WYBRAND ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: (sworn states)
ADV BOSMAN: The applicant properly sworn.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Just before you commence, Mr van der Merwe, would your names appear as they appear on our documents?
MR VAN DER MERWE: That is right, Mr Chairman, the names are correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr van der Merwe.
EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Mr du Toit, your application is contained in the bundle in front of this Committee, the background or the broader background which you wrote yourself is from page 88 up until page 116 of the bundle, is that correct?
MR DU TOIT: Yes.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Your application itself appears from page 116 to page 128 of the bundle, is that correct?
MR DU TOIT: Yes.
MR VAN DER MERWE: You have at various time appeared in front of the Committee and testified concerning the background to the Technical department of the Security Branch and how you operated and how you fitted in within the security mechanism.
MR DU TOIT: That is correct, yes.
MR VAN DER MERWE: And this background you also on specifically page 109, elaborate on this, up until page 111, specifically the position in which you found yourself in at the Technical department when you were requested to support the footsoldiers, if I can put it in that way.
MR DU TOIT: That is correct, yes.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairman, I don't think it is necessary to go through that again, I just wanted to put an exclamation on that, that the Committee may just revisit those parts should there be any difficulty in understanding how the Technical section operated as a separate unit. I think it is well-put there, I don't think it's necessary to repeat it by mouth at this stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr du Toit, if we can then continue to your application. Can I just go further, you do confirm your whole application from page 88 up until page 128, as correct and truthful, as it is presented to this Committee today.
MR DU TOIT: That is correct, yes.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Then with specific reference to your application, we will go to page 123. You have heard the evidence of Mr de Kock and Mr Bosch, do you confirm what they testified as correct?
MR DU TOIT: Yes.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Do you also confirm that when Mr de Kock approached you to assist in this matter, he told you that he had already cleared up this incident or got authorisation from higher up?
MR DU TOIT: That is correct.
MR VAN DER MERWE: After Mr de Kock approached you, did you task some of the members under you to assist you in this?
MR DU TOIT: That is correct, yes.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Who did you task?
MR DU TOIT: Mr Japie Kok.
MR VAN DER MERWE: And he was the only person who worked with it in your department?
MR DU TOIT: Yes.
MR VAN DER MERWE: During this instruction you were in the position where you only provided support services and you had no choice concerning the choice of target or the justification thereof.
MR DU TOIT: That is correct, yes.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Do you therefore confirm the political motive as it is set out on page 124 and 125 of your application?
MR DU TOIT: That is correct.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Is there anything else that you would like to add?
MR DU TOIT: I will leave it at that.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Mr Hugo?
MR HUGO: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: I've got no questions, Mr Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Cornelius?
MR CORNELIUS: I've got no questions, thank you Mr Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Ms Patel?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, perhaps just one.
Mr du Toit, were you told specifically to whom the parcel was to be addressed?
MR DU TOIT: No, Chairperson, the target was not identified to us.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman?
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr du Toit, was an order given to you regarding how powerful the mechanism was supposed to be or was any specific request made in this regard?
MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, I do not have a clear recollection regarding the specific details of the request, but what I can infer is that if we look at the end product, we can accept that the request was for it not to be so powerful that it would cause more damage than damage to the target who was supposed to open the parcel. In terms of the power of the explosion that had to accompany it, I also had reason to believe that the chances of the target necessarily dying, would exist on a 50/50 basis, due to the size and the range of the parcel as I have viewed these in my own personal experience.
ADV BOSMAN: If I may say again, would you say that this parcel was meant to have more than just nuisance value, that it actually had to cause damage?
MR DU TOIT: Certainly.
ADV BOSMAN: And the injuries which are based upon hearsay, that a person lost his hand, would that be in co-ordination with the power of the device?
MR DU TOIT: Yes.
ADV BOSMAN: What were the chances that this device could injure or kill somebody other than the addressee? What I'm actually trying to ask you is, was there a chance that it could be detonated in any other manner than that in which it was set?
MR DU TOIT: I do not have first-hand knowledge regarding the finer details of this particular parcel, I would sooner leave it to my colleague, Mr Kok, who was the specialist who manufactured the device, but what I can tell you is that in every such case there is a consistent effort to minimise the damage and to limit it to the specific identified target and so doing try to ensure that none other than the target would be affected by it.
ADV BOSMAN: I just want to put another question to you. The nature and the dangers of such a mechanism, would these be cleared with the person who had normally requested it?
MR DU TOIT: Usually such a parcel would be life threatening, regardless of the size, therefore greater efforts were made to ensure that such a parcel would be used by anybody, even a lay person, without causing damage to such a person, therefore the parcel was relatively safe up until the point of detonation.
ADV BOSMAN: Did you explain this to the person who would be handling the parcel? That is my question.
MR DU TOIT: I did not point it out to them personally because I was not involved in the delivery of the parcel, but I accept that my colleague, Mr Kok, would be able to assist you with that seeing as the task was delegated to him.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Advocate Sandi?
ADV SANDI: Yes, just one issue.
You were not told who the parcel was going to be sent to, but did you personally have an opinion as to who possibly was being targeted with the parcel?
MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, I definitely did not know who the specific individual was, if they had mentioned a particular name to me at that point, it wouldn't really have meant much to me, other than the motivation and the fact that a decision had already been taken by a higher authority and by the operational team under the leadership of Mr de Kock, that this was an identified target who had to be addressed in a certain way.
In my documents, I think on page 111, there is the evaluation of the justification for what we did at that time and it is more clearly stipulated in that. It was not necessary for us to verify all the information that we received from the operational wing, it was not our task to evaluate to the extent that we were put in a position where we had to decide whether or not such an operation would be executed. For us the technical nature of the parcel and its composition and its safety was the biggest issue and that is where our responsibility ended.
I have no reason to doubt however, that it was a target which had been evaluated, which had been authorised and approved for the process, and that was conveyed to me.
ADV SANDI: Thank you, Mr du Toit. Thank you, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Sandi.
Just one aspect for verification. This device was consisting of a set of Parker pens, Mr du Toit, when it is eventually sent off it's got to be activated, so that the target, when he opens it, it must explode. In other words, before it's posted, should it be activated?
MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson, the correct term for that would be arming, and this is to protect the operative to the end, to the point of going over to action.
CHAIRPERSON: Just a follow-up on that, this activation, how long would it last, for instance, before the parcel would be picked up?
MR DU TOIT: It is subject to the shelf life of the power source or battery which was connected to the device. I am not aware of the size or the strength of the power source which Mr Kok used, he would be able to elaborate on that for you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr du Toit, just to expose my ignorance about these very dangerous devices, now if this parcel is never opened at all, what happens if no-one opens this parcel?
MR DU TOIT: Then it would remain in that stage and never detonate.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Sandi. Any re-exam, Mr van der Merwe?
MR VAN DER MERWE: No re-examination, thank you Mr Chair.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Toit, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Any further evidence in support of Mr du Toit?
MR VAN DER MERWE: No evidence in support of Mr du Toit. Mr next witness I'm calling is applicant, Mr J F Kok, and whom we've indicated already his full names are Jakob, Francois Kok.
CHAIRPERSON: Incidentally, the Amnesty Committee has got it right in the application which is within the documentation.
