr Rossouw, Mr Ngobe and in anticipation, Ms Coleridge. We've still got some work to do here. We have noted the possibility of a face to face discussion between your client, Mr Rossouw, and your client, Mr Ngobe, and we wish that to come to a positive conclusion.

But thank you very much and you can be excused if you so wish, and Mr Ngobe as well.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR NGOBE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, that concludes the matters set down for today. We'll adjourn until tomorrow morning and we'll do the application of Mr J E Moerdyk, and that's the abduction of MK members in kwaNdebele. He'll be represented by Mr Jan Frederich.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Coleridge. Hopefully everything would be lined up for 9 o'clock tomorrow morning?

MS COLERIDGE: That is correct, Chairperson, I've informed the applicant as well as the legal representative that we're commencing at 9 o'clock tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Well that concludes the roll for today, we will then adjourn the proceedings and we'll reconvene here tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson. All rise.