CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. Mr Mohlaba, I notice the other applicants, are they not here Mr Mohlaba?
MR MOHLABA: I beg the Chair's pardon?
CHAIRPERSON: I am just noting that the other applicants don't seem to be present. Do you know if they are in the vicinity?
MR MOHLABA: Yes, I am aware that the other applicants who are represented by Mr Molefe, are here and after we have agreed with Mr Molefe, that after I have led Mr Pitsi, he is going to come and move the application of his other applicants.
CHAIRPERSON: So there is no problem from your side, or the applicants' side with us continuing in their absence?
MR MOHLABA: It will be proper Mr Chairman, to investigate the reasons why they are not here, and I further say that it will be proper for them to be here to hear what is going to be said about them.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pitsi, do you happen to know where they are, if there is any problem or what the position is?
MR PITSI: Mr Chairman, I was supposed to provide transport for them this morning, but they couldn't keep up to time, so we missed each other, but they will be definitely coming.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, may I also point out that I see that Mr Joubert who appears on behalf of some of the victims, is also not present.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer, Mr Joubert came to us after the hearing yesterday and excused himself. He said that he cannot make it at nine o'clock, and that he had made some arrangement with Mr Mohlaba regarding the calling of witnesses that wouldn't effect him or his client. He has been excused.
Mr Mohlaba, could we, we will just take a very short adjournment and if we could just see you in the Committee room, thank you. We will just take a short adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. After consultation with the legal representatives, it has been decided that we will continue at this stage with Mr Pitsi's evidence. Mr Mohlaba, at the close of the proceedings yesterday, you were either at the end of very close to the end of leading Mr Pitsi in chief. Are you continuing with the evidence in chief?
MR MOHLABA: That is correct. We were touching on the, we were almost at the conclusion of evidence in relation to the so-called Juicy Lucy bombing and we did not touch on the aspect of the bomb under a Renault motor car. I just wanted to go through that one.
FRANCIS PITSI: (still under oath)
EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA: (continued) Mr Pitsi, yesterday you were at the end of explaining the so-called Juicy Lucy bombing. Can we move over to the next aspect of the bomb which was placed under a Renault motor car. Do you know anything about that explosion?
MR PITSI: Yes, the limpet mine, mini limpet mine which was placed under the Renault in Proes Street, was a way of manifesting our presence, the ANC presence in South Africa in particular Umkhonto weSizwe.
MR MOHLABA: Were you in any way involved in the planning of this incident and the execution thereof, and can you explain the level of your involvement in the whole transaction?
MR PITSI: I was partly involved there. The person who took the major role there, was Commissar Makobe.
MR MOHLABA: Can you proceed and explain to us the role played by you, there?
MR PITSI: Being the Commander, we were together when planning all these operations with the Commissar and the material meaning the SPM and the mini limpet mine, was provided by me to the two compatriots.
MR MOHLABA: So you associate yourself with this transaction and take responsibility for this offence, is that correct?
MR PITSI: Yes, I do.
MR MOHLABA: It has been briefly mentioned to the Committee for the sake of clarifying that you are applying for amnesty for the offence which you have already stated. May I just enquire from you whether you know anything about the bomb blast at the municipality offices in Atteridgeville as well as the bomb blast at Saulsville station?
MR PITSI: Yes, I was aware of the explosion which took place in Atteridgeville municipality offices, but I wasn't directly involved. The person who recruited and gave training to Mr Maleka, was Odirele Mishack Maponya.
MR MOHLABA: Oh, so this particular bomb blast was carried out by Maleka and you were not very much involved there, is that correct?
MR PITSI: Yes, that is true.
MR MOHLABA: And then bomb blast at Saulsville station?
MR PITSI: The bomb blast in Saulsville station, I knew about it. I didn't take much participation on that one, but part of the planning of that operation, I was there, I knew of and that explosion, the person who placed the limpet mine, was Ernest Ramadite together with Mr Maleka.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Mohlaba, I just want to indicate that I see your clients have arrived.
MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. In conclusion Mr Pitsi, is there anything that you want to say in support of your application, either to the Committee or to the victims of this atrocities?
MR PITSI: Yes, in short I would like to say I am very much happy that the apartheid structures were disorganised, and furthermore I would like to say that I am very sorry to all those people we caused harm and during the process, they lost their loved ones.
I hope we will start all over again, and we should forget the past and look into the future of South Africa, thank you.
MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair, that will conclude the evidence of Mr Pitsi.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOHLABA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Molefe, do you have any questions to ask the witness?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOLEFE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Pitsi, in as far as the Atteridgeville municipality blast, what was your actual role? You have said that you were not the person who placed the limpet mine there, but what was your actual role in that particular blast?
MR PITSI: Let me put it this way, that was a way of letting people know that we are in existence in Atteridgeville and besides, Atteridgeville municipality offices were the State apparatus that were not contributing towards our people.
Actually it was to bring them misery and all sorts of things that one wouldn't appreciate.
ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps you have misunderstood the question. It wasn't what was the motive, it was what was your role in that blast?
CHAIRPERSON: Your personal participation, if any?
MR PITSI: There wasn't much that I can talk about, because our Overall Commander which was Mishack Odirele Maponya, is the one who recruited Johannes Maleka, gave him training and gave him the orders to go and place the bomb at the offices.
MR MOLEFE: You have said in your evidence in chief, that you were the Commander of this small Unit in Atteridgeville, which consisted most of the time, of three people and later with four people, after Mr Maleka was recruited?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR MOLEFE: Now, what I wanted to clarify is that were you one of those who gave orders to Mr Maleka to go and place the bomb at Atteridgeville?
MR PITSI: No, during the process that operation took place, I was injured, I was shot.
MR MOLEFE: And you said that you were involved in the planning of the blast at Saulsville station?
CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't think he said he was involved in the planning, but anyway you can ask that. Were you involved in the planning of the Saulsville station bomb?
MR PITSI: Yes, partly I was.
MR MOLEFE: And did you also give or conveyed the orders to Ernest Ramadite and Maleka in respect of this blast?
MR PITSI: Yes, I did.
MR MOLEFE: Right, thank you Mr Chair, I think I will leave it at that.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOLEFE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Molefe. Mr Mokone, do you have any questions to ask the witness?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOKONE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pitsi, in your evidence and also Mr Toka submitted that not every policeman was the enemy, is that correct?
MR PITSI: It is true.
MR MOKONE: Did you have any specific criteria to determine whether a particular policeman should be classified as a target?
MR PITSI: Yes, we did have a criteria, because you should know that we had structures which prevailed in our locations starting from a Street Committee, up to a Civic Association.
Most of the time, we relied on the information. We had to go from one organisation to another, just to verify certain information that we obtained.
MR MOKONE: You said that, and also Mr Toka said it that before you execute any operation, you have to get the go ahead from your superiors, either from Botswana or Lusaka, is that correct?
MR PITSI: Yes, it is true.
MR MOKONE: Did you give these superiors a detailed description of a particular target that you want to hit?
MR PITSI: In this particular instance, yes, I gave all the details to Mr Toka, because by then I wasn't familiar to Botswana, so Toka is, actually Mr Maponya in particular, he is the one who took the motivation through to Botswana.
MR MOKONE: So you also gave them the reasons why a particular person should be eliminated?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR MOKONE: The relatives of the three policemen are here, they want to know the reasons why their children and their loved ones, were classified as targets. Can you elaborate on that?
MR PITSI: Yes, after going intensely into the matter of the complaints that we received, we followed the normal channels that I have already mentioned from the street level and the areas, up to the Civic Association and it was confirmed that these people were involved in harassing our people, bombing our houses and other comrades' houses, and it was confirmed beyond reasonable doubt.
MR MOKONE: Can you maybe tell us about one incident or act committed by Constable Barney Mope which rendered him a target?
MR PITSI: I think you will definitely bear with me that it has been ten years, we didn't keep notes of the operation that they took at that particular time.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Mokone, on this point, Mr Pitsi, the complaints that you received against the four policemen who were your target, although only three were killed, were the complaints relating to them separate and distinct, in other words there were separate complaints against Constable Mope, separate complaints against one of the other deceased, separate complaints, or were they, were the complaints against them collective, that they were acting as a group in harassing the people and bombing houses as you say?
MR PITSI: Yes, the complaints were collective. On you know, several instances, whereby you will hear that they will target a single person out, that we saw him doing this.
CHAIRPERSON: Continue Mr Mokone.
MR MOKONE: Thank you Mr Chairman. I am informed that Constable Phenyane was stationed at, he was not stationed at Atteridgeville police station, but at the Pretoria Central, how then did you classify him as a target?
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, is that Constable, if you could just repeat the name?
MR MOKONE: Phenyane.
MR PITSI: If you are aware of the situation which prevailed 10 years to 15 years back, one was not confined to a certain area. The fact that they have been together, they would have joined them in harassing the people. The fact remains that he was a policeman and we had statements some time back that a policeman is a policeman, wherever he goes.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but in that sense, it seems then that he was killed because he was a policeman sitting with other policemen, and not because he did something specifically like bombing a house. What was the position, was he targeted because he did some specific acts or participated in specific acts or was he targeted because a policeman is a policeman?
MR PITSI: No, he was targeted that day because his name appeared on the list that we received from our reliable sources in Atteridgeville.
MR MOKONE: Mr Pitsi, it is not an easy decision to make to kill a person. Before you can decide to kill a person, you have to be convinced that this person deserves to die and the fact that this policemen were just generally notorious, is not sufficient. You have to come up with some reasons and examples as to why they deserve to die.
MR PITSI: The evidence which was given yesterday, there were calls after calls that anything to do with the then government was a target but we couldn't eliminate anybody as we go. We had to start with the culprits, which in this instance, unfortunately, it was the three policemen because of reasons that have already been stated here.
MR MOKONE: So the fact that not every policemen was an enemy, is not true?
MR PITSI: That one, it is a fact. Not all the policemen were bad.
MR MOKONE: No further questions Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOKONE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Monyane, do you have any questions that you would like to put to the witness?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MONYANE: Mr Pitsi, you have just said that you have heard from reliable sources that these three policemen or the four policemen were notorious. Who are those men, the reliable sources? I think the family of Phenyane, they would like to know those people, because according to them, Phenyane was a good policeman. As stated, Phenyane was stationed in Pretoria, Pretoria Central, not in Atteridgeville? We would like to know the names?
MR PITSI: Mr Chairman, I would like to answer the question, in a sitting like this, would it be proper to disclose the names?
CHAIRPERSON: I can't see any harm in disclosing the names. I don't know what your attitude is, are you loathe to do that? I can hear argument on it from your legal representative if you wish, I am not going to just order it without giving you an opportunity.
MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. If I understand the question of Mr Pitsi here, he appear to be loathe to mention the names of people who were not notified as implicated parties because it may culminate to something else, it may be that wrong information was furnished and they acted on that wrong information.
Understandably people being people, they have lost their loved ones and they may want to take steps against such people. I will however, want to leave it to the hands of the Chair, whether he should go ahead and disclose those names.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mohlaba - the reasons for killing the man and shouldn't he make a full disclosure unless there is legal grounds on which he shouldn't disclose it, their names?
MR MOHLABA: Obviously I am not acting for those people whose names may be mentioned here. I am just highlighting the danger which may be exposed to these people who are not before this Committee, people who have not been advised that they may be publicly named as people who have caused the death of other people. I will however want to leave it in the hands of the Committee.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, well we couldn't have notified or the Committee's staff couldn't have notified those people, if their names weren't disclosed in the applications.
But the Appellate Division made a decision and said if it is disclosed at a hearing, we should inform them as soon as possible and they could have an opportunity to answer on it.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in fact the Act provides that if at a hearing a person is implicated, then the Commission has a duty to send notification to such implicated person, who will then have the right to appear before the Commission and protect his or her interests.
The Act does cater for a situation where people are implicated at a hearing without prior notice. It would of course necessitate a delay in the conclusion of the hearing, because one would have to in such instance, give a reasonable time for those implicated people to respond to the notice and make up their mind whether they wish to come to the hearing or not.
ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Mohlaba, as I understand your client, the applicant, it seems to me that these people, these sources of information, were some kind of informers to their organisation and I am not quite sure how we are going to deal with this as a Committee, because in the past, we took a decision that applicants who do not want to disclose the names of their informers, may not be compelled to do so.
Perhaps that is something that we will have to discuss as a Committee.
It seems to me that the applicant is saying that he is unhappy about disclosing the names of these people, because they would be in danger of whatever. Perhaps we can adjourn for a very brief moment and talk about this is a Committee?
MS MONYANE: If I could just add on that. I think this is about telling the truth, the whole truth and if Mr Pitsi doesn't disclose the names of those reliable sources, I think there won't be no full disclosure, so he must disclose those names.
ADV SANDI: Do you want to disclose the names of those people, Mr Pitsi?
MR PITSI: If the Committee will allow me not to disclose, I will appreciate that.
CHAIRPERSON: I think what we will do is, we will take a short adjournment and we will consider the matter and then perhaps Mr Mohlaba, if you wish to during the adjournment discuss the matter with your client, and if you want to, I know this has been sprung on you, if you on this aspect want time, or whatever to present further submissions and argument on this point, we will of course allow you to do that.
If you could take this opportunity as well to consider what your position is and whether you want to make further and more substantial submissions on this aspect. We will take a short adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
FRANCIS PITSI: (still under oath)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. During this short adjournment that we have just taken, we were approached by Mr Mohlaba who indicated that at this stage, his instructions are that his client prefers not to divulge the names of persons who provided him with information relating to the deceased policemen.
I did indicate to Mr Mohlaba that, after Mr Mohlaba had told me that he would require time to prepare a more substantial argument on this issue, that perhaps this could be done tomorrow morning, but that we just leave this part of the cross-examination of the witness, we just stand it over until then.
Mr Mohlaba will then have adequate opportunity to prepare himself and then we can continue with any other cross-examination that there might be, but I also feel that it would be fair at this stage to just present my prima facie views on this aspect which Mr Mohlaba and indeed Ms Monyane could take into account when preparing their argument for tomorrow if you wish to present any further argument.
My prima facie views, I say they are prima facie because I am not certain whether they are legally correct or not, but my prima facie view is that it may not be proper for this Committee to order an applicant what to say or not to say in his evidence.
Why I say that is the Act says that there should be amongst other criteria, a full disclosure given. If the applicant is asked a question to which he knows the answer but refuses to answer, then he may and I am not saying it will inevitably be so, but he may do so at his own peril with regard to the full disclosure criteria.
The position might be different if it was a witness other than an applicant, giving evidence. That is my prima facie view, that it might be beyond the power or it might not - it is not a question of beyond the power, but it might be incorrect to order an applicant to do it. Because if an applicant refuses to reveal the names, he may do so.
At the end of the case, if he does refuse, and doesn't state the names, then at the end of the hearing, argument will be received by both sides, as to whether or not that refusal constituted a lack of full disclosure.
It may or may not, I don't know. But that is my prima facie view and I would ask the legal representatives to take that into account when addressing. As I say, it might not be the correct view, but that is what I think it is at the moment.
Ms Monyane, if you could continue with your cross-examination, but we will leave this aspect about the names of the so-called informers over until after argument has been received tomorrow morning.
MS MONYANE: Thank you Mr Chair. According to your submissions yesterday, you stated that the three policemen or the four policemen were seen frequently at the places of bombings, do you still recall that, of the ANC places or houses? Had it ever occurred to you that they might be there because they are policemen and they were investigating what was happening at that time?
MR PITSI: Yes, it is possible, but it won't be a frequent thing that every time when there is a bombing, or there is any kind of attack on a house, every time the policemen are there first.
MS MONYANE: All the four policemen were there first?
MR PITSI: Not necessarily the four policemen, they were part of the policemen who used to be seen on the vicinity.
MS MONYANE: You further said that house 3, Mariana Street was put under surveillance and you went to Maponya and told Maponya that there is this house and there is this three policemen, four policemen, who were frequenting this house, and those policemen were notorious policemen.
Maponya ordered you to go and do surveillance at that house. How long did you do your surveillance?
MR PITSI: I will be saying this once more under correction ...
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before Mr Pitsi answers, when you say you, do you mean the applicant personally or the applicant together with members of the Unit, they might have surveyed the house separately at different times?
MS MONYANE: He didn't specifically say himself or, he said Maponya ordered them to go and place the house under surveillance.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pitsi, could you just tell us the extent and the duration of the surveillance done on the house by yourself and or other members of your Unit?
MR PITSI: The surveillance was done by me and the other parties of the Unit, and I am saying this under correction since it has been a long time, for a period of a week or so.
MS MONYANE: For that week you satisfied yourself that these people were frequenting that house, because my instructions are that Phenyane, the late Mr Phenyane as he was placed in Pretoria Central, he never frequented that house, it was the first time he went to the shebeen that day when they were ambushed?
MR PITSI: I would like to say it is not true.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Pitsi, when you say you kept the house under surveillance for a period of a week, was that in respect of observing the comings and goings of the four targeted policemen or did you just watch the house, the building and the general activity there, or did you watch the house with a view of seeing whether or not those specific policemen attended at that place?
MR PITSI: Yes, that involved a lot of things. Their movement in, coming in and out, and who was in that group exactly and how long would they stay in 3 Mariana, it involved a lot of things.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you know the four targets, I mean could you identify them as being the targets, were they pointed out to you or when the names were mentioned, did you know who they were?
MR PITSI: Yes, once the names were mentioned, we knew who they were.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Monyane.
MS MONYANE: Thank you Mr Chair. Also yesterday, Mr Toka told us that in an instance where it involves killings, an intelligence report would be done and in my mind right now, I am telling myself, you did a surveillance for a week, no intelligence report was done on that house?
MR PITSI: Will you rephrase your question again, let me understand you very clearly?
MS MONYANE: Yesterday Mr Toka told us that before a house, before, he mentioned two criterias, he said if it is a military propaganda, they don't do an intelligence report, they just attack to make a statement, just to say that Umkhonto is in the country, but where it involves killings, like where it involves bombings, like the Juicy Lucy bombing, there was an intelligence report, and also on Mr Ndala's house, there was an intelligence report that was done by Mr Webster.
I want to know in this specific case, the case of the three policemen, was there any intelligence report done?
MR PITSI: Yes, the intelligence report was done by Odirele Mishack Maponya.
MS MONYANE: Is that your Commander, Maponya?
MR PITSI: Yes, the Overall Commander.
MS MONYANE: Mr Pitsi, you know the family of Mr Phenyane is very concerned about the fact that you personally knew Mr Phenyane and at one stage, you ever arranged for their daughter, Ngele, to go to the Holy Trinate High School in Atteridgeville. They would really like to know why you chose their father, a husband and you targeted him, because you personally knew Mr Phenyane and he was a good policeman?
MR PITSI: I can't dwell much into that one, I can't remember, it has been a long time. Besides, I had a duty to fulfil. Once you are being associated with a group of policemen, I mean you could have come anytime in Atteridgeville, those names, some of them, the people used to sing about those people because they were culprits, and once you are being associated, I had a duty to do. I was an MK soldier and I had to see to it that all those destabilising factors associated with the former South African government, were to be eliminated.
That was an order and I was carrying out some orders.
MS MONYANE: When the shooting, at the time of the attack, because these policemen were sitting outside and relaxing, did they shoot back or they didn't shoot back?
MR PITSI: No, they did not shoot back.
MS MONYANE: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is my questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MONYANE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, so subject to that part of your cross-examination which will stand over until tomorrow morning. Mr Dreyer, do you have any questions to ask the witness?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DREYER: Yes Mr Chairman, if I may just proceed. Mr Pitsi, although I am not appearing on behalf of any one of the other victims, and more particularly the policemen, I would like to just try and establish the state of mind, the procedure followed by you, you more particularly, as part and parcel of the line, chain of command in order to choose a particular target.
It was put to you by my learned colleague that there is a possibility that these three policemen were spotted at certain venues where bomb blasts and that sort of thing occurred, simply because they attended that particular place in the cause and scope of their duties as a policeman. You then reacted to that by saying but how come then that they were there, or some of them were there, the first people to arrive on the scene so often and frequently, am I correct?
MR PITSI: That is correct.
MR DREYER: If I understand correctly Mr Pitsi, does that mean that if anyone of those policemen were simply carrying out their duties as policemen, they were good policemen and they acted promptly because they were resident in the area and they could get to a particular scene quickly after something occurred, could that not have been mistaken by any person, resident in that area, as them being involved in that particular incident?
Can you exclude that totally, that there could have been a mistaken belief as to their alliance to any former State structure or that they were harassing the people or that they were (indistinct) the principles, the ideas, the policy and the achievements of the ANC and MK, isn't that a possibility?
MR PITSI: Yes, for somebody who wasn't following the situation very well, it can be a mistake.
MR DREYER: Yes. Similarly Mr Pitsi, if I understand correctly from the evidence of Mr Toka, he indicated that yourself, Mr Mathe and Mr Ramadite were the operatives involved, more particularly in the placing and the bomb blast that occurred in the vicinity of the so-called Juicy Lucy restaurant, is that correct?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: But on the other hand, if I compare that to your evidence, you indicated that at that stage you did not physically and personally participate in the actual acts of setting those limpet mines, because you were suffering from personal injuries.
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: And if I am not mistaken that refers to an injury which you sustained because of the incident where you were shot by one of your colleagues, with a Makorov pistol or something to that extent, isn't that so?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: Now, was Mr Toka aware of the fact that you were incapacitated at that stage because of your personal injury? Was he aware of that?
MR PITSI: I would like to believe so, yes.
MR DREYER: Now, we you bedridden at that stage?
MR PITSI: Come again?
MR DREYER: Were you bedridden at that stage?
MR PITSI: No.
MR DREYER: Were you confined to your house in other words? Could you move around?
MR PITSI: Yes, I could move around.
MR DREYER: Was it possible for you to attend the particular venues where you intended setting these limpet mines?
MR PITSI: Not really.
MR DREYER: So, just to clarify the matter, what was your exact involvement in more particularly the limpet mine that exploded in the vicinity of Juicy Lucy, what was your exact involvement if I may request you to elaborate on that please.
MR PITSI: My exact involvement is that I know about it and I provided the limpet mines, because by then, they were with me.
MR DREYER: Is that the only thing that you did?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: You knew about the intended bomb blast and you provided the explosive device?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: Did you yourself carry out any kind or measure of reconnaissance in respect of the Juicy Lucy venue?
MR PITSI: No, I did not.
MR DREYER: Do you have any specific knowledge as to where specifically the explosive device was set, I mean the locality in other words, at the Juicy Lucy bomb blast?
MR PITSI: I can't say for certain, but it was corner Andries and Vermeulen.
MR DREYER: Yes. Now, you indicated that these incidents and the intended actions to be taken, were discussed thoroughly and you expressed that, that is was thoroughly done, prior to this bomb blast.
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: Is that correct?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: If it was discussed thoroughly, let us just dissect that for a moment, who took part in this discussion exactly, the planning discussion in other words?
MR PITSI: If I remember very well, it was Ramadite, myself and Toka if I am not mistaken.
MR DREYER: What about Mr Mathe?
MR PITSI: Yes, Mathe also, yes Mathe was there.
MR DREYER: Please I want you to make sure that you answer me correctly.
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: I would like to clarify it again.
MR PITSI: Okay.
MR DREYER: When it was considered to have such an explosion at that particular venue, from the outset, from the very first discussion pertaining to that particularly, who were involved apart from the people that you have just mentioned, were there any other one involved?
MR PITSI: Yes, Mathe was there.
CHAIRPERSON: Just to confirm, do you say involved in the discussion was Ramadite, Toka, Mathe and yourself?
MR PITSI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And sorry Mr Dreyer, was it just one discussion or was it a series of discussions?
MR PITSI: I am not sure of how many discussions took place, but I am aware of the one that I was present.
CHAIRPERSON: You were present at one?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pitsi, can you tell us how long prior to the actual execution of this bomb blast at the Juicy Lucy venue, did this discussion or discussions, if there were more than one, take place? Was it a long time before that or is it just shortly before that?
MR PITSI: I am not, I can't be exact with dates and times, but it was shortly before.
MR DREYER: Shortly before?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: At various instances in the evidence presented by yourself as well as by Mr Toka, it was indicated that there were frequent visits to Botswana in order to obtain the necessary ratification for these intended operations, is that correct?
MR PITSI: That is true.
MR DREYER: Did you yourself, undertake any such visits in order to obtain such kind of ratification in respect of any one of these incidents?
MR PITSI: No. The only time I came with the order, it was the order of retaliation from - I think Toka has already mentioned the operation where the three Botswana citizens and (indistinct) was killed in Botswana.
I came back with the order to retaliate the death of that comrade.
MR DREYER: Yes. If there was such a trip to Botswana in order to obtain this ratification by Mr Toka or the late Mr Maponya in his capacity as an Overall Commander, what time space are we talking about, how long did it take for them to go there, discuss, get the authorisation and return with the necessary mandate to instruct the operatives to carry out a particular operation? What time space are we talking about?
MR PITSI: I can't be exact, times did vary from time to time, because depending on the availability of the people at our HQ in Lusaka. If, obviously they were available, the response will come as soon as possible.
CHAIRPERSON: How quick would the quickest be?
MR PITSI: It could be a period of a week or more.
MR DREYER: In respect of the Juicy Lucy bomb, can you tell us when the discussions took place between yourself, Mr Toka, Mr Mathe and Mr Ramadite in respect of that intended action, was the ratification already obtained from Lusaka or Botswana to carry out the operation, or was it done subsequently?
MR PITSI: No, it wasn't done subsequently, I don't know when they communicated the message to Botswana and to Lusaka, but you know, as I have already mentioned, it was shortly before the operation, the permission was granted. I don't know when was it done.
CHAIRPERSON: But your discussion was held after the order had been received to proceed with the operation?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: And to the best of your knowledge, Mr Pitsi, who carried out, if any, the reconnaissance in respect of the Juicy Lucy venue as a possible target?
MR PITSI: Everybody who were involved there, took part. To be specific Ernest Ramadite did his part and Mr Toka did his part as well.
MR DREYER: Were there any other operatives in the capacity as a pure reconnaissance or intelligence operative, that undertook a separate reconnaissance in respect of that particular venue? In other words another person, apart from the four people that you have already mentioned?
MR PITSI: Not anything that I am aware of or that I know of.
MR DREYER: You see, the purpose of my question is, it transpired from the evidence of Mr Toka that in some of these incidents use were made of the intelligence reports and briefing of a person referred to as Webster, so he was not the operative who eventually carried out the operation, so all I wanted to know is was there anyone else outside the group of four people that you have already mentioned, that carried out any kind of intelligence, observation, reconnaissance or whatever in respect of the venue prior to the discussion by the group in which this was then identified as a possible target?
MR PITSI: I am not sure of that one.
MR DREYER: You are not sure? You said everyone that was part of this group, did his part?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: So just to clarify that again, does that exclude you because of the fact that you were suffering from personal injuries, or did you in fact physically visit the vicinity of this intended blast to ascertain whether or not that is in fact a justifiable target?
MR PITSI: No, I did not visit the situation because of security reasons.
MR DREYER: All right. What do you mean by that Mr Pitsi, because of security reasons?
MR PITSI: I mean, I was hurt and there were roadblocks all over the show, they could have pounded on the car and then found me in the roadblock.
MR DREYER: I see. Even although you did not physically attend that venue, do you have any particular knowledge of the patrons of that particular venue, the Juicy Lucy?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: Can you elaborate on that please?
MR PITSI: Mainly it was the SADF members.
MR DREYER: How do you know that Mr Pitsi?
MR PITSI: Because I was born and bred in Atteridgeville, so I knew all those offices around that place.
MR DREYER: If you know all the offices around that place, do you also know that there are various other eating places, restaurants, coffee rooms, tea rooms, in the vicinity? Are you well aware of that as well?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: Now I am asking you again Mr Pitsi, on what basis do you state that you personally had the knowledge that that particular venue was frequented by members of the South African Defence Force? Did you rely on information or did you ascertain that for yourself?
MR PITSI: I will repeat myself. I was born and bred in Pretoria, I knew - that was not my first time to go to town to see that is happening.
CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Pitsi, are you saying that you know that Juicy Lucy was frequented by members of the Defence Force because of you know the offices in town and therefore Defence Force people must have gone there?
Do you know which sort of people go to the Wimpy Bar, ten blocks away and the Spur, three blocks away? Do you know the type of patron at each and every restaurant in town, merely because you were born in Pretoria?
MR PITSI: No, that is not true.
CHAIRPERSON: So how do you know that the SADF members went to Juicy Lucy? Are you just assuming that it was SADF because it was close to certain buildings which might house offices of the SADF or have you personally with your own eyes, seen people sitting in that particular Juicy Lucy?
MR PITSI: I did see that happening.
MR DREYER: When was this Mr Pitsi?
MR PITSI: It is a long time, it is ten years.
MR DREYER: Yes Mr Pitsi, I know it is a long time ago, but with all respect also to the victims who also attend this hearings, they would also like to know and clarify in their minds, what happened such a long time ago, in order for a proper process of reconciliation.
I am pressing on you to please tell us when, how long prior to this bomb blast occurring, did you personally sir, observe and ascertained that in fact this venue was frequented by members of the South African Defence Force, it is a simple question?
MR PITSI: It was long before the operation took place, because we use, I mean it doesn't mean just because I was an operative, I will sit back and then wait for the operation to come and then go out and do it.
We used to move around, we used to locate so many things, what will be the target and things like that. Besides, it was next to the place where we were getting on the taxi's, it is just the other side of Vermeulen.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you in fact choose Juicy Lucy as the target, the very business, the very location of this cafe or did you choose the vicinity, could it be placed in a street somewhere nearby, because people passing there would be soldiers or did you specifically choose the venue of Juicy Lucy because they would be sitting there, having lunch?
MR PITSI: I can't involve myself in that one, because recently just before, shortly before the explosion, I was not in the situation whereby I could say this will be a suitable place to place the bomb blast.
But the people who did the last surveillance, were in the position of saying this is the position where we can place our bomb.
ADV DE JAGER: But you took part in the discussions, what information, on what basis, was this target chosen and what I am really trying to ascertain, was it specifically Juicy Lucy or was it a target chosen even on the sidewalk because there would be soldiers passing there?
MR PITSI: I can't remember very well, but I will try to answer the question. It wasn't meant for Juicy Lucy, it was meant for the people just on the side of the road, for the people who will come from, crossing the Vermeulen road, going to the Juicy Lucy.
ADV DE JAGER: And the people using that sidewalk, would even be on their way maybe to the Supreme Court? It is not a matter of only people using that sidewalk for their ten paces and walking into Juicy Lucy, they would continue in that street further on?
MR PITSI: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: So there must have been a lot of people using the sidewalk while only the soldiers would turn off and go into Juicy Lucy?
MR PITSI: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Isn't that what the position was in fact, as you saw it?
MR PITSI: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: So if you put it on the sidewalk, there would be a risk of killing ordinary civilians while if you put it in Juicy Lucy which was frequented by soldiers, you would have a higher percentage of soldiers being trapped?
MR PITSI: That was possible, but that was not our intention at the end of the day. Our intention was the South African, I mean Defence Force members.
ADV DE JAGER: Was there any steps taken to eliminate the risk of killing other people or injuring other people?
MR PITSI: That is a question that I won't be able to answer, because as I have already said, shortly before the operation took place, I wasn't there, I don't know what would have transpired.
The people I think, I would like to believe that the people who were there, they really tried to take a precautionary measure not to hit the civilians.
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, could I ask another please. You said your involvement was limited to the fact that you supplied the weapons, the explosives?
MR PITSI: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Why did you choose to use a, I think, SPM limpet mine on that occasion, a very strong one, which could injure a lot of people?
MR PITSI: I can't be for certain what influenced my decision that day.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it your decision or were you asked for a particular type of mine?
MR PITSI: I can't remember Mr Chairman. I just took out the two limpet mines, I can't remember what transpired thereafter.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, it was a mini and a super one?
MR PITSI: And a super yes.
ADV DE JAGER: And the super one was used at Juicy Lucy and the mini was used at this Renault in Proes Street?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pitsi, I am putting it to you that there is a material and a substantial discrepancy and contradiction between your evidence and that of Mr Toka on the very basis of the purpose and the selection of the location of this particular blast.
I am going to point it out to you as follows: it was very, very clear from the evidence of Mr Toka that this particular bomb blast was not at all directed to the injury of innocent bystanders or walkers by or people rushing by on a lunch time purchase, it was very specifically directed at members of the South African Defence Force as it was then.
It was very specifically placed at that location, because of their purported frequent attendance of that venue, whereas in your evidence now, upon a question of the Committee, you clearly stated that it was placed at that corner, to also effect people who were mere passers by.
Would you like to comment on that Mr Pitsi, because I think there is a very serious discrepancy and contradiction contained in those two versions?
MR PITSI: That is your own conclusion, I have never said that. It was not meant for any civilians, it was meant for the South African National Defence Force, the SADF by then. It was not meant for anybody.
MR DREYER: Mr Pitsi, which is even more astonishing to me, is even on your own spontaneous version, you said that you were so well aware of the prevailing circumstances at that venue because the place where the taxi range or pick up points that you frequented, was just situated around the corner.
So for all practical purposes, even one of your own members of MK not being aware of this intended and planned action, could have been on his way to that very taxi rank on that very day and he could have been a passer by when that bomb exploded, isn't that so?
MR PITSI: It is true yes.
MR DREYER: Now could you explain to this Committee sir, how that would then still be defined as an act in the furtherance of the policy and the objectives of the organisation of which you were a member at that stage? How is that at all possible Mr Pitsi?
MR PITSI: It is possible because I would like to say, I reiterate my stand again, that the people who did the surveillance, they took precautionary measures not to hit civilians. If civilians were hurt on that operation, that would have been you know, a sad situation and that would have been termed, what we normally term, a cross-fire.
MR DREYER: Mr Pitsi, you are currently a member of the South African Air Force?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: Now, that being a military institution, I suppose that you are well aware and you are acquainted with the whole process of decision making in such an institution?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: When there is any military operation to be executed? Do you want to tell me sir, that the military or paramilitary actions of the MK and ANC in that particular period, was not executed in a military or paramilitary fashion, in the mid-1985's?
Was it also executed in the same military or paramilitary style?
MR PITSI: I would say yes, but mainly it would depend on the operative.
MR DREYER: Right, I agree with you. Now you have already explained to us sir, that you were part and parcel of this group of decision makers, discussing and targeting this very venue, am I not correct?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: Now do you want to tell me sir, that there were no planning, contingency planning made and done in respect of this intended bomb blast, or was it just an indiscriminate decision of go along and see what you can do, do the best you can? Was that the basis or was this a well planned military operation according to your view?
MR PITSI: I would like to believe that you will understand when I say the operation was planned shortly before the actual date, and then from there, I wasn't available. The people who were concerned there, the ones who did the last surveillance, it would be proper to say that it was professional of them placing the bomb where they placed it.
MR DREYER: Mr Pitsi, can I ask you in this manner and fashion, you are currently a member of the South African Air Force, if you receive a particular order to proceed and cause an explosion at point (a), do you think it would be fit and proper for you as a member of the military installation, acting upon orders and commands, to proceed there, then all on your own decide you cannot effect the explosion at venue (a), you will then have it effected at venue (b) and you will return proudly to inform your Commander that you have not execute his orders, you have not effected it at venue (a), but at least you have effected an explosion at venue (b).
MR PITSI: It has been testified earlier on that everyone was trained to be a Commander, and the decision that will be suitable for the time, that will be taken.
MR DREYER: Mr Pitsi the point that I want to make and that is a very simple point, according to the evidence of Mr Toka, the primary and the sole purpose of this explosion that took place in the vicinity of Juicy Lucy, was solely directed to members of the South African Defence Force, because he reiterated at more than one occasion, that they would not want innocent civilians to be killed by the blast. It was directed at members of the South African Defence Force.
But as it transpired sir, when this bomb was actually placed and physically placed, it was not placed in or near the Juicy Lucy, because it is approximately 30 meters or paces away from the entrance of that venue, it was placed in a flower box very close to the sidewalk, and in fact sir, the only people injured as a result of that blast, were five women, all of them being civilians, not at all connected in any way or involved with any institution of a military or paramilitary nature.
What I am telling you Mr Pitsi, according to the evidence of Mr Toka, and your evidence that it was a well planned military action that was taken, directed at a specific target, it was clearly not executed in accordance with the initial planning and the initial target. You were part and parcel of that planning sir.
Do you still maintain that the victims that suffered injury as a result of that blast, were the victims from the intended target?
MR PITSI: No.
MR DREYER: Now how Mr Pitsi, can it ever be said that it was a valid target, because it was definitely then according to your own admission, not executed in accordance with the decision that was taken by the decision makers? Do you agree Mr Pitsi?
CHAIRPERSON: I don't think he went so far as to admit that it wasn't what you put to him, that it wasn't executed in accordance with the plan?
MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will then - prior to you answering that sir, let's clear that in our minds. If we take cognisance of the fact sir, that this mine was not at all placed in or near the entrance or at the entrance of the Juicy Lucy and it exploded in the way and the manner and fashion as it did, and it injured the people as it did, do you say that it was executed in accordance with the original planning and the instruction and the order of the decision making group?
MR PITSI: I would not say it was proper, because the person who was on the situation by then, he might have seen things that might have disturbed him or reason not to put it where it was supposed to go after they made the surveillance. It is something that was solemnly upon the operative by then.
MR DREYER: Mr Pitsi, even on the version of Mr Toka yesterday and we are in agreement that we would all state very clearly that we would all be abhorred by the typical result that occurred because of the hand grenade attack on the house of one of the policemen, where for instance a 14 month old baby was killed.
I mean, that is common cause, he expressed himself in the following terms that no person in his right mind, could justify that type of thing, and I suppose you are in agreement with that?
MR PITSI: That is true.
MR DREYER: Now sir, the point that I want to make is, even if there was whatever reason disturbing the operative placing the limpet mine in the vicinity of Juicy Lucy, whatever reason disturbed him, not to set it at the venue where it was intended to be set, how can we now turn around and say because he was disturbed in the modus operandi that he intended, it is still a justified target because he had to get rid of the bomb, so he just set it at a place where it would most probably injure innocent civilians and not at all injure or kill the targeted person or group of persons? How can we then say that it was a justifiable target in accordance with the policy of MK? How can we say that?
MR PITSI: I would say it is most unfortunate that those women were hit and it was not the intention of the operative to hurt them, but it was meant for the SADF people. It was known that they leave their offices between twelve and one o'clock.
ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Dreyer, if I could just come in for a moment. Mr Pitsi, you just said that you would not say this limpet mine was properly placed at the place where it was supposed to have been placed. Where exactly was it supposed to have been placed, in your discussions, did you agree where precisely it should be placed?
MR PITSI: I can't be particular about the placing of the limpet mine because I wasn't on the reconnaissance where they agreed there where to put the limpet mine itself.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Pitsi, I just want to get this straight. You said that you attended a discussion, and then you talk about the last surveillance.
MR PITSI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Now that last surveillance was that before you were involved in the discussion or was that after the discussion that you were involved in?
MR PITSI: Yes, the surveillance came after the discussion, the last discussion we had.
CHAIRPERSON: And then, was there another discussion, a planning meeting after that last surveillance, do you know?
MR PITSI: That much I am not sure.
CHAIRPERSON: So the discussion that you were involved in, was that the final planning, that is what I am trying to find out or was there further planning done after that?
MR PITSI: There would have been a further planning thereafter because still surveillance would have been conducted and then things, they could have changed from time to time, from the time they started the surveillance.
ADV SANDI: Are you saying then there could have been further planning of details as to the place where the limpet mine should be placed, in your absence?
MR PITSI: The possibility is there, because every time when you surveil the place, things change from time to time.
ADV SANDI: Yes, but are you saying that there could have been other discussions amongst your comrades, to work out details in your absence?
MR PITSI: Yes, that possibility was there, that if they found that the situation had changed, they could have amended the plan.
ADV SANDI: After the event, did you receive any reports as to why this limpet mine could not be placed right inside the Juicy Lucy?
MR PITSI: No, the whole issue was settled between the operatives and Toka.
ADV SANDI: Did I understand you correctly earlier on to say that you only attended one planning meeting and that there may have been other discussions by others in your absence, didn't you say that earlier on?
MR PITSI: Come again, I didn't get the question.
ADV SANDI: Didn't you say earlier on you only attended one planning meeting?
MR PITSI: Yes, it is true.
ADV DE JAGER: And at that meeting, that first meeting planning, did you hand over the explosives to Ramadite and Mathe?
MR PITSI: That is true.
ADV DE JAGER: So they had this long before the actual explosion, they had it in their possession already?
MR PITSI: Yes, they did.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr De Jager, the witness said that planning meeting, he used the word, was shortly before the incident, not long before.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't know what shortly is, what is shortly an hour or a week or a month, what do you call shortly?
MR PITSI: That was I think a few, several hours before the operation.
ADV SANDI: Did you take part in that one, the one that you say was the last discussion meeting?
MR PITSI: Come again please.
ADV SANDI: Were you there when the last discussion took place?
MR PITSI: Yes, that is the first and the last meeting that I attended, the last meeting, yes.
ADV DE JAGER: And whenever you have looked at a target and have decided on that target, you inform your Commander in Botswana and he approves of that target?
MR PITSI: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: So if he at that stage, when you send through the information to the Commander, was the target to be Juicy Lucy?
MR PITSI: Yes, actually it was Juicy Lucy, the so-called Juicy Lucy.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes. So if it wasn't put at Juicy Lucy, he would have given approval for a bomb at Juicy Lucy or a limpet mine at Juicy Lucy, he didn't give approval for a limpet mine somewhere on a sidewalk?
MR PITSI: That one you can't categorise, because it was meant for - you can't come up with the exact place that I want to place the limpet mine at the robot. It was meant for those people there, it wasn't stated where exactly.
I don't think, okay, let me not put myself into that one deeper, but I don't think it was stated that we wanted to put it on the pavement next to Juicy Lucy or something of that nature.
ADV DE JAGER: But the soldiers are going to Juicy Lucy and you are directing it against the soldiers, that is their venue, this is their come together, so you direct it at them and they are at Juicy Lucy? On the sidewalk there are a lot of other people walking up and down?
MR PITSI: I agree with you.
ADV DE JAGER: So if this explosive was put down 30 meters from Juicy Lucy, it wasn't in accordance with the approval obtained from Botswana?
MR PITSI: Very true.
MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pitsi, in final count of that particular point, do you agree with me that in this proceedings before this Committee, in the final analysis, it entails the decision about the justification of actions taken within the provisions and the four corners of the TRC Act? This is what this Committee must decide upon in order to decide whether or not amnesty is granted, are you with me?
MR PITSI: Yes, I am with you.
MR DREYER: Yes. So justification stands very central, not only in the version of the applicant of why something was done, by also in the decision making process of the Committee, isn't that so?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: No finally sir, if you would have been a policeman and you were given a legal document, a warrant of arrest, issued in respect of person A, it is your legal duty, you are legally entitled to execute, you receive an order from your officer commanding to go and execute this warrant of arrest, would that sir justify you as a policeman then, with a legal document, a valid legal document, to go out there and arrest the brother of Mr A simply because you couldn't find Mr A because you've got a valid order and a valid document?
MR PITSI: Knowing very well that I am supposed to arrest A?
MR DREYER: Exactly. So what I am putting to you in the final statement on that point sir, is that there was absolutely (a) no justification, there was no furtherance of the policy or the principles of MK through this explosion that occurred because it was not directed at the initial target, in other words the SADF members, but it was directed indiscriminately at members of the public.
In fact Mr Pitsi, when you were confronted by the Committee, your own words were and I wrote it down in my notes, the bomb, it was meant for that people there. And that is what it boils down to Mr Pitsi. It was meant for those people there, out there, and those people out there Mr Pitsi was innocent civilians, having nothing in common or related in no way to the South African Defence Force, the police or whatever other State structure.
MR PITSI: That is your own findings, I still reiterate my position that that was meant for the government workers.
MR DREYER: All right, let's move on to another point Mr Pitsi. You indicated that when these discussions took place, the planning discussions in respect of this particular incident, there were discussion of measurements to be taken to avoid injury or death to innocent bystanders, am I correct, that was what I inferred from your evidence?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: Is that correct?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: Now you being part and parcel of the planning group sir, can you explain to us very simply, I am not even asking you to go into detail, can you just explain to us, in respect of this bomb blast at Juicy Lucy, what were those reasonable steps taken? What were the contingency plans that were made and decisions that were made in respect thereof, in order to limit or exclude the possibility of innocent bystanders and members of the public that is not involved in the struggle or against the struggle, that they get hurt? What were those steps sir?
You were part of the planning group?
MR PITSI: I was part of the planning group. I didn't involve myself further after something that I wouldn't even know. After the surveillance, they would have known what best to do to handle the situation.
MR DREYER: Mr Pitsi, you are not answering my question. I want you to listen to the question that I am asking you.
We have taken cognisance of the fact that you have now explained to the Committee that subsequent to the last meeting, the planning meeting that you have had with the other operatives, you did not further involve yourself personally with the execution of the deed, that we understand very clearly.
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: What I am asking you is very simple sir, at the planning stage and discussion of this incident, you indicated that there were plans and discussions in respect of measures to be taken in order to avoid injury or death to innocent bystanders, am I correct in the course of the planning?
MR PITSI: In the course of the planning, I hope - don't mix issues here, the incident that I uprightly mentioned, that it was the planning of the police because I was there, I commanded the Unit, I knew what happened, what transpired.
MR DREYER: Mr Pitsi, I am not confusing anything, I think you do not listen to the question.
I am not referring to any subsequent planning on the scene of the bomb blast, that could have been taken by the final operative executing the order. I am referring sir to the planning stage where you purportedly and according to your version, there was a planning of a bombing to take place at this venue because it is supposed to be frequented by members of the SADF.
When that planning was done sir, by the planning group, were there or were there not discussions in respect of contingency plans and plans and measures to be implemented in order to limit possible injury and death to innocent bystanders, yes or no?
MR PITSI: I can't remember, I am not sure.
MR DREYER: So what you want to tell us Mr Pitsi, that this was then not a properly planned military operation because there were no contingency plans, no measures of avoidance of death and injury to innocent bystanders?
ADV SANDI: No, no, sorry Mr Dreyer, sorry, I think you have to be careful how you put that to him. He did not say there were no discussions pertaining to contingency plans. He says he does not recall if such discussions did in fact take place.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, with the greatest of respect, I think at least, and I made note of that, mental note, at least at three instances, did the applicant indicate or answer in such a measure and manner that it was clear from that, that there was indeed ...
CHAIRPERSON: But in response to the last question you asked, my note is in the course of planning, I can't remember if such plans about avoiding injury were made. That is what he said now, that there might be a conflict, but that doesn't justify you saying well then or putting to him, that is a question of argument now, based on the conflict in his evidence, but it doesn't justify you putting it to him that he has now said that there was no planning and that it wasn't a properly planned military operation. That is a question of argument.
MR DREYER: I take note Mr Chairman. If I may rephrase that Mr Pitsi, let's recap, do you still maintain that this was a properly planned military operation?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: Now, if that is the case, would you believe that the planning group would have discussed a contingency plan and measures of avoidance injury and death to innocent bystanders? Would you believe that that would have taken place as part of the planning?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: Now, can you remember in this very instance sir, whether that was in fact part of the planning process, such measures? When you were involved sir?
MR PITSI: I can't remember.
MR DREYER: You can't remember?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: It was put to Mr Toka and it was eventually quite clear that all combatants and operatives of MK as part of their training, also were trained on a political basis including their acquaintance with the policies of the ANC and Umkhonto weSizwe in respect of targets, civilian targets and that sort of thing. Do you agree that that is part and parcel of the training?
MR PITSI: I do agree, yes.
MR DREYER: Did you also receive such training as part of your own training?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: So is it fair for me to state that you were well aware of the prevailing policy of the ANC and MK at that stage in respect of civilian targets?
MR PITSI: Yes. But in any kind of situation, any war, there is no way you can divert casualties, civilian casualties.
MR DREYER: Sir, I agree with you that in every war, there are civilian casualties, but I do not agree with you that you cannot at all avoid it.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Dreyer, could this be a convenient time to take the tea adjournment?
MR DREYER: As the Court pleases.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Dreyer, just a remark on your last question, what precautions did the Americans take to avoid civilian deaths when they threw the atom bomb at Nagasaki?
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman with the greatest of respect, first of all, I would say that the difference in the situation was that it is common cause that at that stage, there was a fully fledged world war, obviously they didn't take any measures because it was intended as a final and complete act in tended at the ending of the war.
It was definitely not aimed at the military target, it was specifically aimed at the civilian target and that is what I think abhorred the whole world, but in this particular instance, I would respectfully submit that this was a very isolated and selected target for a specific purpose and if the bomb was to be placed within the Juicy Lucy or very close to the entrance thereof, because it was believed that it was in fact a venue frequented by members of the South African Defence Force, that would have been a reasonable step to have been taken in order to avoid the killing or injury to innocent bystanders walking passed on the sidewalk, that was the intention that I wanted to convey. As the Court pleases.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we are now adjourned for tea.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Dreyer.
FRANCIS PITSI: (still under oath)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DREYER: (continued)
Right Mr Pitsi, to proceed on the point that was pondered at the break, that we have just taken, it was the whole question of reasonable steps that could have been taken in the circumstances, a contingency plan, measures that could have been taken in order to avoid the injury or death of innocent bystanders or civilians, and as I have explained to you, it could have even involved a non suspecting member of Umkhonto weSizwe that was on his way on the pavement, to the taxi rank or wherever.
In that sense, I would also ask you the following. Would you agree with me that if in the particular case of the Juicy Lucy bombing, use would have been made of a mini limpet mine, as opposed to a SPM mine, the extent of the blast could have been limited and more directed towards the real target, if it was placed in Juicy Lucy itself or very close to the entrance? Would you agree to that?
MR PITSI: Yes.
MR DREYER: So the mere fact that a far stronger explosive device was used, and was placed at a point to which non suspecting members of the public had to pass, would you say that that was reasonable steps taken to avoid the possibility of injury to unsuspecting members of the public? According to you, we know Mr Pitsi, please we know that you were not there with the final execution of the setting of the bomb, I mean I take that as a premises, you weren't there. I am just asking you, in your capacity as an operator, as a Commander, as a MK soldier at that time, would you have considered that to be a reasonable way of executing the order?
MR PITSI: That was beyond my control because of the surveillance that was made, they could have decided to swop the mines, that I don't know and I couldn't have controlled that one.
MR DREYER: I understand, but I reiterate, I know and I take as a premises that you were not there and you were not the operative who set the actual limpet mine, all I am asking you is, the given facts as they occurred, the circumstances that prevailed, the blast, when and at the venue where it occurred, would you say that would have been a reasonable way of executing it if you, yourself were charged with that particular act, would you have done it in the same way?
MR PITSI: I would have used any limpet mine, depending on the situation.
MR DREYER: Mr Pitsi, I am not referring to the type of explosive device, I am more particularly referring to the place, the actual locality where the limpet mine was set to be detonated. Would you yourself sir, as an MK soldier, well knowing of what the order and the target was, would you have done it in the same way?
I see there is extreme hesitance in your answer Mr Pitsi?
MR PITSI: I must give you a proper answer and I mustn't just jump to my answer.
MR DREYER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: You see, what we are getting here is just an opinion, is it Mr Dreyer?
MR DREYER: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR PITSI: Yes, I would have still done it.
MR DREYER: If you would have still done it in the same way, let's get to the follow up consequences. Yesterday I put it to Mr Toka that in any act or the consideration of an act for the purposes of determining whether or not such act was negligent or reckless, it entails two elements, the foreseeability of risk or injury and the avoidability of risk and injury. Do you understand that? Do you agree with me?
MR PITSI: Yes, I do.
MR DREYER: And I want to put it very clearly, I am not referring to the legal terminology or definition thereof, I am just referring to the ordinary principle of the ability of a person to judge consequences that could occur if a certain act is committed and on the other hand, reasonable steps to be taken to avoid certain risks and consequences.
Those are the two things that I am referring to.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Dreyer, just before you continue, I just want to get the purpose of this cross-examination.
This witness has said that he wasn't there when the bomb was placed and at the discussion it wasn't decided precisely where the bomb would be placed, if it was in the flower pot or next to the traffic lights or in Juicy Lucy itself or on the porch outside Juicy Lucy. There wasn't that sort of detail put.
He wasn't there, he had no control over where it was put. Now we are going into this whole question about foreseeability and avoidability. He will only be expressing an opinion, will he not? How will that effect, whatever he says, how will it effect his application?
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, I would answer in the following way. First of all it seems to be a situation where Mr Ramadite, who apparently was the operative who specifically set this bomb at the venue, is not going to testify, he is not available.
CHAIRPERSON: That is understood, he can't answer for Mr Ramadite.
MR DREYER: That is so Mr Chairman, but the point is both Mr Toka and Mr Pitsi base their application for amnesty in regard to this particular incident, on the basis of being part and parcel of the chain of command.
CHAIRPERSON: We know that, but the fact is that we have heard that from him, he says that he was there, but now you are talking about the foreseeability and the avoidability of an action relating to Ramadite.
MR DREYER: With respect, no Mr Chairman, I was not going to pull the line through of foreseeability and avoidability to the actions of Mr Ramadite, I was merely, I wanted if so permitted by the Committee, to just weigh the pros and cons of practical matters regarding the type of measures that were taken.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, he says he can't remember what measures were taken to avoid it. He said that. All you are getting is, you are trying to get, solicit an opinion from Mr Pitsi which you can use in argument? Anyway proceed, but I will be listening closely. We don't want to spend hours on something that is not going to have any effect or relevance in so far as this particular applicant is concerned.
ADV DE JAGER: Can you in fact, on the facts here of placing a limpet mine, a super limpet mine during lunch hour, in a busy street in the city, can you take any measures to avoid the injury to civilians?
Can you think of anything you could do?
MR PITSI: I can't think of anything at the moment.
ADV DE JAGER: You could have used a smaller mine, then perhaps two people would have been injured instead of five or six, or whatever it may be.
MR PITSI: That is very true.
ADV DE JAGER: But once you have chosen that mine, you've got no control, you can't even switch it off once it is activated? Isn't that so?
MR PITSI: Yes, it is true.
ADV DE JAGER: So once you have placed it, whoever is a passer by, would be injured?
MR PITSI: Yes, but the effects, we must get one thing straight here, the effect, it might be a bigger mine, but it is not effective like a mini limpet mine, which is a compound explosive. It won't be detrimental as to the mini limpet would be.
ADV DE JAGER: It is not as effective as a mini limpet would be in an open street? Would the mini have been more dangerous than the super mine?
MR PITSI: Exactly, because of the type of explosive they are using.
ADV DE JAGER: I am not an expert there, so I can't say.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer?
MR DREYER: Mr Pitsi, can we just try and ascertain, do you have any knowledge of the current whereabouts of Mr Ramadite?
MR PITSI: Mr Ramadite was a victim of the intense torture during the trial, so we think he is not fit to stand trial, because he is mentally disturbed so to say.
MR DREYER: Can you maybe enlighten us to whether Mr Ramadite was acting solely and on his own accord at the actual placing or was he accompanied by Mr Mathe or anyone else that could shed any light as to the decision making process very shortly, prior to the setting of this limpet mine?
MR PITSI: Mr Ramadite has his own assignment to perform. The same applies to Mr Mathe.
CHAIRPERSON: Was he alone or was he accompanied by anybody when he executed his assignment?
MR PITSI: He was all by himself.
ADV DE JAGER: Didn't anybody drive him to town that day?
MR PITSI: Drive them to town? No, as far as I am concerned, they used the public transport to go to town.
ADV DE JAGER: Carrying a limpet mine in the public transport?
MR PITSI: That is true.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer?
MR DREYER: So Mr Pitsi, apart from yourself and Mr Toka who share and accept responsibility and accountability for these specific incidents, including the Juicy Lucy bombing, on the basis of being part and parcel of the chain of command, ordering the execution thereof, there will be no evidence on the part of the applicants as to the exact facts and circumstances that prevailed very shortly before the bomb blast occurred, because of the situation of Mr Ramadite, is that what I must understand?
MR PITSI: Very true.
MR DREYER: A last question Mr Pitsi, if you say that you yourself accept responsibility and accountability for this particular bomb blast, what exactly do you mean by that in view of the fact that I have pointed out to you that apparently the final execution of the setting of the limpet mine, was not carried out in accordance with the original planning or decision or order? In view of that counter statement on behalf of the victims, what does it really entail when you say that you accept responsibility and accountability for this particular act?
Do you do that regardless of the fact in other words, that it was not executed in the manner and fashion and in accordance with the original planning, or do you want to qualify sir, the consequences that occurred as a result of the fact that it was not done in accordance with the order?
What is the basis of your acceptance of responsibility and accountability?
MR PITSI: After a lengthy discussion with our office in Johannesburg, it was felt that we should apply for indemnity and I still believe it is not a question of the organisation telling me to apply for amnesty. I still feel that it was a solemn right for me to apply for amnesty because of the mishaps that happened during the process of our struggle.
I am saying I am applying this amnesty because of there were people injured during the process of that bomb blast at Juicy Lucy.
MR DREYER: Just to make quite sure, the essence of what I wanted to know from you is, do you accept responsibility regardless of the fact that it was not carried out the way that you planned it, or do you say that you accept responsibility but you have to qualify that it was not done the way that it was intended?
MR PITSI: Will you rephrase your question please.
MR DREYER: I say, the essence of what I put to you sir is, when you say that you accept responsibility and accountability for this act, do you do that regardless of the fact that apparently the final operative executing this act, did not do it in accordance with the original planning and order, or do you say that you accept responsibility and accountability but you would like to qualify that it was not executed in the originally intended way, manner and fashion?
MR PITSI: It was an operation which was carried, irrespective of it wasn't done in accordance to the agreement, I will still apply for that.
MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Pitsi.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DREYER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Dreyer. Mr Joubert, do you have any questions to ask this witness?
MR JOUBERT: No questions, Mr Chairman.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, do you have any re-examination?
MR MOHLABA: No re-examination Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Ms Mtanga, sorry. I will get back to you later again Mr Mohlaba. Ms Mtanga, sorry?
MS MTANGA: No questions from me, thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, any re-examination?
MR MOHLABA: No re-examination.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA
CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Jager, any questions that you would like to put to the witness?
ADV DE JAGER: None.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi? Thank you Mr Pitsi, that concludes your testimony. You may stand down.
MR PITSI: My pleasure, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, subject to what we discussed earlier, this question about the naming of the people who supplied information which I said will be addressed tomorrow morning when we will receive argument and depending on the ruling there, you may or may not have to come back again. Thank you.
MR PITSI: Okay, thank you sir.
WITNESS EXCUSED
