CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, when we adjourned yesterday, Mr Visser was still questioning Mr Zeelie. Mr Visser.
CHARLES A ZEELIE: (s.u.o.)
JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Visser, before you start, I believe the evidence was replayed and it was ascertained that in fact Mr Zeelie mentioned both names, Gen Erasmus and Gen du Toit. I wish to apologise, I've been wrong, my note has been wrong, I did not hear it but it's a fact that both names have been mentioned.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson. Yes, I was going to remark on that issue. I personally listened to the tape, Chairperson, the reason why Gen du Toit's name wasn't heard was that Mr Zeelie dropped his voice somewhat at that point, after mentioning the name Erasmus, and I do also apologise to Mr Zeelie for having been incorrect in my assertion that he did not mention Gen du Toit.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Visser, do you want to carry on asking questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (Cont)
Yes, Chairperson, I have but a few questions left.
Mr Zeelie, we spoke yesterday about what you said on page 10, namely that you incorporated Mr van Heerden's evidence - I beg your pardon, it's on page 9, and that you confirm the contents of his statement, can you recall that?
MR ZEELIE: Yes, I can Mr Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Very well. I'd just now like to say to you what Mr van Heerden says on page 37 in the annexure to his application in volume 1, concerning this matter. On page 37, paragraph 12.3.2 - at a later stage he made another statement, but I'm now dealing with the first statement, he there refers to the Vanderbijl Square explosion and then he says
"A few evenings after the second explosion at Vanderbijl, Zeelie came to fetch me at my house"
is that correct?
MR ZEELIE: Yes, I went to go and fetch him at his house, Mr Chairperson, after I was with Mr du Toit and Erasmus at the breweries.
MR VISSER: He then said that you said you had work to do, is that correct?
MR ZEELIE: I believe that is correct, yes.
MR VISSER: He then said that
"We have to go and place a bomb at the Why Not Night-club in Hillbrow"
the next sentence:
"He felt that it was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"
MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, I cannot say that this is the specific words that I expressed.
MR VISSER: Yes, but he said it was your feeling why the Why Not Night-club had to be bombed.
MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, as I have said, I cannot say that I did not say these words, I received an instruction from Gen Erasmus and I went to go and pick Mr van Heerden up to go and execute this operation.
MR VISSER: But Mr Zeelie, if you had such an instruction at that stage, why didn't you say this to Mr van Heerden? "Gen du Toit and Erasmus told me that we have to go and bomb the Why Not Club", why did you not say this to him?
MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, I wouldn't have gone and picked up Mr van Heerden if I did not tell him that I received an instruction. Can I also - you spoke about the incorporation, I go back Mr Chairperson, where Gen du Toit's amnesty application appears in bundle 1 and where he also stated that he incorporated his statement with that of Gen Erasmus, which then means that every single word that Gen Erasmus said is also applicable for him. There are small words that we are playing with.
MR VISSER: Can we look at page 37, paragraph ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed, Mr Visser, dealing with 12.3.2, the first words there, it says
"A few evenings after the second explosion at Vanderbijl"
you went to fetch Van Heerden to go on the Why Not operation, I was under the impression that the explosion at the Why Not bar was the same night as Vanderbijl, not a few evenings after the second explosion. What do you say about that?
MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, that is why in my evidence, or in my statement I referred to the Wimpy Bar, because it was such a long time ago and I couldn't at that stage recall the dates of the explosions, that is now of the Vanderbijlpark Square and I just based it on what was in the documents. Up to today I do not believe that any of the members here can say exactly, or provide you with the exact date by means of documentation about when the Vanderbijl Square explosion took place.
CHAIRPERSON: But as you sit here now today, do you know whether it was the same night as the Vanderbijl explosion, or are you not sure?
MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, I do believe that it was that same evening.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.
In other words, Mr van Heerden is mistaken if he thought it was a few evenings after the Vanderbijlpark incident.
MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, it is a question that Mr Visser can ask Mr van Heerden.
MR VISSER: Well I'm asking you this question.
MR ZEELIE: I cannot answer for Mr van Heerden, but once again, it was a long time ago and at that stage he could have thought that it was a few evenings later.
JUDGE DE JAGER: The question is just, do you think that Mr van Heerden could be mistaken?
MR ZEELIE: As I've said, Mr Chairperson, I believe it was a long time ago and he could have been mistaken, yes.
MR VISSER: Very well. On page 37 of volume 1, paragraph 12.3.4 Mr van Heerden says to the Attorney-General
"With our arrival there Zeelie made the suggestion or discussed the suggestion with Paul, Snor and Douw"
what is your comment on that sentence?
MR ZEELIE: I accept it is correct.
MR VISSER: So it was your suggestion, it was not a suggestion from somebody else?
MR ZEELIE: I do not understand what you mean by saying whose suggestion it was.
MR VISSER: It was Zeelie's suggestion.
MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, I received an instruction and I discussed it with them.
MR VISSER: You see the point I'd like to make is that it does - or if you read Van Heerden's statement to the Attorney-General, one realises that he was under the impression that this was your operation.
MR ZEELIE: Who was under the impression it was my operation?
MR VISSER: Do you have a problem with Afrikaans?
MR ZEELIE: Sir, I'm asking you a question, I do understand Afrikaans.
MR VISSER: It was Van Heerden's impression that it was your suggestion, that it was you who decided to do this.
Is he wrong is that is his impression?
MR ZEELIE: I would just like to go back a little bit, Sir. I do not believe, Mr Chairperson, that he would have thought that I would do such an operation on my own.
MR VISSER: You see in his statement, and I will ask him about this, but in his statement to the Attorney-General on page 37 and the next page, he never mentions an instruction of Gen Erasmus and Du Toit.
MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, yes it may sound like that or seem like that, but whatever the case was with Mr van Heerden, I also do take responsibility for Mr van Heerden in that I gave him the instruction to accompany me.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Just a moment. In the same paragraph, Paul van Dyk said he did not want to become involved without an instruction of De Kock.
MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Van Dyk and Vermeulen were stationed in the Gauteng area, is that correct?
MR ZEELIE: They operated there to an extent but they were from Vlakplaas under the Head Office command.
JUDGE DE JAGER: If they would have received an instruction from Gen Erasmus as General, would they have to execute it or would they be expected to follows these orders?
MR ZEELIE: It's not necessarily that they would follow the instructions, Van Dyk had to do it with his immediate Commander first, but it was not necessary that he would act under the instructions of Erasmus.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you know if he took any steps to clear this up with De Kock?
MR ZEELIE: I do not know if he did it directly with him. JUDGE DE JAGER: But they did accompany you in the end.
MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Just to add to the question of Judge de Jager, the Amnesty Committee or the sub-Committee of the Amnesty Committee at various opportunities heard evidence that was not denied, that if Vlakplaas operated in a certain area they would be directly under the command of the Commander of that area. Do you agree with that?
MR ZEELIE: If it came from Head Office, Mr Chairperson, ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: And also our experience in other hearings is that members of Vlakplaas only got involved on invitation or on request by the local division of the Security Branch, then they would operate and then as Mr Visser says, they would have that sort of hierarchy ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: Ja, fall under the direct control of the Commander Officer of the area.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. That was from time to time flexible, but they did normally only act on request.
MR VISSER: The point that Judge de Jager is putting to you is that if as a Commander of the Witwatersrand - or if Erasmus would be able to give instructions to these people and they had to follow these instructions.
MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, I still say that it was the Commander of the group from Vlakplaas priority to first clear it up with his Commander, except for as the Chairperson said, it was a Head Office instruction and ...
MR VISSER: But the fact of the matter is that Erasmus never gave an instruction that Vlakplaas members had to become involved, is that not so?
MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And he did not even know that you approached them?
MR ZEELIE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: You see Mr van Heerden then made a further statement, a supplementary statement and that he did on the 26th of June, I don't see a year date, on the 26th of June on some year ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what page are you looking at?
MR VISSER: Page 32, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the year doesn't show.
MR VISSER: I'm being told it's 1997, by my learned friend, Mr Rossouw.
... and in that statement on page 30, he says that:
"After the second limpet mine explosion at Vanderbijl bus terminus, Gens Erasmus and Du Toit mentioned to myself and Charles Zeelie that actions had to be taken against the ANC."
That was now the first time that he spoke about Erasmus and Du Toit. He then continues to say that:
"When Charles Zeelie mentioned to me that there was an act of revenge against the ANC, or they were going to launch an act of revenge against the ANC, I believed that that was the purpose of the attack"
and he brought these two incidents together. Will you agree with this in principle?
MR ZEELIE: The way in which I understand it I would then say it falls in with what you asked me before, that I gave an instruction to Mr van Heerden and if you read these two things together, he accepted that it came from Gen Erasmus and Du Toit.
MR VISSER: Just to finalise it or complete it, in all fairness to him, at the bottom of page 30, paragraph 11(b)
"Instructions were received from the Commanders of the Security Branch at John Vorster Square. I was informed about this instruction by Charles Zeelie. I believed that Gens Erasmus and Piet du Toit were involved in this."
Very well, I will ask him about this evidence, but just in all fairness, in his supplementary affidavit he says that you informed him about the instruction, is that correct?
MR ZEELIE: I believe I would have done it.
MR VISSER: Very well. The question about the limpet mine is a bit confusing, you spoke in your first statement about one limpet mine and Mr van Heerden mentions two limpet mines, which is it now? How many limpet mines did you place there?
MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, by coincidence or coincidentally yesterday I took it up with Mr van Heerden and I was under the impression that there was only one limpet mine, but I would accept that there were two limpet mines. The fact that he carried it into the building, I will not deny it or doubt it if he says there were two limpet mines.
MR VISSER: In the light of your evidence now, what do you say then about the Chairperson's questions to you, why did you have to use two limpet mines in order to achieve the goal that you wanted to achieve, instead of using only one? One would have achieved the same goal.
MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, the fact that we used two was to cause more damage to the structure towards the outside.
CHAIRPERSON: But did this not also increase the risk of the loss of life?
MR ZEELIE: Not necessarily, Mr Chairperson, because an explosion works with a detonating direction and that is why I can testify about where a large car bomb exploded and where a person who was 15 metres from the vehicle did not have a scratch on him.
MR VISSER: At the SAB club, did Gen Erasmus tell you: "Look, you have to ensure that there's no serious injuries or deaths"?
MR ZEELIE: It is news.
MR VISSER: I'm asking you if he told you this.
MR ZEELIE: As far as I can recall, I cannot recall that something like this was put to me, because if I look at Gen Erasmus' evidence he said that at that stage at the brewery, according to his evidence, or not at the brewery, at Vanderbijl he told me that I must investigate a place where ANC people gather and I had to report back to him, that is now his evidence, and then at a later stage he would have then told me that there must be no injuries, but he testified earlier on that he was very unhappy and they had to be paid back, because if you want to pay back what was done to you, you do want to injure people.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you try to prevent injuries?
MR ZEELIE: Yes, I tried to prevent injuries as far as possible.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you do it because Erasmus cautioned you or did you do it on your own?
MR ZEELIE: I did it on my own, Mr Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Very well. You say in your statement on page 16, paragraph 7 of bundle 1, that you placed the landmines where nobody was sitting.
MR ZEELIE: At that stage nobody was sitting there because we were there.
MR VISSER: And then on page 38, paragraph 12.3.6, Mr van Heerden says he placed the limpet where there were people sitting.
MR ZEELIE: I can just testify and say, Sir, there where we sat there wouldn't have been people because otherwise they wouldn't have been able to put the detonator in the limpet mine and place the limpet mine under the bench.
MR VISSER: Mr Zeelie, who placed the limpet mines, was it you or Mr van Heerden?
MR ZEELIE: I have said earlier on that there was some confusion surrounding this and that I was the person who placed the limpet mines.
MR VISSER: So he is wrong if he said he was the one who placed it under the bench?
MR ZEELIE: I think, Mr Chairperson, he will testify that he was also a bit confused and that he did make a mistake in his statement.
CHAIRPERSON: Where are you seeing this? I see here
"Zeelie het die ontstekers ingesit en die kleefmyne sommer onder 'n banke waarop mense gesit het, ingedruk."
MR VISSER: You are reading from?
CHAIRPERSON: 12.3.6, the second-last sentence, page 38.
MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
MR VISSER: Yes.
"Zeelie wou eers die ontsteker vir my gee om die bomb te plant, maar ek het geweier."
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, and then it says
"Zeelie het die ontstekers ingesit en die kleefmyne sommer onder 'n bankie waarop mense gesit het, ingedruk."
MR VISSER: Yes, you will notice Chairperson, that that is in contradiction to what he had said before, where he had stated that...
CHAIRPERSON: Just give me that reference.
MR VISSER: Page 28, Chairperson.
"Zeelie, wat 'n plofdeskundige is het my gehelp en nadat ... die ontseker korrek geplaas het, het ek die kleefmyne onder 'n sitplek geplaas."
Page 28, just about 9(b).
MR VISSER: Yes, so there is a ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: It's a contradiction.
MR VISSER: I was going to take that up with Mr van Heerden, I don't want to take it up with this witness, all that I'm asking him now is what does he say.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Sorry.
MR VISSER: So you say that it was you who placed it?
MR ZEELIE: That is correct.
JUDGE DE JAGER: You only had one detonator?
MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Was it customary to fit two mines with one detonator?
MR ZEELIE: As I stated earlier in my evidence, it was two limpet mines placed next to each other, then you would need only one detonator.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, I see. So it wasn't something to be inserted into every detonator?
MR ZEELIE: As the detonator would detonate the one limpet mine, the other limpet mine would be directly detonated as well.
MR VISSER: Mr Zeelie, I just want to conclude and put it to you, because you conceded to this yourself yesterday and today, these events took place quite some time ago and it is possible that you and the others possibly cannot recall the facts as clearly, do you agree with me in principle if I were to state that?
MR ZEELIE: That which I gave evidence about is the facts as I can recall them.
MR VISSER: Would you be prepared to concede that you may be mistaken regarding certain facts?
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, there are certain cases or facts regarding which errors could be made and then there are other cases, such as, for example, the fact that I was called to SA Breweries. I could not have been mistaken about that, I never knew that Gen du Toit or Gen Erasmus had ever previously visited those premises and why then would I be able to make up such a specific office if I knew that they hadn't visited it before? I could not be mistaken in that regard.
And then I would also like to state, Chairperson, that yesterday when we concluded, Mr Visser told me that I have somewhat of a problem, he did not take it further with me this morning, but this was with regard to the point when Gen du Toit came to Van Heerden who was in the vehicle and it was also when Judge de Jager stated that he could not understand how Gen du Toit could have known that Van Heerden had been involved.
I would just like to refer to their affidavits, Chairperson, and then I would add this to my evidence. If we look firstly at Gen Erasmus' evidence, which is Exhibit B - I'm just looking for the particular paragraph, I think it is paragraph 27 where he states:
"Regarding Gen du Toit, I am uncertain whether I informed him prior regarding the discussion with Capt Zeelie, although I would not have attempted to conceal anything from him as my second-in-command. Therefore, it is entirely possible that I may have mentioned to him during the afternoon of 21 September 1988, that I had requested Zeelie to determine whether or not there was a suitable gathering place of ANC persons in order to cause an explosion there."
This is the point where Gen Erasmus states that it is possible that he may have mentioned that I was supposed to cause an explosion ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: No, Sir, ...
MR ZEELIE: Just let me - I just want to clear this up. It is my right to answer the question. Furthermore he states
"If I discussed it with Gen du Toit at a point in time before the explosion, I would not have mentioned the Why Not Club."
Then we proceed to Gen du Toit's statement, that's Exhibit C, paragraph 10, there he states:
"It is my recollection that I knew prior to the incident that there was a request from Gen Erasmus to search for a suitable gathering place for ANC persons in order to cause an explosion there. Although I cannot recall it clearly, I accept that Gen Erasmus would have informed me about it."
Now according to their evidence, Gen Erasmus came with this suggestion when the bomb exploded at Vanderbijl Square, thus in that short period of time, from the afternoon of the explosion to the point of the Why Not incident, there may have been this kind of motivation. That is why I say that it is possible that Gen du Toit told Van Heerden to remain in the vehicle and that is because this indeed took place. As I testified, the order was given by both of them to me in the words of Gen Erasmus, and when Gen du Toit saw Van Heerden seated in my vehicle he realised and knew Van Heerden had been involved with me.
MR VISSER: Are you finished, Mr Zeelie?
MR ZEELIE: Yes I am, thank you, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: I just want to put it to you that you have missed the point entirely, but I won't take it any further. I want to put it to you that you are mistaken regarding this entire meeting aspect which took place at the SAB club, this is something that you told the Attorney-General in order to drag Gens Erasmus and Du Toit into the whole affair at that point and that you find yourself in the situation now where you have to attempt to justify that statement.
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, if in any way I wanted to innocently implicate Gens du Toit and Erasmus I would have mentioned a place such as that where Mr Visser and his attorney placed a question mark in the affidavit, namely SAP. Why would I have mentioned the SAB club if it had nothing to do with the police?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, thank you, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser. Mr Cornelius, do you have any questions that you would like to put to the applicant?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Only four, thank you Mr Chair.
Mr Zeelie, you were indeed a Captain and Mr van Heerden was a Constable, is that correct?
MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And you would expect of him to carry out all your instructions?
MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct Chairperson. As I have stated, he worked below me and if I issued an instruction to him he would have carried it out.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you operate on a need-to-know basis?
MR ZEELIE: Most of the time we operated on a need-to-know basis.
MR CORNELIUS: So you would not have expected him to put a series of questions to you regarding the origin of the instruction?
MR ZEELIE: He wouldn't have asked me.
MR CORNELIUS: Would you agree that Mr van Heerden is not a demolitions expert?
MR ZEELIE: He is not a demolitions expert.
MR CORNELIUS: Is it correct that he refused to insert the detonator because he was too afraid?
MR ZEELIE: That is correct, that is a definite fact.
MR CORNELIUS: And indeed as it appears in his supplementary affidavit which was made in Copenhagen, you were the one who placed the device below the bench?
MR ZEELIE: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Mr van Heerden will state that in the immediate vicinity there were persons, in the immediate vicinity of the place where the bomb was planted.
MR ZEELIE: Yes, it is possible Chairperson, what I meant was that where we were specifically seated on the bench I could not think that people were seated, but if we look at the plan of the place it can be seen that there may have been people in that vicinity when we were there. At that stage it was rather dark.
MR CORNELIUS: Mr Vermeulen, one of the fellow applicants, refused to participate in the operation, is that correct?
MR ZEELIE: That is correct, he didn't want to go in at all, he waited outside with the vehicle.
MR CORNELIUS: Was it also his reasoning that he would have expected an instruction from his Commander, Eugene de Kock?
MR ZEELIE: Yes, I think that that is the reason why ultimately he did not participate any further and go in with us. I've known Mr Vermeulen for a long time and I know him to be a man who will not bend under any unnecessary pressure and this operation would not have been anything for him, and it may be the reason why ultimately he decided not to enter the building with is.
MR CORNELIUS: That is correct, because Mr Vermeulen is also a demolitions expert.
MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct Chairperson, a reasonable number of Vlakplaas staff undertook the demolitions course.
MR CORNELIUS: But according to your knowledge of that evening he disassociated himself with the circumstances, therefore he only knew of the plan to blow up the club.
MR ZEELIE: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Mr Nyawuza, do you have questions you'd like to put to Mr Zeelie?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Yes I have, Mr Chair.
Mr Zeelie, did you do any reconnaissance as regards the Why Not Club?
MR ZEELIE: I beg your pardon, I just need my headphones. Could you please repeat your question and speak up.
MR NYAWUZA: Did you do any reconnaissance regarding the Why Not Club?
MR ZEELIE: Did I do any?
CHAIRPERSON: Reconnaissance, did you go and check it out.
MR ZEELIE: No, we did not do any prior reconnaissance of the club, with the exception of the fact that upon the first occasion we entered the club and had a beer and subsequently we left. I can only state that I knew the owner of the club, he was a white man, so I knew of the club that was there and this emanated from the fact that that person had previously had drinks at Cafe Zurich.
MR NYAWUZA: So were you sure as regards the place being a meeting place ANC members or ANC "ondersteuners", as you state in your affidavit?
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, it emanated from previous investigations, particularly the investigation into the Cafe Zurich incident, that indeed ANC members regularly met in that club. It would be as it was with other persons, if the ANC was receiving instructions they would visit or frequent certain places and there was information indicating that the ANC visited that club.
MR NYAWUZA: Would you agree with me if I put it to you that not any of the people that were injured on that particular day were ANC members?
MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson, it is acceptable and it is also something that we accepted prior to the incident, and even with Gen du Toit's approval of the incident he would not be able to say that no members, with the exception of the ANC members, could be injured.
MR NYAWUZA: Were you aware that a 14 year old girl was injured in this attack?
MR ZEELIE: I do not have personal knowledge of that at present, but a 14 year old child does not belong in a licensed place which sells liquor. The club owner therefore would be responsible of children under the age of 18, who are frequenting such a place.
MR NYAWUZA: So would you agree with me if I say to you your choice of a target was wrong?
MR ZEELIE: I don't believe that the choice of target was wrong, because as I've already stated an attack was launched from that club during which people were injured, it was the Cafe Zurich attack and we had information which indicated that the ANC had indeed visited that club.
MR NYAWUZA: Was the information that you are telling us about followed and confirmed?
MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson, there were affidavit which were deposed by ANC members who visited the club.
MR NYAWUZA: Looking back at the incident, Mr Zeelie, what would you say to the people that were injured?
MR ZEELIE: I was simply carrying out an instruction Chairperson. It is my view to this day that when I received an instruction I carried it out, it was part of my work. It is what I believed in at that stage, we were involved in a situation of warfare, so to speak, and if people were injured, then they were in the crossfire.
I feel that I did my job and that I carried out my instructions as it was expected of me to do. And if I were part of this dispensation and I received the same instruction, I would have carried out the same instructions.
MR NYAWUZA: Mr Zeelie, was this instruction the first that you got from Gen Erasmus and Gen du Toit?
MR ZEELIE: Could you repeat that.
MR NYAWUZA: Was this instruction to attack the Why Not Club, the first that you got from the two Generals, or it was the second or the third or the fourth?
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I cannot recall the precise dates, I cannot recall whether it was the first case of planting a bomb at a place. As I've stated, there were other cases such as Khotso House and I cannot state directly which case came first, but in the Security Branch there were counter-attacks where we acted against organisations, so sometimes it wasn't such a drastic instruction but where we did damage places and property and disrupt organisations.
MR NYAWUZA: Mr Zeelie, would instructions be as casual as the two Generals make us to believe? To attack a particular place, would it be as casual as it was, according to their testimony?
MR ZEELIE: I don't really understand what you mean by your choice of word in "casual". I don't really understand what he means, Chairperson.
MR NYAWUZA: Mr Zeelie, the evidence of the two Generals is that - the evidence of Gen Erasmus is that you met at the bombing of the Vanderbijl Square and it's there that he told you that: "Look, I'm sick and tired of these attacks, something has got to be done" and oops, it was done the same night. Would it be like that or you would have to meet at a particular place and sit down an map out as to: "We are going to attack place A and this is how we are going to attack it"?
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I have already stated, I was called that evening to the SA Breweries and the instruction was given to me that on that very same evening still we had to bomb a place and I carried out the instruction as such.
MR NYAWUZA: In regards to your testimony relating to how you met with the two Generals, was it the same as in the Khotso House?
MR ZEELIE: Do you mean the instructions with regard to Khotso House? Chairperson, Khotso House was not planned extensively before the time in terms of my evidence there which differs from the evidence given by Mr Eugene de Kock, among others, no planning was conducted as in the case of Cosatu House. So this was an order where I was told that it had to be executed on that very same evening and there was no time for prior planning.
MR NYAWUZA: So you'd agree with me that even in the Why Not Club attack there was no proper planning?
MR ZEELIE: There was no prior planning, Chairperson.
MR NYAWUZA: No further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NYAWUZA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nyawuza. Ms Coleridge, do you have any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Yes, thank you Chairperson.
You referred to your radio contact, I just want to clarify as to who contacted you, was it Gen Erasmus or someone from the office, from your Head Office?
MR ZEELIE: Do you mean when I was contacted and told where to go?
MS COLERIDGE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Is the contact after the explosion?
MS COLERIDGE: After the explosion, Chairperson, he was supposed to go to the Breweries.
CHAIRPERSON: After the explosion, who contacted you on the radio?
MR ROSSOUW: Sorry Mr Chairman, I think there's some confusion. After which explosion?
CHAIRPERSON: After the Why Not bomb explosion he was told he got a radio call to go to the Breweries. Which one do you want?
MS COLERIDGE: The Breweries, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: The first one?
MS COLERIDGE: The first one.
MR ZEELIE: I was contacted by Gen Erasmus to go to SA Breweries.
MS COLERIDGE: And was this usual for him to contact you on radio, was it a normal practise?
MR ZEELIE: Yes, it was normal procedure.
MS COLERIDGE: And who contacted you after the Why Not explosion?
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, the regular procedure was that if an explosion took place for example, depending upon who was the first to report it, it could be sent through to Radio Control and Radio Control would have a list of the officers at Security Branch who were on standby and that officer would then contact the various members of the Security Branch.
CHAIRPERSON: So you don't know who it was who actually spoke to you on the radio?
MR ZEELIE: I would not know who it was by name.
CHAIRPERSON: So it was Radio Control.
MR ZEELIE: It was most probably the duty officer who was on standby.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And on that specific evening, Beyers was on standby.
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, Beyers was on demolitions standby but because I was the Commander of the Demolitions Unit and Bomb Disposal, regardless of whether any of the other members were on standby, I would also be contacted.
MS COLERIDGE: Just for my own purposes, Goldfield Security, was this where you met the Vlakplaas members? What is the Goldfield Security?
MR ZEELIE: It is difficult for me to testify about this, I know that at times I gave training to guards at Goldfield Security, but with regard to the specific relation between Vlakplaas and Goldfield, I cannot really comment.
CHAIRPERSON: Goldfield Security, is that a security company, the premises of a company that provides security guards, etcetera?
MR ZEELIE: That is correct. Among others, at Goldfield they also had a training centre and at that training centre they didn't only train their own guards but the guards of other security companies who could also send their guards there for training.
MS COLERIDGE: In relation to the Vlakplaas members, you obviously used Vlakplaas members in your other operations, is that correct?
MR ZEELIE: There was a high level of co-operation between me and some of the Vlakplaas members.
MS COLERIDGE: Between yourself and some of the Vlakplaas members?
MR ZEELIE: I have stated myself, Chairperson, but even the various divisions also enjoyed co-operation with Vlakplaas.
MS COLERIDGE: And Gen Erasmus, did he use Vlakplaas members as well?
MR ZEELIE: I believe that upon various occasions he made contact with Vlakplaas members, through the Commander.
MS COLERIDGE: Did you inform Gen Erasmus the following day that Vlakplaas members were involved in the operation?
MR ZEELIE: I believe that I would have informed him that Vlakplaas members would also have been involved.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But Mr Zeelie, they weren't involved, they refused.
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, two of their members were inside, Mr Paul van Dyk and Mr Douw Willemse were together.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Was it only Vermeulen who disassociated himself?
MR ZEELIE: Yes, ultimately it was only Mr Vermeulen who did not enter the premises, he stood back.
CHAIRPERSON: Did he stay back - what was your opinion of him not coming into the premises? Was that because he was disassociating himself from the operation, or was it because it was the wise thing to have somebody on the outside in case there was a problem?
MR ZEELIE: At that point I accepted that he did not want to enter the premises with us because he had not received the order from his Commander.
MS COLERIDGE: And then in relation to the Vlakplaas members, did you inform them that these instructions came from Gen Erasmus?
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, yes I definitely would have stated to them that I had an order from Gen Erasmus to carry out an instruction and an operation.
MS COLERIDGE: But surely Mr Zeelie, if you had informed them that you received these instructions from the General, that their participation would actually be okayed, is that not so?
MR ZEELIE: That is why I have stated that individuals would have accepted it, but other members would have had strong feelings about the fact that they were supposed to receive orders only from their own Commanders.
MS COLERIDGE: And then in relation to the limpet mines and so forth, did Gen Erasmus leave this to your own discretion or did he inform you as to what procedure to use and so forth, in relation to the operation?
MR ZEELIE: He left it over to my discretion.
MS COLERIDGE: And then in relation to the Cafe Zurich, was Peter Dlamini charged and sentenced for that offence?
MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson.
MS COLERIDGE: Why Not? You were so certain that ...(intervention)
MR ZEELIE: I'm still confused about that to this day, I have never seen him, he has never come forward, as far as I know.
MS COLERIDGE: So you can't conclusively say that he actually in fact planted those bombs and that he was ANC then?
MR ZEELIE: There were other members who were indeed arrested and who were sentenced and from their evidence it was clear that it was indeed him.
MS COLERIDGE: And the Vanderbijl bus terminus incident, was anybody charged and sentenced there?
MR ZEELIE: As far as I know persons were arrested, but I cannot say precisely who they were.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Duma and - I can't remember the surname of the other one, applied for amnesty in connection with that one recently.
MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, I'm indebted to you Judge de Jager.
And then just for operations like this, would you ever receive instructions from Gen du Toit personally or would it always come from Gen Erasmus?
MR ZEELIE: If I had received the same order only from Gen du Toit, I still would have carried it out.
MS COLERIDGE: But my questions was ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: But the question was, did you ever receive orders from Gen du Toit?
MS COLERIDGE: In relation to illegal operations like this, for instance.
CHAIRPERSON: Without Gen Erasmus giving an order.
MR ZEELIE: Not with regard to explosions, but with regard to possible more minor incidents such as Stratcom actions and so forth.
MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS COLERIDGE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Rossouw, do you have any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Just one question, Mr Chairman.
Mr Zeelie, I got the impression that there was an aspect regarding which you and Mr Visser misunderstood each other yesterday and that was the evidence regarding a previous incident pertaining to bomb explosions where you gave evidence that Gen Erasmus expressed his dissatisfaction and I think that the words the you used under cross-examination were that no orders were ever given by Gen Erasmus, and I would just like for you to state this clearly for the Committee. Did he previously give you orders to launch revenge attacks or did he simply express his dissatisfaction at the scene of previous bomb explosions when it came to these incidents?
MR ZEELIE: As far as I can recall he expressed his dissatisfaction as it was also the case at the scene at the Vanderbijl explosion. At no scene of any explosion did he give me an order to launch revenge attacks as such.
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Chairperson, nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Judge de Jager, do you have any questions at all? Adv Sigodi?
ADV SIGODI: Just one thing that I'd like to clarify in my mind. The identification of Why Not bar as a target, you said that you had affidavits from certain ANC members who had said that they had visited the Why Not bar, could you perhaps remember who these ANC people were who said that they had visited the Why Not bar?
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, at this moment I cannot recall direct names, however, among others, one of the prime suspects who was found guilty during the Cafe Zurich incident was a woman by the name of Sonto Masondo and among others, she also conveyed the information.
ADV SIGODI: Can you remember what the information entailed about the Why Not bar?
MR ZEELIE: She conveyed specific information that prior to the time they had rendezvoused in the Why Not disco and had launched the operation from there and that subsequently, after the bomb had been planted or after the handgrenade had been planted or tossed, they again returned to the Why Not Club until after the explosion had taken place and that upon various other occasions they would rendezvous there.
ADV SIGODI: The picture that I would like you to clarify is, was Why Not bar - did you personally know the Why Not bar?
MR ZEELIE: As I have already testified Chairperson, I did not know the Why Not bar prior to the bomb explosion at Cafe Zurich, so basically I really only heard of Why Not after the explosion and the subsequent investigation.
ADV SIGODI: As a member of the Security Branch were there no other places where the ANC, where you'd find more ANC people involved, I mean gathering together, besides the bar?
MR ZEELIE: You see Chairperson, it is also as I have testified earlier, if I had known of a specific place where ANC members would be at a specific time, then it would have been the regular practice of the Security Police to go to such a place and to arrest the people.
ADV SIGODI: So when you got to Why Not bar on that evening, what measures did you take to establish if the people at the bar were ANC people?
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, there was no manner in which to determine this at that point, that is why during my visit to Gen Erasmus and Du Toit at the Breweries, when I mentioned the case of the Why Not, that the attack was launched on Cafe Zurich from within that club and that it appeared from the investigation that sometimes ANC members would go there. He told me that we should then blow up that particular club.
ADV SIGODI: Yes, but what measures were taken to protect innocent people, seeing that your main target were ANC people?
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I have already testified, I accepted that there could possibly be injuries among other innocent persons as well and the fact was that I also placed the device there in such a way as to which to try to avoid injuries as much as possible.
ADV SIGODI: Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zeelie, could you please turn to page 106 of volume 2, page 106, that's a floor plan of the Why Not bar, do you have it?
MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Now you'll see there number 3 is a lounge and that little box with a cross in it is the place where the bomb was put.
MR ZEELIE: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you see there number 5 is the lounge and number 6 is the dance floor.
MR ZEELIE: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And number 4 is the bar.
MR ZEELIE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Now do you see those black lines that sort of enclose number 3, what are those?
MR ZEELIE: They are inside walls.
CHAIRPERSON: How high do they go up? If you're sitting, for instance, where the bomb is and you're looking straight towards where number 4 is, what would you see? Would you see the bar or would that wall go up to the ceiling?
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, if you would look in the direction of 4 you would look into a wall, that is why we selected the side of the building.
CHAIRPERSON: But these internal walls, how high did they go?
MR ZEELIE: Ceiling height.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, so it was actually in a room but these doors, these gaps, were those sort of like arch doors, they weren't actually closed?
MR ZEELIE: I cannot say whether they were genuine arches or whether the walls just went straight up to the ceiling, but there were no doors.
CHAIRPERSON: Now at the time that you placed the bomb, can you estimate or can you remember if there were any other people in number 3?
MR ZEELIE: This is as I have stated, as far as I can recall there were no people in number 3, because it would have been very problematic for me to try to arm the limpet mine and place it under the bench.
CHAIRPERSON: And when you went back there after the explosion in your capacity now as an investigator of the explosion, what was the damage, first of all within 3, within that lounge where the bomb was?
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I've already stated there was reasonable structural damage, however the greatest part of the explosion blew to the outside.
CHAIRPERSON: To the outside.
MR ZEELIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And those wall that enclose number 3, were they blown apart or were they still standing after the explosion?
MR ZEELIE: I believe that some of them may have been damaged, I have not yet re-consulted the photos, it's quite some time ago, so I cannot say precisely how much of the walls was damaged.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know whether they were brick walls or this prefab type of stuff.
MR ZEELIE: I think some of the walls were prefabricated and some of the others may have been concrete or brick. If I look at some of the copies of the photographs, I can see that there were indeed arches and it is clear that these were stone arches, or brick arches.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Mr Rossouw, any questions arising?
MR ROSSOUW: No questions, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, any questions arising?
MR VISSER: No thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?
MR CORNELIUS: No thank you, Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza?
MR NYAWUZA: No thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge?
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Yes thank you, Chairperson, I've got one question.
If you refer to page 30 of bundle 2, there's a statement by Nonhlahla Lushaba, it's in relation to the chair, Chairperson, where the bomb was placed and in her statement she says at paragraph 6 on page 30, bundle 2, she states:
"After approximately 10 minutes, while I was still seated in the passage, I was seated on a bench, a loud explosion occurred under the chair upon which I was seated."
And her injuries as well Chairperson, was her legs and so forth and it seems that the bomb was placed under her chair where she was sitting, in her statement here.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we don't know how long she'd been sitting there. Arising from that Mr Zeelie, what do you say to that?
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, after we left the premises she may indeed have sat down there. But you see Chairperson, that is why we placed it in that section because people would be on the dance floor more than anything else and they would also move to the back of the club, people didn't really like being in the front of the club. That was what I knew from my experience.
CHAIRPERSON: She also says in that same statement, paragraph 3, that there were about 150 people there, what's your comment on that?
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I cannot say how many persons could have been there at that stage. If a club had 150 people inside then it was quite full, especially regarding a club this size, it would have been completely full. So I think to a certain extent she might be exaggerating because as you can see the entire was divided by partitions. I don't know how she could have made such an estimation at that point.
MR ROSSOUW: Someone else mentions Chairperson, just on that fact, that there was 120 persons and that was De Zandt, the manager of the club. That's in his statement.
JUDGE DE JAGER: She states here that she was seated in the passage, in paragraph 6. Was the bomb placed in the passage?
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, she must mean passage because as you can see the arches facilitate movement through from the one side to the other, so she might have viewed that as a passageway.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it a Friday or Saturday night, do you know?
MR ZEELIE: I cannot recall, Chairperson. I don't believe that it was a Friday, Chairperson, because in that way we would not have been able to have a meeting the following morning.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and I suppose also Hillbrow is busy constantly.
MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: ...(inaudible) Chairperson, and it tells us that it was the Tuesday/Wednesday night - sorry, Wednesday/Thursday night.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS COLERIDGE
ADV SIGODI: Just one more aspect. Do you remember how many people were injured in the Wimpy Bar bombing?
MR ZEELIE: As I've already stated in my evidence-in-chief, I think that approximately 13 persons were injured and later it appeared from the investigation that two were more seriously injured than the rest.
ADV SIGODI: Wimpy.
MR ZEELIE: Oh was this the Wimpy, I beg your pardon, I did not hear you correctly. I don't know, but I know that quite a number of people were injured in the Wimpy Bar incident, it was quite a serious incident. I cannot tell you precisely how many persons were injured however.
ADV SIGODI: Were there any people who died?
MR ZEELIE: At this point I cannot tell you whether there were any fatalities.
ADV SIGODI: But it was a serious explosion?
MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson, also because it was placed in the place where people would have their meals. Therefore, as I say, it was a very serious explosion.
ADV SIGODI: Now if this was, the Why Not bar incident was a retaliatory attack, why was it important to you to place the bomb in such a way that few people would be injured?
MR ZEELIE: As I have already stated, if one came to explosives one could send the explosion in a certain direction, that is why there are explosive devices such as claymore mines which one could place right behind the mine and one couldn't really suffer any injuries. The projectile would be directed in a specific direction.
CHAIRPERSON: I think what Adv Sigodi's asking you is, seeing that the Wimpy bomb was a serious bomb in which people were injured, a number of people were injured, why did you personally take care to reduce the number of casualties in the Why Not explosion? If it was a revenge operation, why not go to have as many injuries as possible?
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, it was specifically about those innocent persons who would also be on the premises and that is why I didn't want to cause many injuries, although I had an instruction to place such a device within such a club.
ADV SIGODI: What was your precise instruction? Was your instruction to cause damage to as many people as possible, or was your instruction not to cause damage to people?
MR ZEELIE: As I've testified Chairperson, I did not have a specific instruction to injure as many persons as possible or as few persons as possible, I simply received an order to place a device where ANC persons would be meeting, or would possibly be meeting.
ADV SIGODI: But you still did not take any precaution to find out if there were ANC people at the Why Not bar, did you?
MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I have already stated, the instruction was to be carried out on that very same evening still and there was no way in which to determine this information. I received the order and I carried it out.
ADV SIGODI: Yes, but the target that you sought to attack, what measure did you take to make sure that you actually attacked the target that you were instructed to attack?
MR ZEELIE: As I've already stated, at the Breweries when I mention to Erasmus and Du Toit, when they asked me about different places, the Why Not Club occurred to my mind and I said that this could indeed be the premises from which the attack was launched on the Cafe Zurich and it was my instruction then to blow up that place or at least to place an explosive device in that place.
ADV SIGODI: You see the problem I'm - what I'm trying to establish from you is your instruction, was your instruction to blow up ANC people, was it to blow up Why Not bar, per se?
MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, I do understand, that is why I once again say that at the end of the day I executed this instruction after I mentioned to Du Toit and Erasmus that out of that specific premises an attack was launched and the instruction was then given that I must place a device in that specific premises. And as I have stated earlier on, if I knew of any place where ANC members gathered at a specific time, then we would have automatically have arrested those people, but because of Erasmus' dissatisfaction because of previous explosions, I conveyed this information to him at the Breweries and he then decided on that target and I executed it.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Any questions arising from the last questions that have been put? Thank you Mr Zeelie, that concludes your testimony.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: I see it's now past eleven, we'll take the tea break at this stage.
MS COLERIDGE: All rise.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair, I believe I'm next, I call Mr van Heerden. He will testify in Afrikaans, Mr Chair.
