______________________________________________________CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. We are to start slightly later than usual but that has been due to circumstances which were beyond our control and we hope to make up for the loss of time. Advocate Steenkamp I assume we are dealing with the De Meillon matter?

ADV STEENKAMP: That is correct Mr Chairman, Honourable Members. We are dealing with the De Meillon and two others matter which is before you. It's application number 4570, 5610 and 5611 of '96 and '97 respectively, that's as far as Section 94 is concerned, Mr Chairman. My respectful submission is both the victims in this matter are represented and were duly informed and I must apologise and thank you for your indulgence, Mr Chairman, we're ready to start. Thank you Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Advocate Steenkamp. For the purposes of the record, today is Wednesday 14th October 1998. This is a sitting of the Amnesty Committee. The panel is being presided over by myself, my name is Denzel Potgieter. I am assisted on my right by Advocate Gcabashe and on my left by Mr Sibanyoni. Advocate Steenkamp, just for the formality, you can just put yourself on record before I speak to the legal representatives?

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, I'm Andre Steenkamp, I'm the Evidence Leader in this matter, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, you are representing one of the applicants, perhaps you can place yourself on record?

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairperson, I represent the first applicant, Mr de Meillon, and instructed by Swart, Redlinghuys, Nel and Vennote Attorneys and assisted by Mr Johan Lubbe on my left.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo.

Mr Kotze do you not have a microphone? Alright, we'll see how it goes but we might very well have to get another microphone over there but for the moment Mr Kotze can you place yourself on record?

MR KOTZE: Thank you Mr Chairman. I represent Mr Eddie Holder and Willie van Zyl, the second and third applicants in this matter and my name is Kotze from the firm Koekemoer, Kotze in Boksburg.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kotze. Mr van Schalkwyk?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. My name is Gert van Schalkwyk, I represent Stephanus Frederick Terblanche and Andre Reinier Swart who are opposing the application and I am instructed by Van Schalkwyk and Associates, Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, there's nothing else that you wanted to put on record?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you Mr Chairman. I can maybe just not directly dealing with this matter but I just want to inform you, Mr Chairman, that the other two matters standing down, I will be dealing with the moment we finish with this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: As it pleases you.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

Mr Prinsloo, ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, Mr Chairman. The applicant can you it at the same time.

CHAIRPERSON: I am sure we can improve the situation a bit later. Oh, I see there is an extra one. How long will it take you to - is that so? Alright I think go ahead, we'll wait for you. We now have another microphone, I have been informed that it will take a few minutes to connect so I'll allow for it to be put on so that there aren't any further interruptions, so we'll just adjourn for a while.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we are ready. Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases you Chair and Members of the Committee. The application of the applicant is in the bundle in front of you from page 1 up to page 15. Page 4 is only correspondence, that is not part of the application.

Chairperson, before the applicant starts testifying, there are certain aspects where we want to make some amendments or changes. At annexure A, page 5, Members of the Committee, paragraph 1, the fourth line:

Paragraph 2, third line:

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that is at the end of that sentence is there a phrase added?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairperson, at the end of the sentence:

and then full stop and:

That has been deleted, that is:

At page 7 at the top:

Devon has to be deleted.

CHAIRPERSON: So you say the word "Devon" has to be deleted and the "right place" that has to be deleted as well?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct. So:

and then in paragraph 7:

the word "their" with the weapons, "their" has to be added.

I "think" the light was shot.

And then the word:

has to be changed:

And the words:

That has to be deleted.

Paragraph 8, there is a typing error. It should be 15 years sentence instead of 18 years. It is correct in the appendix.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, we have then made the corrections and the application has been changed in accordance. Would you like to swear the applicant in?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes as it pleases you.

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr de Meillon, you are the applicant in this specific case and you have applied for amnesty. This relates to a charge of murder and armed robbery and that was based on an event on 23 April 1994 at Devon, is that correct?

MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr de Meillon, you also heard that certain changes have been made to your application, do you confirm that?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you also confirm the content of annexure A and B as it is before you?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr de Meillon, can you explain to the Honourable Committee in what type of family you grew up, was it liberal or conservative family?

MR DE MEILLON: Chairperson I was raised in a very conservative family.

MR PRINSLOO: And your parents, what were their political ideas, what did they support, right or left?

MR DE MEILLON: Rightist politics.

MR PRINSLOO: Have you received any military training?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: When did you receive training, can you remember?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes it was in 1992, beginning of 1992 I enrolled at the airforce. I did my training at Hoedspruit, my rank was Corporal and that was in weapon training and the last three months of my training I was at Devon Airforce Base.

MR PRINSLOO: What was the nature of the training that you received?

MR DE MEILLON: At Hoedspruit I did weapon training and I was trained to also train people in weapon training.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you give weapon training to people whilst in the airforce?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I did, I trained troops.

MR PRINSLOO: Whilst you were in the airforce did you receive any training in regard to acting against the enemy?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: As you understand the politics, I'm specifically referring to your training, on the training, how did you understand it, who was the enemy if there had been one?

MR DE MEILLON: The enemy was the Communist, the ANC/SACP Alliance, that was mainly the enemy.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you join any white groups?

MR DE MEILLON: No, I was not a member of any groups at the right but shortly after I completed my military training I joined the AWB.

MR PRINSLOO: And at the AWB did you have a rank?

MR DE MEILLON: No I did not.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you part of the Wen Kommando, the Ystergarde?

MR DE MEILLON: I was part of the Wen Kommando.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you receive any training there?

MR DE MEILLON: At the Wen Kommando they gave us further training in weapons, they enhanced it.

MR PRINSLOO: With regard to the AWB, what was the view of the AWB in relation to the Government of the day, that is the National Party and also the ANC and South African Communist Party.

MR DE MEILLON: The ANC/SACP Alliance was also the enemy of the AWB at that stage.

MR PRINSLOO: Was the AWB in favour that there should be black take-over of the government, the ANC/SACP Alliance?

MR DE MEILLON: No, definitely not.

MR PRINSLOO: What was your view with regard to the National Party with regard to politics at that time, that was before the election?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I felt that the National Party was busy selling us out.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage during your membership of the AWB change from the movement?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I changed from the AWB to the BWB.

MR PRINSLOO: What does BWB stand for?

MR DE MEILLON: That is the Boere Weerstandsbeweging.

MR PRINSLOO: Who was the leader of the BWB?

MR DE MEILLON: That was Commandant General Andrew Ford.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know him?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I know him.

MR PRINSLOO: Who was the deputy leader?

MR DE MEILLON: I'm not quite sure, I can't really remember who that was.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, just a moment please?

MR PRINSLOO: Am I too fast?

CHAIRPERSON: No we have a bit of a technical problem. My colleagues listening to the interpreting service have problems in hearing so I just want to find out if that is now sorted out. Right, it seems that we don't have any problems. Right I think it will be better now. Could you just repeat the name of the leader of the BWB, Mr de Meillon?

MR DE MEILLON: His name was Andrew Ford.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo you may continue.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr de Meillon did you also know the programme of principles that was given out by the BWB? Chairperson, you have that on page 101 up to page 107. That is a document - is this the document that I'm showing to you now, is this the one of the BWB?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes it is.

MR PRINSLOO: You refer to page 101 to 107 of the bundle?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr de Meillon at that stage why did you change, if I can put it, from alliance?

MR DE MEILLON: The AWB didn't really satisfy my needs, they were also talking of war but they were never prepared to do anything about it and I felt that I needed something more.

MR PRINSLOO: And the BWB, what was their objectives?

MR DE MEILLON: At that stage they were in a state of war with the government of the day and they were in a state of war.

MR PRINSLOO: The meetings of the BWB did you attend them?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I did.

MR PRINSLOO: And who addressed these meetings?

MR DE MEILLON: Some of the meetings were addressed by the leaders themselves and others by people having higher ranks.

MR PRINSLOO: And at these meetings did they only have soft talk or did they refer to making war? What was the situation?

MR DE MEILLON: They always emphasised the fact that the BWB was in a state of war and that they were expecting full scale war.

MR PRINSLOO: What did the BWB want from the government or whoever?

MR DE MEILLON: They want a Christian Boere State where they could be independent?

MR PRINSLOO: And where would this State be?

MR DE MEILLON: That would have been in the Transvaal, Orange Free State and Northern Natal.

MR PRINSLOO: Would it have been linked with the old Boer Republics?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And is that also then part of the programme of principles?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: In the BWB was there any movement known as a military movement?

MR DE MEILLON: The BRA, that is the Boere Republican Army, that would be the military wing of the BWB.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you belong to that?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I did.

MR PRINSLOO: And could you just explain to the Honourable Committee how it was structured?

MR DE MEILLON: In the BRL it consists of cells and it operated underground.

MR PRINSLOO: Now how many members constituted a cell?

MR DE MEILLON: That was your own choice. My cell consisted of two members.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you have a cell leader?

MR DE MEILLON: In the cell itself, ranks weren't important but I had a paracell member.

MR PRINSLOO: Now that member, did he have a higher rank than you?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes he did.

MR PRINSLOO: In the BWB, who was he?

MR DE MEILLON: It was General Gerhard van Rensburg.

MR PRINSLOO: Was that the person you referred to in paragraph 5 of your application on page 6 in the bundle?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: In which area would you be responsible for and where would you act?

MR DE MEILLON: That would have been the whole Secunda area.

MR PRINSLOO: Where you there?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I was.

MR PRINSLOO: How would that cell have functioned in any action?

MR DE MEILLON: Well it would have functioned underground and instructions would have been given anonymously by telephone to the cell members.

MR PRINSLOO: Was it said that there would have been any actions?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I had been informed.

MR PRINSLOO: And what would happen in the nature of the action?

MR DE MEILLON: It would depend. We had to get weapons and we had to prepare for a full scale war.

MR PRINSLOO: Now the weapons that you had to obtain, for whom did you have to obtain it?

MR DE MEILLON: That would be the BWB.

MR PRINSLOO: Where would you have obtained it?

MR DE MEILLON: We had to get it from any available source.

MR PRINSLOO: Now would it be on a legal or illegal way?

MR DE MEILLON: It would be illegal.

MR PRINSLOO: With violence or not?

MR DE MEILLON: If it had to be with violence, it would have been done in that way, otherwise without any violence.

MR PRINSLOO: Was the BWB aware of the fact that you had training and that you had knowledge of the airforce base at Devon?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes they were aware of it.

MR PRINSLOO: And that was also where you received part of your training?

MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage receive a call from anyone?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I received a call.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know who the person was?

MR DE MEILLON: I have no idea.

MR PRINSLOO: And what was the request?

MR DE MEILLON: A person told me that the time is now appropriate to get weapons and I should know where to get them.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you told where the target was or did you have to decide yourself?

MR DE MEILLON: The choice of the target was left to me.

MR PRINSLOO: Would you have to act with someone?

MR DE MEILLON: Initially I would have acted with my personal member but at that stage he was not available.

MR PRINSLOO: Now your personal member, who was that?

MR DE MEILLON: That would have been General Gerhard van Rensburg.

MR PRINSLOO: And what did you do, that was now in connection with this call?

MR DE MEILLON: Now I contacted ...[inaudible] van Schalkwyk of the AWB, a close confidante of mine and I asked him whether Mr Holder and Van Zyl would assist me with this operation.

MR PRINSLOO: And what did he say then of Holder and Van Zyl?

MR DE MEILLON: He told me that when I met them I could trust them and that they would be prepared to assist me with any operation if I needed people and he also told me that I could trust them.

MR PRINSLOO: The AWB at that stage, what was their view on obtaining weapons, or didn't they have any ideas on that?

MR DE MEILLON: They always talked about it that they wanted to obtain weapons but they never really did anything.

MR PRINSLOO: On the 23rd April 1994 did you do any planning?

MR DE MEILLON: Everything happened very fast, I really didn't have time to thoroughly do preparation.

MR PRINSLOO: What happened on that day?

MR DE MEILLON: Mr Holder and Van Zyl picked me up at the single quarters.

MR PRINSLOO: Was it on your request or theirs?

MR DE MEILLON: It was on my request and from there we went through to Pretoria. We had a look at the situation Vermeulen Street, there were certain guards at a building, I don't know which building.

MR PRINSLOO: Where would this building be?

MR DE MEILLON: It is in Vermeulen Street in Pretoria.

MR PRINSLOO: Now this particular building, was there any mention made of it in the BWB discussions?

MR DE MEILLON: No not really, I passed it and I then saw that there were any guards.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you accompanied at that opportunity?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I was, by Gerhard van Rensburg.

MR PRINSLOO: And on this particular day, you say you went to Pretoria, what did you want to do there?

MR DE MEILLON: That was to look at the situation in Vermeulen Street to see whether we could get the weapons from these guys.

MR PRINSLOO: Now this is not from a safe, it is from the person himself?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And after you had a look did you think you could act there?

MR DE MEILLON: No at that stage there were more guards than were expected and I did not want to expose my people to the risk.

MR PRINSLOO: So there was nothing done that day?

MR DE MEILLON: No.

MR PRINSLOO: And what did you do then?

MR DE MEILLON: Then we went back to Secunda and on the way I remembered Devon Airforce Base, it was on our way and I then informed Mr Holder and Van Zyl about this and then told them that at the guard gate there are usually two airforce troops, usually they are weaponed with R5 and also 9 mm pistols.

MR PRINSLOO: Continue?

MR DE MEILLON: And we then decided to try and take off these weapons from the guards. Mr Holder and myself, we put on airforce uniforms along the road and we travelled a bit further and just past the base, we stopped, we got out of the car, we went into the base.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage you still believed that that base was still operating as an airforce base?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes, that was my impression.

MR PRINSLOO: Continue?

MR DE MEILLON: Mr Holder and myself then went to the guard room, that is at the gate. I walked in first and when I walked in I saw that there were police. I didn't expect police there. I then aimed my weapon at the guards and I told them they shouldn't be Rambos, we're from a right-wing organisation, we only want their weapons. The guard nearest to me smiled at me as if he was thinking I was making a joke and then I ordered him to take out his weapon. He took out his weapon and he lifted it. I grabbed it with my left hand and in the meantime Mr Holder passed me, to the other guard, and that was Mr Swart I found out later on and whilst I held Mr Terblanche's weapon with my left arm, a shot went off. It was Mr Holder or Mr Terblanche who shot. The lights went out at that stage. At that stage I thought the lights were shot out and I felt that something is wrong with my arm.

Mr Terblanche started struggling to get his weapon back and a shot was fired from my pistol. Mr Terblanche took his weapon and I shot. Mr Terblanche fell, I took his pistol and Mr Holder and myself left the scene.

MR PRINSLOO: At that point did you realise that those were members of the South African Police?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: What was your aim when you went in there?

MR DE MEILLON: It was to take the weapons from the guards.

MR PRINSLOO: What did you want to do with it?

MR DE MEILLON: That was to use it for the war.

MR PRINSLOO: The weapons would have gone to whom?

MR DE MEILLON: Well the one part would have gone to the BWB and the others would have gone to the AWB.

MR PRINSLOO: Now after you had obtained this weapon and Mr Terblanche, that is the deceased, after he had been shot dead did you foresee that you would have killed him, shooting at him. Did you aim at him?

MR DE MEILLON: No at that stage I didn't really know where I aimed my pistol, I just realised that I had to shoot.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you realise that there could be a possibility that you could kill him?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I did.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you at that stage in any way act for your own gain, did you have any revenge feelings, did you know the person?

MR DE MEILLON: No I did not.

MR PRINSLOO: The police at that stage, did you see them as part of the government or how did you see it?

MR DE MEILLON: They were part of the government.

MR PRINSLOO: And in the BWB itself, did there exist any system according to which when BWB members acted a message would be sent out so that you could act.

MR DE MEILLON: Well when a cell operated in the BRL they were provided with a telephone number for contact purposes and to say that cell number so and so had accepted responsibility for the deed that had been committed.

MR PRINSLOO: Now after this action, did you feel that there was something wrong with your hand? What was wrong?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I didn't realise at that stage what was wrong. Only in the car on the way back to Secunda I realised that I had been wounded in the left arm.

MR PRINSLOO: Okay, the person had been shot, you'd taken the firearm and you had left the building, you and Mr Holder?

MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Where were you taken?

MR DE MEILLON: Well we went to the car which had been waiting for us.

MR PRINSLOO: Who was waiting in the car?

MR DE MEILLON: It was Mr van Zyl.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it one of the two applicants on the left?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Where did you go?

MR DE MEILLON: We returned to Secunda. I requested that they drop me off along the Main Road leading into Secunda because my General lived directly next to the Main Road. I crossed the wire fence to Mr van Rensburg and he nursed my wound.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you referring to Mr van Rensburg, your fellow cell member, Mr Gerhard van Rensburg?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And then after that?

MR DE MEILLON: And as a member of the AWB he took me to this person and in the meanwhile the BWB headquarters in Rustenburg had been approached by him to find out whether there was a doctor who was supporting our cause. In the meanwhile I returned to a doctor and he took me to the member where the doctor treated me.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you treated there by the doctor?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you later hospitalised?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: How long were you in hospital?

MR DE MEILLON: Approximately two weeks.

MR PRINSLOO: And at that stage was the BWB aware of your action or not?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes they were aware of what we'd done there.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you inform them of the events?

MR DE MEILLON: No, I didn't do so personally but my General did so.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you inform your General, Gerhard van Rensburg about what had happened?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I had.

MR PRINSLOO: And as far as you know was this carried over or was this message given through to the movement?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you have any opportunity to accept responsibility for this deed?

MR DE MEILLON: At that stage I couldn't accept responsibility for the deed because shortly after my hospitalisation I was arrested.

MR PRINSLOO: While you were in hospital?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you state your version of what had happened to the police?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you also inform them that you had initially gone to Pretoria?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I did.

MR PRINSLOO: So they were aware of this throughout?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And you also made a statement before a Magistrate?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I did.

MR PRINSLOO: And during your trial did you initially plead not guilty?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Was that before Judge Grobbelaar in the Circuit Court of Springs?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct to both questions.

MR PRINSLOO: And after the first witness had been led, Mr Swart, did you change your plea to guilty?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Without having been cross-examined at that stage?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you initially plead not guilty?

MR DE MEILLON: That was at the recommendation of my Advocate, Mr Nel.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you plead not guilty to both the murder and the robbery with aggravating circumstances?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you were found guilty on both counts?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair, I wish to just state that I am in possession of Judge Grobbelaar's finding in the case and I will provide the Honourable Committee with copies of this, I obtained this yesterday. If I look at the finding the judgement, page 2, approximately line 20, says statement had been submitted, that the respective cases of the State and the Defence had been concluded and both passed that the accused be found guilty and then Judge Grobbelaar said it was clear that you had been of the intention to plead guilty, is that correct?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: After this deed and after these events and that which you had been wanting to achieve, how do you feel about all of this?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I'm disappointed because I feel that I had not really achieved my objective.

MR PRINSLOO: And how doe you feel about the victim, the late Mr Terblanche who was fatally wounded and killed during this action?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I'm very sorry about the death of Mr Terblanche.

MR PRINSLOO: During your trial did you meet any relative of Mr Terblanche?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes, during the trial I met his father and his stepbrother and other relatives.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you discuss things with them?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes they three talked to me but in particular Mr Terblanche, the deceased's father.

MR PRINSLOO: What did you say to him?

MR DE MEILLON: Well just after deciding to change my plea from not guilty to guilty, Mr Terblanche after the court had adjourned, met me in the passage and he held me against him and said they didn't hold it against me and they were praying for me and also on the day I was sentenced, after my sentence had been given, I was given time to greet my family and when I stepped towards my family, Mr Terblanche met me, gave me Christian books, told me that they didn't hold it against me, that they realised it had been for a political struggle and they were praying for me.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage receive any letter from anybody in this regard?

MR DE MEILLON: Well after I had been sentenced, Mr Terblanche wrote a letter to me whilst I was in prison in which he explained to me how he had felt in the beginning about the death of his son and that he had realised after he had met me that he had to forgive me and there he once again confirmed that he had forgiven me and that they didn't hold it against me.

MR PRINSLOO: Today, do you commit yourself to violence, to negotiation or what is your position at present?

MR DE MEILLON: Well at this stage today I do not wish to associate myself with violence, I feel negotiation is the right road to follow.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment, your Honour.

And Mr de Meillon, just to conclude, in your application did you state at all that you had done it for any other purpose than for political purpose?

MR DE MEILLON: No Sir.

MR PRINSLOO: Is your reply no?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes, I did not do it for any other purpose or any other objective than a political objective.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kotze?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KOTZE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Is it correct that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment. I think those two microphones can work simultaneously if you press your red buttons, let's just see?

INTERPRETER: The Chairperson's microphone is still off.

MR KOTZE: Mr de Meillon, is it correct that you met Mr Holder and Van Zyl just a couple of weeks before the incident on 23 April 1984?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: And this meeting was brought about by Mr Ochert van Schalkwyk who at that stage a commandant in the AWB?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: And you say he was an old confidante of yours, Mr van Schalkwyk?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: I was instructed that during this introduction Mr van Zyl and Mr Holder were told that they could trust you and on the other hand that you could trust them, is that correct?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR KOTZE: And they were also informed that you had the rank of Commandant in the BRL?

MR DE MEILLON: No in the BWB.

MR KOTZE: Okay that's correct, in the BWB. During that discussion the possibility of co-operation between the AWB and the BWB was discussed, is that correct?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR KOTZE: And in the presence of Mr van Schalkwyk it was also stated that should Mr Holder and Mr van Zyl receive a request from your side to assist you and members of the BWB in operations, they had to do so?

MR DE MEILLON: I'm not sure whether they were instructed to do so but I was told that I could trust them and they would be prepared to assist.

MR KOTZE: But a strong possibility of co-operation was mooted at that point?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: And furthermore, was the arrangement that should they co-operate with you, it would be under your control?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I wouldn't be able to state that, it would depend on whether I would be supporting them when they had received an instruction or whether they would co-operate with me when I had received an instruction.

MR KOTZE: But should you have received an instruction it would have been regarded as a BWB instruction and you would be in command?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: Furthermore the idea was that you would report to your higher command regarding the result of such an operation?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: You at that stage also lived and worked in Secunda?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: Would you agree that in the run up to the elections of 1994 there was a strong political awareness that developed in Secunda?

MR DE MEILLON: Very strong, yes.

MR KOTZE: And it reached it's height immediately preceding the 27 April 1994 elections?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: Are you also aware that there was a system of so-called safe houses that was developed by the AWB in Secunda?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I am aware of that.

MR KOTZE: And the idea behind the safe houses was that on election day as many as 70 000 persons from the neighbouring townships would stream into Secunda and that a civil war would then develop?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I wasn't aware of the figure of 70 000 but I was aware of the uprisings that would come.

MR KOTZE: And were you of the opinion that a large influx would take place into Secunda and that people would cause havoc in the white neighbourhoods of Secunda?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: And the AWB organised quite widely identified houses and prepared emergency plans?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I don't know about their plans and the houses identified but I was aware that they were planning.

MR KOTZE: And the idea was that should attacks take place on houses where women and children would be, the relevant safe houses had to be defended meaningfully?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: And the idea was that hand held weapons would not be proper defence against automatic attack weapons which at that stage was believed to be under control of the people who were expected to make the attacks?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: Is it also correct that according to your knowledge the City Council of Secunda as a matter of fact also issued emergency notices also contained in the bundle, which you had seen I assume, in which if I could possibly refer to it, is contained a list of emergency provisions for families or couples of people that had to be held for various periods of time contained on page 57 to 59 of the bundle? Page 57 to 59.

MR DE MEILLON: I never received such a list myself so I wasn't aware of it.

MR KOTZE: My instructions were that this document was comprehensively distributed throughout Secunda.

MR DE MEILLON: It is possible but as I said I never received one of these lists.

MR KOTZE: But would it be correct that you were aware that shortly before the elections there was a feeling of let's call it panic and of danger, comprehensive danger that existed and that wide plans had been made to resist an emergency situation?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes definitely.

MR KOTZE: On the 23rd April 1994, the day of this incident, the circumstances were that after you had received the telephone call you and Mr van Schalkwyk, the other applicant's commander went to Mr van Zyl - no first to Mr Holder's house, you didn't find him there and then you went to Mr van Zyl's house where you found Mr Holder as well, is that correct?

Let me make it easier, you went to look for them with Van Schalkwyk?

MR DE MEILLON: I can't remember accurately but yes I had, I went to look for them.

MR KOTZE: And what happened was you found Mr Holder at Mr van Zyl's house but Mr van Zyl wasn't there at the stage and you conveyed the instruction you had received to Mr Holder, is that correct?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes, it is.

MR KOTZE: My instructions were also that you and Mr van Schalkwyk at that stage told Mr Holder, who conveyed the message again to Mr van Zyl at a later stage, created the impression that firearms had to be found at some dump or an arsenal where according to Mr Holder's understanding it would be illegal arms which were in possession of freedom fighters, they believed, and that it would be a case of going to a specific place, the guards would be drunk and that the arms could be taken in a method that didn't hold a high risk.

MR DE MEILLON: Well I don't know whether Mr van Schalkwyk told Messrs Holder and van Zyl this but I definitely did not say so.

MR KOTZE: From the beginning...[inaudible] Mr Holder and Van Zyl that guards themselves were the target?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes at that stage they very clearly understood this.

MR KOTZE: My question was whether you yourself had conveyed this to them?

MR DE MEILLON: I can't remember whether I conveyed this to them myself or to Mr van Schalkwyk but that was clearly my objective.

MR KOTZE: With regard to what Mr van Schalkwyk had conveyed to Mr Holder, you can't express an opinion obviously?

MR DE MEILLON: No I can't.

MR KOTZE: Mr Holder said that he had believed that a number of automatic firearms would be obtained and that hand held firearms would not be the objective of the operation because effective firearms had to be obtained?

MR DE MEILLON: Well, the guards were armed with R4 rifles as well as with pistols in some cases and at the army base of Devon. That ...(intervention)

MR KOTZE: I'm sorry, I'm referring to Vermeulen Street.

MR DE MEILLON: At Devon Army Base or Airforce Base they had R5 firearms and 9 mm pistols.

MR KOTZE: At the stage when you arrived in Vermeulen Street Pretoria Messrs Holder and Van Zyl say that for the first time you indicated that you considered attacking the guards of the relevant Defence Force installation?

MR DE MEILLON: Well at that stage and I still don't know what building it was, my purpose was to rob the firearms of the guards, whether Mr van Schalkwyk had stated this to them I'm not aware but if that was the first time they became aware of this then they had gone blind into a situation they didn't know anything about.

MR KOTZE: My instructions were that at that stage they realised that you would not hesitate to attack persons and that that was actually not the purpose of their actions.

MR DE MEILLON: Well, I would have done anything in my ability to carry out my instruction correctly.

MR KOTZE: Would it be a correct word to say that at that stage you were fanatical?

MR DE MEILLON: No I wouldn't think so.

MR KOTZE: You wouldn't think that it was wrong to describe it as such?

MR DE MEILLON: No, I wouldn't think that I had been fanatical.

MR KOTZE: Messrs Holder and Van Zyl said that in Vermeulen Street at one stage you said that the guards had to be eliminated for propaganda purposes and that they had made it very clear to you that they were not prepared to go along with that kind of action?

MR DE MEILLON: No, that is not correct, it's not true.

MR KOTZE: For what reason did you say that the guards in Pretoria were not attacked for their R5 attack rifles?

MR DE MEILLON: Well normally two guards guarded the building but that particular night there were approximately six guards and that is the reason why we decided against this.

MR KOTZE: If you say we decided, it was actually your decision, wasn't it?

MR DE MEILLON: One could say that.

MR KOTZE: And that was after Mr Holder and Van Zyl had said that they believed that it would be much too risky for their liking?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes, it would have been at a great risk to me as well.

MR KOTZE: You then decided not to continue with the Vermeulen Street target and the decision was taken to return with Mr van Zyl's vehicle to Secunda?

MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.

MR KOTZE: And on your way back did you remark to Messrs Holder and Van Zyl that previously you had undergone service training at Devon army base or airforce base which was well known to you?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes, that is correct.

MR KOTZE: You once again selected the target if one could state it as such?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR KOTZE: And your idea was according to Messrs Holder and Van Zyl or the impression that you created with them was that you knew the area well because you had spent quite some time on the premises and that you were aware that there was an arsenal or that there would be an arsenal on the premises, of firearms?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes there is an arsenal of firearms but from the beginning my objective was to rob the guards of their firearms because in my opinion it would have been impossible to get access to the two safes where the other firearms were kept, I wouldn't even have attempted it.

MR KOTZE: Messrs Holder and Van Zyl say that at this stage when the action at Devon was planned very briefly, it wasn't a long drawn out planning, that they believed that the guardhouse and the guards would not be attacked but that it would only be a reconnaissance of the premises and if firearms could easily be obtained for the arsenal or firearms cache, it would be done?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I stated it very clearly to them, from the beginning that we would go to obtain firearms. We weren't going for observation, we were going to obtain firearms.

MR KOTZE: But would you state in broad terms, to obtain firearms that you would say you were there to obtain firearms or would you state in particular where the firearms would be obtained?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I told them in particular about the guards in the guardhouse and that we would take their firearms from them.

MR KOTZE: Messrs Holder and Van Zyl deny this, they state that it would only be a matter of reconnoitring and possibly obtaining firearms and that the attack on the guards had never been on their agenda that day.

MR DE MEILLON: Well if had never been on their agenda, I wasn't aware of it.

MR KOTZE: The circumstances briefly were then that Mr van Zyl remained behind in the vehicle and you and Mr Holder climbed over the wall, I mean the fence?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes over the fence.

MR KOTZE: Then you crept up to, or you crossed the premises so that you wouldn't be detected, you were ahead?

MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.

MR KOTZE: Mr Holder followed you at a few metres distance?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: Mr Holder alleges that the next thing he saw you were at the guardhouse and he assumed that you were moving there in order to observe how many guards there were and how prepared they were?

MR DE MEILLON: Well at that stage I stated it very clearly to him that we were going to take the guards' weapons from them and he was aware of the guardhouse because we had driven past it.

MR KOTZE: Mr Holder had a .38 special revolver with him at the stage when the guardhouse was approached?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: He alleges that it was in the pants hip pocket of his browns, as he called it?

MR DE MEILLON: No, it was definitely not in his hip pocket.

MR KOTZE: Where would you say it was?

MR DE MEILLON: In his hand.

MR KOTZE: And you had a 9 mm pistol in your hand, you stated previously?

MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.

MR KOTZE: Mr Holder said that the guardhouse is a square type and that he looked through a window in the one side while you went round the corner to another side where the door was which rendered access to the guardhouse?

MR DE MEILLON: I wouldn't know whether he looked through the window.

MR KOTZE: No, but the point that I'm trying to make is that you had lost eye contact with each other in the sense that you went round the corner and that he was standing on the other side of the corner or he remained behind?

MR DE MEILLON: Well the door is not very far from the corner, it was on the corner so it is possible that for a few second we lost eye contact.

MR KOTZE: Mr Holder alleges that he believed that the purpose of the visit to the guardhouse was purely to make an observation with regard to how many people there were in the guardhouse, how awake they were and he states that the next moment he observed you storming, rushing into the guardhouse?

MR DE MEILLON: He was aware at that stage that I was going to enter the guardhouse because he was directly behind me.

MR KOTZE: Are you saying that at the stage when you entered the guardhouse you were already aware that there were two white police officers in the guardhouse?

MR DE MEILLON: At that stage I was not aware of it.

MR KOTZE: Are you saying that regardless of who was in the guardhouse your purpose was to attack them and rob them of their firearms.

MR DE MEILLON: Well if I'd known beforehand that they were policemen I wouldn't have run the risk because the police at that stage were much better trained than airforce troops were trained and they dealt daily with crime and violence and they would have been able to act and react much quicker than airforce troops would have been able to do. I wouldn't have run that risk.

MR KOTZE: Are you saying that you went past the window and not at all looked through it into the guardhouse to see who was inside?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I ducked below the window so that I wouldn't be seen so I couldn't look through the window, I didn't look through the window.

MR KOTZE: Mr Holder alleges that when he saw you storming into the guardhouse he followed you?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes he followed me.

MR KOTZE: But he says it was a total change on the original game plan?

MR DE MEILLON: Well as I had stated previously, it was very clearly stated from the beginning that we were going to obtain or take by force firearms and that was made very clear to them and I accepted that that was what they understood and that they agreed to it and that is the way I explained it to them.

MR KOTZE: Mr Holder alleges that immediately after you had stormed into the guardhouse your remark had been that the guards shouldn't do anything stupid.

MR DE MEILLON: My words were that we were of a right-wing organisation, that they shouldn't try to be Rambos and all that we wanted were their firearms.

MR KOTZE: Mr Holder alleges that a struggle developed between you and Constable Terblanche and then as a consequence of this the lights went out.

MR DE MEILLON: Well at the stage when the lights went out it was after the first shot had been fired but neither myself nor Mr Terblanche had fired the first shot, Mr Holder or Mr Swart, a co-guard, would have had to fire the first shot.

MR KOTZE: And then you fired a second shot?

MR DE MEILLON: Well as I had said I grabbed Mr Terblanche's firearm, the first shot was fired, the lights were out and I felt there was something was wrong with my arm. Mr Terblanche started struggling to get his firearm and at that stage a shot was fired from my firearm, not deliberately, and Mr Terblanche jerked his firearm from my hand and then I fired.

MR KOTZE: Do you accept that a shot from your firearm had fatally wounded Mr Terblanche?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I accept that.

MR KOTZE: Mr Holder denies having fired any shots in the guardhouse.

MR DE MEILLON: Well I wouldn't be able to say whether he had fired any shots but I know that in my trial and I have statements made by the various sections of the police or issued by the sections of the police in which some of the evidence that was provided was a projectile fired from a .38 special firearm and that was only one person there who had that kind of firearm and that was Mr Holder.

MR KOTZE: Mr Holder says that his impression was that you had shot yourself in the forearm.

MR DE MEILLON: Well I definitely don't agree with that because I can't see how I could have shot myself because if one looks at the degrees at which the projectile had penetrated my arm and if one looks at the course between the entry wound and exit wound it's impossible that I could have shot myself because the firearm would have been aimed at myself which is not something I would have done.

MR KOTZE: Mr van Zyl says that he looked at the pistol that had been taken in the robbery after Mr Holder had received it and had later been handed over to Van Zyl. Van Zyl said that he checked the firearm and it was apparent that Mr Terblanche's pistol had never been cocked or fired that night.

MR DE MEILLON: Well I was aware that it had not been fired, I was aware of that but as I said I had the barrel in my left hand and not for a moment did I think that Mr Terblanche had fired any of the shots.

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, but I thought you said just a little earlier that that first shot that went off you assumed it came either from Terblanche or I beg your pardon, who is the other chap? Who is the other victim? Swart? Swart or Holder?

MR DE MEILLON: I was under the impression, Mr Chair, that the first shot had come from Mr Swart the co-guard with Mr Terblanche or from Mr Holder my co-applicant, I was under the impression that the first shot had come from one of them.

MR KOTZE: After the shooting incident did you pick up the firearm of Mr Terblanche?

MR DE MEILLON: I picked it up, yes.

MR KOTZE: And you and Mr Holder then left the guard room without looking for R5 attack rifles?

MR DE MEILLON: Now in the guard room they don't have R5 weapons, they don't keep it there. Now I was under the impression that it was airforce troops guarding it and they were always armed with R5's and 9 mm pistols but when we entered it was quite clear that these two guards weren't armed with R5's.

MR KOTZE: And you then returned with Mr van Zyl's vehicle from Devon to Secunda?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: In the car was the weapon given to Mr van Zyl?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR KOTZE: And you were then dropped close to Mr Gerhard van Rensburg's home with the clear impression that you would go there, get assistance and then also report on the event?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes, my intention was to go there for assistance but at that stage it didn't go through my mind that I had to report concerning this operation. Mr van Rensburg was also not aware of this operation. He did not give me the instruction.

MR KOTZE: Up to that point you didn't know it and you accepted that Mr van Rensburg would have had knowledge of the operation?

MR DE MEILLON: No, I knew that he would not have had any knowledge of the operation, he would have been informed there.

Afterwards I would have informed it if everything had gone successfully.

MR KOTZE: Now did you in fact inform Mr van Rensburg of what happened earlier in the evening?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I did.

MR KOTZE: And did you also request him or did you get a commitment from Van Rensburg that Van Rensburg would report to Van Schalkwyk concerning the activities of the AWB members?

MR DE MEILLON: I did not do it, if he had done it, it would be on his own accord, his own decision.

MR KOTZE: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kotze. Mr Schalkwyk?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK: As it pleases you Chairperson.

Mr de Meillon, did you leave right-wing politics?

MR DE MEILLON: No not at this stage.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Not at all?

MR DE MEILLON: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you are still clinging to the principles of right-wing politics?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes, the principles I still believe in.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You also don't say that you have any remorse?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I do have remorse.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you Sir, that in your testimony you have said that you were disappointed that you did not achieve your aims, you did not say that you were disappointed because you took a person's life?

MR DE MEILLON: That was concerning the operation, that was not concerning the taking of a person's life.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, with respect, the applicant has said that he was very sorry for taking a person's life, that is how I heard it.

CHAIRPERSON: But it is so that in answering a question he said that he was disappointed because the operation did not reach it's goal. He did in fact say that he was feeling very bad about the death of Mr Terblanche but he had indeed referred to his disappointment concerning the operation. I think that is the point that Mr van Schalkwyk is making.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not activated.

The speaker's microphone is not activated.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that your attorney had asked if you had remorse and you said that you were disappointed that you were not successful in the execution of this act?

MR DE MEILLON: Chairperson, could I just confer with my advocate before I answer?

CHAIRPERSON: Unfortunately you may not. When all the questions have been asked then your advocate will once again have the opportunity to put questions to you and then he will then try and clear any uncertainties but for the moment you will have to answer the questions.

MR DE MEILLON: Well I can't remember exactly what my advocate asked me whether I had any remorse concerning the event or not.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: How many weapons did you envisage that your organisation or the AWB would steal?

MR DE MEILLON: Well, there were two guards. Mr Holder and Mr van Zyl would have taken the one weapon and I would have taken the other one. I would have given my weapon to the BWB.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now seen globally in this right-wing organisation, how many weapons did you foresee that you had steal? A hundred, thousand, how many?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I didn't really know how many I would have to obtain. My aim was to get the weapons at places where it would have been the easiest.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir do you think it is justified to shoot a policeman and kill him for one 9 mm pistol?

MR DE MEILLON: No I don't think so.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now the firearms that you had been using were they licensed?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes, my firearm that I used it was licensed.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: For how long were you in service of the South African Defence Force?

MR DE MEILLON: I did a year service.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: When did it start?

MR DE MEILLON: That was in the beginning of 1992.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You were trained in the use of weapons?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You say that if you had known that it would have been a South African Police member you would not have taken the weapon?

MR DE MEILLON: What I said, that I would not have taken the risk to try and get the weapons.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you then say in other words that you don't care to rob a South African policeman of his weapon but that you only saw it as a danger?

MR DE MEILLON: Well at that stage the South African Police was part of the government against whom the BWB declared war.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that in none of the written work of your organisation there was never anything said about attacking police?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I can say that there was declaration of war and it was clearly put to us as members that there was war declared against the government of the day.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Was it said directly to you to shoot white policemen?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: No, not.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: At the time that you spent in the South African Defence Force, did you do it voluntarily or why did you spend it there?

MR DE MEILLON: Well it was national service and I did that voluntarily.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Please explain to me, why do you do military service if you are against the government?

MR DE MEILLON: It was national service.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But you had a choice, you could have gone to jail, you could have left the country, but now you are serving this country?

MR DE MEILLON: Now I perhaps had the choice but anything is better than jail or leaving the country.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you are saying is that you support the government enough to do your national service?

MR DE MEILLON: Well at that stage I didn't really have much of a choice.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I want to put it to you that you had a choice. You could have left the country, you could have sat in a jail, you had different options other than doing your national service?

MR DE MEILLON: Well it would have been more advantageous to doing my military service because I was trained in weapons.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I want to put it to you Sir that in all situations you do what is to your advantage. Now today you have remorse because it is to your advantage but you don't really have remorse.

MR DE MEILLON: But one of the reasons for admitting my guilt was because I felt remorse.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you testify against your two co-accused in the trial?

MR DE MEILLON: No I did not testify.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why didn't you testify against them?

MR DE MEILLON: Because each of them have a wife and two small children.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now if you say to us that you are a person who has remorse for your deeds and there are co-accused who have - why didn't you testify against them?

MR DE MEILLON: It was also told to me by my investigative officer that I don't have to testify because they have sufficient testimony against them.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now I have been instructed by my client that there had been a specific discussion with the investigating officer, that was Captain Nel, where he then indicated that you don't want to co-operate and that you refused to co-operate because you referred to them as co-people with you in the struggle?

MR DE MEILLON: No, I put it quite clearly to him why I did not testify.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In other words you say that Captain Nel is lying if he says that you did not want to testify?

MR DE MEILLON: I won't say that he was lying but that is not what I told him. I did not tell him that I refused to testify.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I also put it to you that Mr Terblanche senior stopped corresponding when it became clear that you didn't break from right-wing politics where you initially indicated that you had remorse?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I don't know, I never told Mr Terblanche that I was not prepared to break with right-wing politics. I cannot do away with my heritage.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that Mr Terblanche specifically opposed this application that you had indicated to him that you felt remorse and that you wanted to break from your past but that Inspector Nel indicated to him that you are not prepared to co-operate or to testify in the criminal case of these two co-accused who had plead guilty?

MR DE MEILLON: That is what Mr Nel told him, that is not what I told him and I also put it to Mr Nel that I would be prepared to testify should he subpoena me and he told me that it was not necessary if I don't testify I don't have to because they had enough evidence against the two accused.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you're saying is that you would testify against these two people?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes, if they had subpoenaed me I would have.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I want to put it to you that you are lying, that you are now changing the truth to suit you?

MR DE MEILLON: I'm not agreeing, I don't have a reason here to lie, I'm here to tell the truth.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you agree with everything that is contained in the application here and the submission given here?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I agree.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are there any other changes that you would like to add or anything that you would like to point out that is not correct?

MR DE MEILLON: Not anything that I can think of right now.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why were these changes made today to the submissions and the statements?

MR DE MEILLON: Well when I read through it, it was briefly, it was only yesterday that I really went through it in detail and then I saw the different errors.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Would you agree with me that this is a very important application and it could save you ten years in prison?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I agree.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I want to put it to you that no normal person would have just glanced through such an application and just handed it in without really ascertaining whether everything is correct.

MR DE MEILLON: I took it as correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you read through everything?

MR DE MEILLON: No I did not read through everything but I believed that it was correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that it is quite unlikely that any person would have had his application compiled, handed in and then also confirmed that it was his without reading through it thoroughly.

MR DE MEILLON: Well I had absolute trust in my advocate.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you're saying is that it was only today that you realised that there were certain mistakes in the application?

MR DE MEILLON: No, not today, I read through the application thoroughly yesterday and then I saw the mistakes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that you made the changes to then link up with the applications of the other two people so that there aren't any contradictions.

MR DE MEILLON: I have no idea what is contained in the statements of the other two.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Didn't you go through them at any stage?

MR DE MEILLON: No I did not read their applications.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I want to put it to you that in your application you made corrections where you said that they're not friends of yours and that you don't know them well?

MR DE MEILLON: No I don't know them well.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not activated.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: During the trial did you also say that you don't know these people well or did you view them as your confidantes?

MR DE MEILLON: In the trial I did not testify.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you then deny that you in any statements referred to them as confidantes?

MR DE MEILLON: Well they were confidantes in the sense that Mr van Schalkwyk told me that I could trust them.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In other words you want to say that a person that you've only met once and if a person is then indicated to be a confidante and someone you can trust that you then view him in that manner, in that way?

MR DE MEILLON: Well they could be confidantes but not necessarily friends. I believed that I could rely on his opinion of other people.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why didn't you join the AWB whilst in the army?

MR DE MEILLON: At that stage it was prohibited if you were in the service of any State department or did any service that you could join any political movement.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you are a person who, doing your national service, but you then also comply with the rules of the Defence Force?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I didn't have a choice, I didn't have a choice of complying with it.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And I put it to you that we all have choices. Now you had a choice in killing that policeman and you also had a choice in becoming an AWB member earlier.

MR DE MEILLON: Well I have always supported the right-wing politics but at that stage I just didn't view it important to join.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that you didn't have any right-wing relations before that date, you're only using it to obtain amnesty.

MR DE MEILLON: Well I have proof of my membership with the organisation and as I have said I was raised very conservatively in an Afrikaner house.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Nowhere you refer to an AWB number or any proof that you are an AWB.

MR DE MEILLON: Well I don't have my AWB membership card any more because I had to hand that back when I joined the BWB but I do have my BWB membership here, the original.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that you were not a member of the AWB whilst you were in the army because you didn't want to, it was only after these events that you obtained membership?

MR DE MEILLON: I don't agree, just after I completed my military service I then obtained membership at the AWB, that was after I met Commandant Ochert van Schalkwyk, he was with me in the single quarters. He introduced me to the AWB.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are you going to call Ochert van Schalkwyk to testify?

MR DE MEILLON: I don't know what my advocate is going to do, I don't know what purpose it would serve.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you're not going to call him?

MR DE MEILLON: I don't think so.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are you going to call Gerhard van Rensburg to testify?

MR DE MEILLON: I don't know, I don't think so.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You say there in your testimony that it was not Gerhard van Rensburg who gave you the instruction?

MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: How do you know that it wasn't him?

MR DE MEILLON: If it had been him I don't know of it.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that you come to us and you say that you know that one specific person didn't give the instruction but then you say that you don't know who gave the instruction?

MR DE MEILLON: Mr van Rensburg at that stage wasn't available, he was on an angling expedition with his family, so I don't know how he would have contacted me per telephone and given me an instruction. We were good friends, we trusted one another.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: No, you testify and you say that it is not him. How do you know that he did not give it?

MR DE MEILLON: In the first instance, I know his voice, I would have immediately recognised the voice if it had been Mr van Rensburg's voice.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: How many instructions did you get over the telephone from anonymous people?

MR DE MEILLON: That was the first one.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you've never before received such an instruction?

MR DE MEILLON: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that you never received such an instruction and that it is something fictitious that you have thought out?

MR DE MEILLON: I don't agree.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: How do you know that it was perhaps just someone who phoned you and let's say for example someone just playing with the telephone.

MR DE MEILLON: There aren't just people playing with the telephone having knowledge of the BWB and knowing of their operations.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now you say someone who did not identify himself tells you that the time is right, for what?

MR DE MEILLON: The time was right to obtain weapons, that is what the person said and that I would know where to get it.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that your statement doesn't indicate that the time is right to get weapons, it was only said that the time is now right, nothing was said about weapons.

MR DE MEILLON: That was not my precise words.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you say that your statement is not correct?

MR DE MEILLON: We have already changed that.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now the order and the way in which this was put was not quite correct. Now I put it to you that I asked you do you agree with the changed version and you said yes you agree?

MR DE MEILLON: But at that stage I was not aware of what this paragraph says.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you want to say to us that this changed version you have also not read through thoroughly?

MR DE MEILLON: I've read through it, yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that the first version and the changed version nowhere is reference made to weapons in this telephone conversation and that you are not telling the truth?

MR DE MEILLON: It is most definitely not an untruth.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you're saying to us is that your first statement and the changed statement is incorrect?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes, in that regard, yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is there anything else in your statement that you would like to change?

MR DE MEILLON: At this stage I can't think of anything, anything that is not correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I want to put it to you, in paragraph 6 and I read your words:

Why do you still refer to them there as confidantes if you now say that you only met them once.

MR DE MEILLON: As I said, Mr van Schalkwyk put it to me that I could trust them and rely on them, now in that regard I view them as being confidantes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I'm going to put it later to the co-applicants Mr Holder and Mr van Zyl that they weren't confidantes. Should they testify that they weren't confidantes, what would your answer be to that?

MR DE MEILLON: I view them to be confidantes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that Constable Swart is here and he is going to testify against you and say that you never said that you are a right-wing group and that you were not looking for weapons when you entered the building?

MR DE MEILLON: That is what I said.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why would he lie concerning such an important point?

MR DE MEILLON: I don't know why he would lie but I also don't know why I would lie.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you Sir that you are a convicted murderer and therefore you would lie to stay in prison for ten years less.

MR DE MEILLON: No, I'm not prepared to tell any lies here.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: The statement in paragraph 7 of how it happened, are you sure that it is correct?

MR DE MEILLON: I won't say that it is a hundred percent correct. As I explained to the Committee earlier, that is how it happened.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You told the Committee that you are sure that you didn't fire the first shot, is that correct?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Van Zyl was in the vehicle, so Van Zyl could not also have fired the shot?

MR DE MEILLON: No, it was definitely not Van Zyl.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: According to your statement, it would then only mean that it would have been either Holder or Swart could have fired the shot?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that Constable Swart's hands had been tested by Nel for some residue and there was nothing found?

MR DE MEILLON: That's possible.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In other words you say that if the testimony of Swart is that he did not fire the shot that the only other possible person who could have fired it would have been Holder?

MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Should Holder come and testify that he did not fire his weapon, is he lying?

MR DE MEILLON: It's quite clear, yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you say that it's quite clear that he is lying?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You also say that you have knowledge of a .38 round that was found?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes it was a .38 projectile.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Could you repeat that?

MR DE MEILLON: A .38 projectile was found at the scene.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: The only person on that scene with a .38 was Mr Holder?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you ever handle his weapon so that you could have fired the shot?

MR DE MEILLON: No, I never had his weapon in my hands.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now after this incident, why do you only take this one weapon from the policeman, but why don't you take Constable Swart's firearm?

MR DE MEILLON: Well at that stage I realise that everything had gone wrong. It didn't happen as I had planned and the first thing that came to my mind was to leave the scene. Now the guardroom was dark and at that stage I also didn't know where Constable Swart was.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You say in your testimony that Mr Holder had already taken out his weapon outside of the room, is that correct?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: If Mr Holder says in his application that he had not taken out his firearm and that it was in his pocket when he moved then he is lying?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why do you think that Mr Holder would be lying?

MR DE MEILLON: I don't know why he would lie but it would be possible to put all the blame on me, to blame me for everything, for the whole incident.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I take you to Annexure B, page 10, 10 - 15 of the statement and there you give an exposition of the Boere Weerstandsbeweging, the BWB, where does it indicate here that you may attack or wage war against the government of the day? I would like to say to you Sir, that nowhere in this document any basis is formed for an attack on a white policeman or any member of the police.

MR DE MEILLON: No, it is not summarised in this.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: What is your reply?

MR DE MEILLON: No, it is not summarised in this.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you are saying is that the basis of your movements, nowhere states that you may attack policemen?

MR DE MEILLON: No, it is not contained in the BWB's documentation.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you are saying that you made this decision yourself and that it was part of the policy of the movement?

MR DE MEILLON: As I had said at that stage the BWB had already declared war against the State, against the ANC/SACP Alliance and the National Party Government.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I don't agree with you that war had been declared. Where and when did this happen?

MR DE MEILLON: It was before I joined the BWB, I can't give day and date but it was made very clear to me that war had been declared, we had a flag which signified that war had been declared.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would like to say to you that this flag with the orange band is being used by many organisations in non-violent capacity.

MR DE MEILLON: Well I wouldn't know about this.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I wish to say to you that there is no proof that war had been declared at any stage.

MR DE MEILLON: Well the leader of the BWB is present here today, I don't know whether my advocate is going to ask him to testify but he will be able to confirm that.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well let us then look at the event. At whose house were you dropped?

MR DE MEILLON: Mr van Rensburg.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are you going to call Mr van Rensburg to come and testify?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I don't know whether we're going to call him, I won't be able to tell.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well, after you had been dropped off, did you tell Mr van Rensburg what had happened?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I informed him briefly.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: At that stage why did Mr van Rensburg not take you to the nearest police station because you had killed a policeman?

MR DE MEILLON: Well we were co-cell members, we worked towards the same objective.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So in other words you say that Gerhard van Rensburg identified himself with the objective and he didn't hand you over to the police because he agreed with the objective that was striven for on that day?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes we can assume that.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well I would say that he is a person who is a beneficiary by our law and that he had done so in order to favour himself?

MR DE MEILLON: That is possible.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did he assist you to escape that day?

MR DE MEILLON: He didn't assist me in escaping, he just nursed my wound and he took me to another person.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well I would state that he took you to another person to darken the trail you had followed so that the police wouldn't be able to trace you?

MR DE MEILLON: Well he had taken me to another person because he had gone to find medical assistance for me.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well I would like to state that he didn't take you to a hospital but that he wanted to obtain alternative medical assistance to ensure that he wouldn't be caught?

MR DE MEILLON: Well as I had said, he went to the BWB head office, headquarters to find out from the leader whether there were any doctors who would assist us.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Were there any doctors who were able to assist you?

MR DE MEILLON: Well the doctors came to Secunda for me to consult them.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Who was the doctor?

MR DE MEILLON: I wouldn't be able to say.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Who had called in this doctor?

MR DE MEILLON: Well as I was given to understand, Mr Ford, the leader of the BWB, gave the address of the doctor to Mr van Rensburg. I never enquired about that.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you meet Mr Ford just after the event, after the conclusion of the event?

MR DE MEILLON: No I didn't meet him shortly after the conclusion of the event.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: The evidence that was given at the court case of Mr van Zyl and Holder, did you read this?

MR DE MEILLON: No, I didn't read the testimony.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well I would say to you that Mr van Zyl was the driver?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would further like to say to you that he had made a statement to the South African Police regarding the events of the evening from 19H40, do you have any knowledge of this?

MR DE MEILLON: Knowledge of what? I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would like to put to you that he starts with the evening's events and nowhere in the statement to the police does he refer to the visit to Pretoria.

MR DE MEILLON: Well I'm not aware that he didn't refer to it in his statement.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would like to say to you and I'm going to read the paragraph to you:

and then they continue through the whole process of travelling to the base, he never talks about travelling to Pretoria, he only says to Devon.

MR PRINSLOO: Well is this a reasonable question to this witness? How will he know why Mr van Zyl is making certain statements and not referring to others?

CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm quite sure that he will react accordingly. Mr van Schalkwyk, you may continue.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Okay, I will rephrase my question.

I am stating to you that you never went to Pretoria that night, that there was not enough time to go from Secunda to Pretoria and back but that it was a fictitious statement that you ever went to Pretoria.

MR PRINSLOO: Is this a fact that is stated or a probability?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I state it as a submission to which he can react if he is capable of doing so.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears as if it is a statement made based on probabilities of the circumstances concerning the relevant event.

MR DE MEILLON: Well I don't know why I wouldn't be able to tell, but we were definitely in Pretoria in Vermeulen Street.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are you saying you don't know which building you visited is that correct?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well I would say that it is highly improbable that you would plan a military operation at a building without knowing what the building was.

MR DE MEILLON: Well Sir, we didn't plan on entering the building we were planning to take away the firearms of the guards at the entrance to the building.

ADV GCABASHE: How did you know where the building was if you didn't know which building, which particular building, you had visited? Just explain that to me?

MR DE MEILLON: Mr Chair, as I had stated, Mr van Rensburg and I at a stage when we were in Pretoria, drove past the building and saw that there were armed guards at the entrance and this was in Vermeulen Street. We drove past and we saw that there were armed guards there.

ADV GCABASHE: Are you saying you were familiar with Pretoria and you would thus remember which building just be driving there and out again?

MR DE MEILLON: I'm not familiar with Pretoria and it's environs but I was aware of the street name because after I had seen the guards there I looked specifically to see what the street name was but I had no idea what the building was and what was held there or done there.

ADV GCABASHE: How often had you been to that particular building after that first visit?

MR DE MEILLON: At the time when we visited Pretoria we always drove through there every time upon my request because I wished to ascertain that there were still guards there.

ADV GCABASHE: How often?

MR DE MEILLON: Well after I had seen them the first time, probably once or twice that I had driven past there again.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir, why did you go to that building specifically?

MR DE MEILLON: Mr Chair, because I thought that I would be able to get hold of the firearms without any serious occurrences, I regarded that as the best option and the easiest at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: The person who phoned you, I can't remember whether I heard your testimony correctly, did he give you any targets or she? I don't know whether it was a man or a woman?

MR DE MEILLON: No, it was a man, he left the choice of target to me, he didn't specifically mention a target.

CHAIRPERSON: So that was at your own initiative you decided to go and see whether you would be successful there?

MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Schalkwyk?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir I would like to state to you that you only joined the AWB after completing your military service, is that correct?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would say that you joined and immediately resigned to join another organisation, that you were virtually not a member of the AWB?

MR DE MEILLON: Well it was approximately three months that I was a member of the AWB before joining the BWB. I'm not one hundred percent sure of the dates, I can't tell you exactly.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In your evidence in chief you also refer on page 101 - 107 to the Boere Weerstandsbeweging. Is that in other words the basis on which you had acted?

MR DE MEILLON: Well that is the BWB programme of principles.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is there any reference that it is lawful to shoot policemen or attack the government of the day?

MR DE MEILLON: No, it is not contained in this.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you are saying that in both of these annexures there was no real basis for your actions?

MR DE MEILLON: Well as I'd said, it was very clearly stated to us that war had been declared against the government of the day and I had acted in accordance therewith.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I'm stating to you Sir that the new government which was to come in South Africa has been democratically elected and as a democratically elected government, you cannot rebel against it.

MR PRINSLOO: Your honour, it doesn't concern the government now, it is the government of the day at the time it's referred to, the National Party government. So what is the relevance to this aspect?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr van Schalkwyk, that is so. The government being referred to if I understand correctly is the National Government before the 1994 elections.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir, your struggle, was it against the National Party government or the new government that would come?

MR DE MEILLON: Well, I wouldn't have been able to tell what the new government would be and who would have been in control of the new government, so the National Party at that stage was handing over our country and our heritage to the Communists.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Had you declared war against the National Party?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that's the way I understood it.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I am stating to you that there is no proof of such a declaration of war against the National Party?

MR DE MEILLON: Well Commandant General Andrew Ford who is present here today will be able to confirm this, he is the leader of the BWB.

ADV GCABASHE: What other actions had your organisation taken against the government of the day before you acted, ones that you knew of?

MR DE MEILLON: Mr Chair I am not really aware of the actions specifically carried out by my movement or our movement but at that stage I know there were many bomb explosions and that kind of activity. I'm not sure whether they were carried out by members of my organisation but as I'd stated I operated in the BRL and one cell was not aware of what another was doing. As a matter of fact one cell wouldn't even know who were the members of another cell, it was totally underground organisation.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes but I'm trying to understand your knowledge at the time that you acted. How did you know that this was part of this declaration of war that your activity was tied into other activities?

MR DE MEILLON: At that stage we were expecting total war over the period of the '94 elections and we were working on that basis. We wished to prevent that election from taking place, we wanted a political uprising so the government would be forced not to continue with the elections and create fear among the general public so that they wouldn't participate in the elections.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes but so was the AWB, I've heard the same said of applicants who were AWB members. I'm trying to distinguish your particular organisation and understand your action as part of this declaration of war or uprising because of particular principles and objectives you believed in. Just help me understand that and this is why I'm being - organisation specifically, your organisation, your actions, tie that up with what everybody else in your organisation was doing?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I couldn't tie it up specifically with other members of my organisation but at numerous or various meetings we were told that we would have to get hold of firearms for the war, the full scale war that was going to break out and that is the basis on which I worked, it was clearly stated to us that we had to obtain firearms and that is one of the main reasons why I carried out my instruction.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir, I would like to submit further to you that the list of provisions from pages 57 - 59 had not been prepared by right-wing organisation at all.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair this witness never testified about that list, under cross-examination the other applicants referred to the list. This applicant said he was not aware of this list.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes it appears as if that cross-examination it had been some or other municipality who had prepared that list.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes that's correct, Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Okay, I'll state my question as follows. Sir, are you aware that this list had been issued by a right-wing organisation?

MR DE MEILLON: Well as I'd stated, I'm not aware of this list at all. Today is the first time that I have seen this list.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well in your trying to find firearms, would you regard it as justified that for every firearm stolen one person had to be killed?

MR DE MEILLON: No I would not regard it as justified.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In other words, therefore so much the less you would have to kill one person for one 9 mm pistol of which you also had a licensed one?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would like to state to you Sir that this military base was not a defence force base but a normal civil radar base manned by police of the Internal Stability Unit and guarded by them?

MR DE MEILLON: Well at that stage I wasn't aware of this at all. When I was stationed there at the end of '92 it was still airforce property.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I am stating to you Sir or submitting to you that you said in your evidence that you were well aware of the set up at the bases. Are you saying that you had never been there after completing your national service?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is true, I never visited the base after completing my national service.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I'm stating to you Sir that on the spur of the moment you selected that base as a target?

MR PRINSLOO: Is this stated as a fact or is it just an allegation? Is my learned friend going to lead testimony to this effect?

CHAIRPERSON: Well I would say that it was then based on the probabilities.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Yes I would like to rephrase my question.

Did you reconnoitre this base at all before selecting it as a military target?

MR DE MEILLON: No I didn't.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions thank you Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mr de Meillon, when you completed the application form for amnesty you were no longer a member of the AWB, am I correct?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: Were you still a member of the Conservative Party, KP?

MR DE MEILLON: I was never enrolled as a member of the CP/KP or any other party.

MR SIBANYONI: I notice on page 1, that is the first page of your application for amnesty, under paragraph 7(a) you indicated there, you wrote KP and AWB and BWB. Now my question relates to the two organisations there, CP and the AWB. Why did you mention that you were a member of those organisations?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I supported the CP, I supported the CP but I was never an enrolled member of the CP.

MR SIBANYONI: I see and then you said you were expecting a total war to happen, to be waged during the period, the elections. Who would start that war according to your expectations?

MR DE MEILLON: Mr Chair as I'd stated, our objective was to bring about a political uprising in order to prevent the National Party government from continuing with the elections and to create fear amongst the general public so that they would not participate in the elections and that, I believe, would have been war. That would have been open warfare between the people who had brought about the political uprising and the people who were would try to suppress us.

MR SIBANYONI: If I understand you well, therefore it was your organisation that was going to cause that uprising?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct, Mr Chair.

MR SIBANYONI: Therefore there was no need for panic amongst your members, members of your organisation. What do you say about that?

MR DE MEILLON: There was no reason for panic among the members of my organisation, Mr Chair.

MR SIBANYONI: When I look at your evidence it would appear in most of the things you were doing, you were using your own discretion, in other words there was no specific instructions or orders from your organisation? What is your response to that?

MR DE MEILLON: Mr Chair, as I stated, I received my instructions anonymously by telephone. As I had been informed was the method of operation of the BRL. A specific target had not been identified or selected for me, it was just stated to me that the time was right to obtain weapons and I would know where to find that, the target was left to my own initiative. That is why there was no real planning to go beforehand and reconnoitre the Devon Base or Vermeulen Street and make sure what the circumstances were. The target itself was left over to my initiative.

MR SIBANYONI: But it would appear your colleagues or the people who accompanied you were sometimes surprised about the decisions you took from time to time for example that they never knew before you went to Pretoria what was going to be done there and also when you were at Secunda they also didn't have the full knowledge of what was going to take place. Therefore, that's why I'm saying it would appear you were using your discretion?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I clearly told and explained to Mr van Schalkwyk my clear instructions which I had received, I don't know what he told Messrs Holder and Van Zyl and what they had expected but as far as I am aware, I never created the possibility that we were going to just reconnoitre or just to make observations. From the start I made it very clear and I believed that they understood it as such, that we were going with the purpose that night of obtaining the firearms, of taking the firearms.

MR SIBANYONI: Did you expect any resistance from the guards?

MR DE MEILLON: Well it would be natural from the guards side to resist and I to some extent I did expect resistance but I did not really expect shooting to take place but it was a possibility that rose in my mind.

MR SIBANYONI: Were you prepared to fight and remove their weapons from them by force or fight and defeat them?

MR DE MEILLON: I was prepared to obtain the firearms whatever I had to do, yes I was prepared to do so by force.

MR SIBANYONI: To me it seems an impossible task which you undertook and for that I'm going to ask you this question only to understand your actions of the day, not to despise you in any manner and the question is, were you sober on that day? Had you made use of any intoxicating liquor?

MR DE MEILLON: I was totally sober, I had not used any alcohol at that stage, Mr Chair.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you Chair.

I want to take you back to the trip to Pretoria. I'm still a little unclear about that trip. Let's start with the objective, that was to get weapons, is that correct?

MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: So you received this instruction to say the time is right. On the same day you go to Pretoria to get these weapons. How many weapons were you hoping to come back with?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I depended on obtaining two weapons because the guards I had seen there on the previous occasions were two, there were two guards on duty there when I travelled past so I could depend on obtaining two weapons.

ADV GCABASHE: So you drove past Devon which is in Secunda all the way to Pretoria for two weapons, is that right?

MR DE MEILLON: That is correct yes.

ADV GCABASHE: You had not reconnoitred that particular building before you got there, not on that day anyway?

MR DE MEILLON: No I didn't.

ADV GCABASHE: And how long did the drive from Secunda to Pretoria take you?

MR DE MEILLON: Mr Chair, I'm not entirely sure how long it took us but it's an hour approximately, I'm not entirely sure exactly how far.

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon, just give me an idea of the distance, I don't know the road very well from where you were to Vermeulen Street? Just a rough estimate?

MR DE MEILLON: It's difficult to say, I don't have any clear idea of how far Secunda is from Pretoria and I don't have my own vehicle, I was travelling with other people. I've never possessed my own vehicle and I honestly don't know how far Pretoria is from Secunda but it's quite a distance.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it more than a hundred kilometres?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I believe it is more than a hundred kilometres.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV GCABASHE: Now you left Secunda at about 7 o'clock it would appear. Can you give me a rough time if that's not right?

MR DE MEILLON: Mr Chair, I think it was quite a bit earlier than 7 o'clock. I wouldn't be able to tell exactly what the time was.

ADV GCABASHE: No but was this day time or evening?

MR DE MEILLON: It wasn't dark yet, it was quite light so it could have been round about 5 o'clock.

ADV GCABASHE: Let's assume it was about 5 o'clock, you got to Pretoria at about 6 o'clock and it still wasn't dark at 6 o'clock?

MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: So you were going to attack this particular target in broad daylight essentially?

MR DE MEILLON: We would have waited until it was dark, until it would not have been as busy in town.

ADV GCABASHE: But how then did you know that the next shift would not be a two man shift which is what you said you were used to seeing, a two man not a six man shift? You know, I'm just looking at the planning, that's really the area that I'm looking at right now.

MR DE MEILLON: Chairperson, I didn't know when they would change, when the next shift would be there, how many guards there would be, I didn't look at that.

ADV GCABASHE: In your organisation these were not matters that you discussed that if you go out, come back at least with six weapons. If you go out make sure you operate in this particular manner. You didn't discuss that type of thing at all?

MR DE MEILLON: I don't understand the question?

ADV GCABASHE: I'm going one step backwards from your actions to the planning and any possible discussions you had in the organisation because you were a part of an organisation. Now when you went out as operatives what modus operandi did your organisation expect from you? Did they really expect you to come back with two weapons?

MR DE MEILLON: I don't think it was very important for them how many weapons I would return with. I think it was important for them that I would in fact return with weapons, I didn't think the quantity was really that important. The more the better of course but I think they would have been satisfied if I had only returned with two weapons.

ADV GCABASHE: You see, it just puzzles me a bit that you would put three lives at stake, you go all the way to Pretoria, achieve nothing and drive back to Secunda. That's really what happened, up to the point you got to Devon, that's really what had happened. You put three lives at risk and came back empty handed.

MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: You see, I ask this because again I'm thinking of the planning. The idea to go to Devon occurred to you when you were now back in the Secunda area essentially, it's not something that had occurred to you when you left Secunda at 5 o'clock, am I right?

MR DE MEILLON: That is correct. Chairperson, the first idea that I had where to obtain the weapons was the situation in Vermeulen Street, that was my first option, my first choice. At that stage I didn't really think of Devon. To tell the truth it was such a long time since I'd passed this base one could almost say that I'd almost forgotten about this base.

ADV GCABASHE: But along with having forgotten about this base when you left Secunda, there was no real urgency either in coming back with one or ten weapons, was there?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I believe there was urgency to return with weapons.

ADV GCABASHE: But you have said that even if you came back with one weapon, it didn't matter to the organisation and this is why my conclusion and correct me if my conclusion is wrong, my conclusion is then there was no urgency if they would be happy to receive one weapon from three operatives after a mission?

MR DE MEILLON: Chairperson, in the first instance my organisation wasn't aware of the fact that I would have approached Mr Holder and Van Zyl to assist with the operation and I believed that each weapon, every weapon would have helped and any weapon that could have been obtained was necessary. I believed that it mattered whether we in fact returned with weapons.

ADV GCABASHE: Okay, so we get to Secunda and you get the idea that Devon might be the place to go to. Again, why didn't you go in and reconnoitre first, just find out what was happening? You hadn't been there in such a long time?

MR DE MEILLON: Chairperson, I thought of Devon Base before we arrived at Secunda. Now Devon is approximately midway between Devon and Secunda so on my way to Secunda I remembered the base and the reason why we first didn't reconnoitre. Well I don't really know what the reason for that was, at that stage I really believed that it was still a property of the airforce. I had no idea it had been handed over for example to the South African Police, I had no idea, I did not envisage that.

ADV GCABASHE: You see again, I asked because if indeed Mr Holder's version under oath is going to be that that was his impression, it would sound like a very reasonable impression to have had, but please, you were there, you can correct that best. Would that not have been a reasonable impression?

MR DE MEILLON: I believe that if I had not put it quite clearly of what my objective would have been with the operation, yes then it could have been a reasonable impression.

ADV GCABASHE: Now you get back to Secunda, you get your medical attention. The one bit that I seem to have missed, the report back, your advocate led you through how you would report back and how you did in fact report back. Can you just take me through that very briefly? What I understood you to say was you went to Mr van Rensburg for medical assistance more than to report back to him. Was that correct, is that why you went to him?

MR DE MEILLON: That is correct, Chairperson, I went to Mr van Rensburg mostly to get assistance, I told him what had happened and at that stage it didn't really occur to me to try and report back. I was very afraid, I wanted medical attention. Although I believed that Mr van Rensburg would have discussed this with the leader of the BWB and BRL or whoever had given the instruction would have then ascertained that I would have in fact executed the instruction.

ADV GCABASHE: Now again, this is what puzzles me. You needed to notify the State against whom you have declared war that you have tackled it's personnel somewhere. You did not bother to do this. How would the State know that your organisation was serious about that declaration of war?

MR DE MEILLON: Chairperson, if the operation had been successful then I would have informed the State that the operation went awry, I had to receive medical attention urgently so there wasn't really time for me to inform the State of the operation and as I said it was a failure, it did not succeed and then I don't think it is applicable to inform the State.

ADV GCABASHE: I understand what you're saying but then I may have misunderstood what you said earlier. Whose duty would it be to inform the State of the successful mission, yours or your organisation's?

MR DE MEILLON: The telephone number was made available to me to phone. The BWB would obviously have taken responsibility for the deed, that is the organisation, because I had received an instruction to commit the act.

ADV GCABASHE: Now your co-applicants are members of the AWB. What portion of that success would they be able to claim? Would their organisation also be able to say "we executed that mission successfully"? Again, what was the plan?

MR DE MEILLON: Chairperson, I don't really know what the AWB had planned in that regard. They would have taken the one weapon, I would have taken the other and what they had planned I don't know. They would be able to inform you.

ADV GCABASHE: But as the person who was in charge of this particular operation, you chose the target, you were their confidante. It was a two way process, I understand that. You did not plan with the AWB even with these particular colleagues how you would then inform the party you are fighting, the State in this instance, that you are the people who have done this thing and they had better take notice of you. I just want to understand that communication because unless you communicate what you are doing, you can't get the correct reaction from your enemy?

MR DE MEILLON: That is correct, I did not inform my co-applicants with relation to the number that I had, I didn't view it as relevant at that stage.

ADV GCABASHE: But that was a BWB telephone number anyway, not a general telephone number, is that right?

MR DE MEILLON: I think the telephone number was of the crime investigation service, I don't know whether that is the case but I think that to be the case.

ADV GCABASHE: Then one last question. This declaration of war I've been asking you about by your organisation, what exactly was said or written down or how was it communicated to the other side, to the people you declared war against?

MR DE MEILLON: I don't really know what the government of the day's reaction was in relation to this declaration of war but it was put quite clearly to our members at meetings, especially at headquarters, that we were in a situation of war with the government of the day and the ANC/SACP Alliance so-forth and what the NP's reaction was I can't say.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes but I'm more interested in how your leadership communicated this declaration of war to you, what did they say, did they say we've written a petition, we've sent a letter, we've sent a telex? How did they, as far as you know, to your knowledge, how did they communicate the declaration of war to the NP government, to the ANC, to the SACP?

MR DE MEILLON: Chairperson, I'm not a hundred percent sure, that happened before I joined the BWB, when I joined them they were already in a state of war against the government so I don't know exactly how they issued this declaration, whether it was published in newspapers or what they did. No, I'm not a hundred percent sure.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you Mr de Meillon, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

The call you received did you view that as the instruction for action?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I viewed it as my instruction to act.

CHAIRPERSON: And you also understood it to be from the BWB?

MR DE MEILLON: That is the BRL.

CHAIRPERSON: BRL?

MR DE MEILLON: That is correct, that is the military wing of the BWB.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you later ascertain whether it was indeed an instruction from the BRL?

MR DE MEILLON: Chairperson no, I cannot really say. As I say I don't know who the person was and I also don't know who of the other members were members of the BRL. Now these members operate in cells, the only person that you have knowledge of that is also a member of the BRL and also operates under them, that would be your co-cell members, you don't know if any of the other members are members of the BRL and operate.

CHAIRPERSON: So you can't really say?

MR DE MEILLON: No I can't.

CHAIRPERSON: So you obtained one firearm?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And what happened to that firearm?

MR DE MEILLON: Well because I had to receive medical attention quite urgently I then gave the firearm to Mr Holder and Mr van Zyl. I later on heard that they threw it into a damn, why I don't know. Perhaps they were scared.

CHAIRPERSON: So the whole operation was a total failure?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And the only weapon or the only result from your perspective, that was thrown away?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why were they worried, because of the crime?

MR DE MEILLON: No I wouldn't be able to say Chairperson, that's just my opinion, I can't say why they threw it away.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, they'll tell us I suppose. If I understand you correctly, you didn't really want to shoot the policeman, you didn't really want to kill him?

MR DE MEILLON: No, that wasn't my intention, my objective.

CHAIRPERSON: If I understand it correctly it was more in the sense of an accident, the shot went off whilst you were busy trying to hold his weapon.

MR DE MEILLON: Yes, as I said Chairperson, the first shot that was fired from my firearm, that was accidentally, that was whilst Mr Terblanche was struggling with me then the weapon was taken from my hand, it was grabbed and I was under the impression that I would be shot at and I reacted and then I shot before he could shoot.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words you defended yourself, you were afraid that he was going to shoot you so you shot him first?

MR DE MEILLON: Well it happened so fast but one could say that yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So in other words it was not a situation that you deliberately decided that there is a policeman, I'm going to enter, shoot him, kill him and then I'm going to take his weapon? That is something that happened in the situation that you found yourself in?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes. If it had been my objective to enter and then to kill the policeman and then take his weapon then I would have made sure that I was in possession of unlicensed pistol instead of using my own firearm but then it would also not have been necessary to wear a balaclava because then there would not be anyone to identify me later on. My aim was to enter and then to tie them up and that was my goal and also to gag them.

CHAIRPERSON: Now did you understand the situation that - this now concerns the declaration of war, that it would be the policy of your organisation that you get to a white policeman that you could kill him?

MR DE MEILLON: No that is not how I understood it.

CHAIRPERSON: What I mean is, did you understand the policy in any way to mean that you could kill any white person?

MR DE MEILLON: To tell the truth Chairperson, no. They never referred to the killing of any person, whether white, black. They never specifically said that we may kill certain people and not others, no. They never really talked about killing people.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you just explain it once again, I know reference has been made to this, but if you say that you have been disappointed because of the action what specifically do you refer to?

MR DE MEILLON: I was disappointed Chairperson because this operation failed, not really failed, but because it didn't contribute, really contribute to the promotion of the struggle because it failed. That is why I was disappointed. I'm disappointed and I have remorse because another human life has been taken and there weren't really any results because of this operation. That is why I am disappointed.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chair.

Mr de Meillon, did you at any stage as it was put to you during cross-examination that you would just attack people blindly?

MR DE MEILLON: No that was never my intention or objective.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you ever convey this to your co-applicants that you would blindly attack people?

MR DE MEILLON: No I did not.

MR PRINSLOO: Now this specific base at Devon, is it correct it is closer to Delmas than to Secunda itself?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: From Delmas to Pretoria is approximately an hour, do you agree?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I agree.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you have your membership card here of the BWB?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I have.

MR PRINSLOO: Could you please just give it to us?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not activated.

MR PRINSLOO: My apologies, Mr Chair.

Now this is named O.A. That is for?

MR DE MEILLON: That is for Ochert Antonie.

MR PRINSLOO: Then membership, membership number 24412?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And then an I.D. number. Whose is that?

MR DE MEILLON: That is mine.

MR PRINSLOO: And then a date of birth?

MR DE MEILLON: That is mine.

MR PRINSLOO: And then there's some kind of a stamp?

MR DE MEILLON: That is my I.D. photo which I removed to send it to a girlfriend, I didn't really have any other photos.

MR PRINSLOO: Then you also have a photocopy, is this a copy of the same document?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And on this copy there is a photo?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is the photo that was on the original membership card.

MR PRINSLOO: Whose photo is that?

MR DE MEILLON: That is mine.

MR PRINSLOO: And then with your permission I want to hand this in and this is then Exhibit A1 and A2.

CHAIRPERSON: That will then be A1 and A2.

MR PRINSLOO: You also in cross-examination mentioned the ballistic report in which it was indicated that a .38 special round or rather a projectile had been found in the place?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Which had been issued by the South African Police, this report?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: I also have a photostat copy of the report with me, I'm just looking for it. Your honour, this report had been given to my colleague who is not present today, Advocate van der Walt, I will get it from her and then I will submit it to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes that is in order.

MR PRINSLOO: Oh, there is an extra report, an extra copy of the report, your Honour, if we could look at that? This specific report, page 2 of the report, it was brought out in terms of Section 212 sub-section 4(a) and 212 and 8(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Paul Johannes Murphy, attacked to the South African Police, rank Captain, Ballistic Investigation Officer. Under paragraph 3 he mentions that:

Paragraph 3.3:

Is that the report to which you refer regarding the .38 bullet?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And then with regard to your matter "Devon M.R. 30/5/4433" and did you obtain the document with regard to the case against you?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: I would like to submit this as B and that copies of this also be made.

CHAIRPERSON: That will then be Exhibit B.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson. I'll hand over a copy to my learned friends then as well.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt, I know I'm out of circuit here. There are certain documentations, paging the copy of the full police docket, except certain documentation which was not contained in the bundle for obvious reasons which I have made available now to everyone's welcome to peruse it and if there's anything else, I'm just putting it on the record, that's basically the ballistic reports and further medical reports, inquest record and so forth. I'm just putting it on the record for your knowledge. Thank you Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that's in order. If any of the parties wish to use some of the documentation then that will be in order, we'll deal with it at that stage but thank you.

MR KOTZE: It appears as if this ballistic report could be relevant to Messrs Holder and Van Zyl's application and I would also like to receive a bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you like to receive instructions in this regard?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, if I have an extra copy I'll make it available, of the bundle.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you your Honour.

Mr de Meillon, you did your military service at Devon. Did you know at all that the Internal Stability Unit section had taken over the base and that the airforce no longer operated from it?

MR DE MEILLON: No I didn't.

MR PRINSLOO: If you had known this, would you have gone there that evening?

MR DE MEILLON: No I wouldn't have.

MR PRINSLOO: Before you went there together with your co-applicant Mr Holder and climbed over the fence to go there did it in way come to your attention that it was no longer airforce base but that it was manned by police?

MR DE MEILLON: No it didn't look in any way different to me. There was no reason for me to think that the base as no longer in the airforce possession.

MR PRINSLOO: You also testified to a question by Advocate Gcabashe that you didn't know about the initial declaration of war but during your attendance of meetings, was reference made to the war that was declared and which was continuing?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes there was.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you doubt it in any way especially in the circumstances ruling in the country at the time?

MR DE MEILLON: No, I didn't doubt it at all.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know a member of the BWB by the name of Harmse?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Vrooneman?

MR DE MEILLON: Vrooneman's name I know but I don't know him personally.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you aware at this stage that Harmse and Vrooneman had made application for amnesty for deeds committed under the banner of the BWB and that they had received amnesty?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I am aware of the fact that they had received amnesty.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a second please, Mr Chair?

Mr de Meillon, did you at any stage doubt that the person who had telephonically instructed you, did you at any stage think that he had been a false person, a faceless person who couldn't give the instruction?

MR DE MEILLON: No I never doubted the correctness of the instruction of the validity of the instruction which I had been given.

MR PRINSLOO: During your action with your fellow co-applicants did you inform them of your intentions?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I did.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. My colleague, Mr Sibanyoni, has an additional question also which he would like to pose to your client and then if you would like to react to it you have the opportunity to do so.

MR SIBANYONI: In fact I'd made a note, I forgot to ask it when I had the opportunity to ask. Mr de Meillon, you said the National Party was giving away your heritage. I just wanted to ask you a question, what do you mean by that? What heritage were you referring to?

MR DE MEILLON: I'm referring to my Christian heritage inter alia and they were handing over the country as I believed at the time into communist hands and the struggle was basically against communism. The heritage which they were giving away concerned basically my Christian heritage, my national culture, those were the things which they were no longer recognising.

MR SIBANYONI: Are you saying they were giving it away by agreeing to go for elections?

MR DE MEILLON: Inter alia, yes.

MR SIBANYONI: The elections were held and the National Party is no longer in power. Are you saying that heritage has now been given away?

MR DE MEILLON: Well Mr Chair in the meanwhile I have come to realise and I am aware of the fact that various nations can live together in one country and that our heritage has not really been taken away from us but at that stage I believed that that was what was going to happen.

MR SIBANYONI: And in fact it has been protected by the Constitution because it guarantees the freedom of religion, culture, etc etc.

MR DE MEILLON: That is correct, Mr Chair.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you. No further questions Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair, on further question stemming from this, not stemming from this but with regard to a question you posed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes there is something I wanted to hear from your client but I assumed that to be so, those policemen were they dressed in uniform in that guardhouse?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes as far as I can remember Sir, they were.

CHAIRPERSON: And was there a window through which one could look into the guardhouse?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes one would be able to look in but as I had stated I crept below the level of the window so that I wouldn't be seen through the window before arriving at the door of the guardhouse.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chair.

Mr de Meillon, just to understand the answer to a question that the Chairman had asked you. Are you saying today or aren't you or do you still say today that you were guilty of the murder of the deceased?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I have.

MR PRINSLOO: You are not saying you defended yourself, you deliberately shot him?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes I am guilty, at that stage I did do so deliberately.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you your Honour.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Can I just pose a number of questions in reply to a number of matters?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I had hoped that we could conclude the matter in the normal process but it is something which we'll have to allow.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Okay I will be very brief Sir.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: The documentation which you had issued, the proof of membership, what was the date of issue?

MR DE MEILLON: Well that was just after I had joined.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: What was the date?

MR DE MEILLON: I can't remember the exact date when I joined but it was quite early in 1993.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is there a date on this application or proof of membership?

MR DE MEILLON: No I don't think there's date on it, on this membership card.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: What proof do you have that this membership card was issued before this event or incident?

MR DE MEILLON: Well according to the card there's no proof but I can assure you that the BWB still has my membership application form in their possession.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I refer to form 1, page 1 of your application, why didn't you fill in this number as your membership number on the application?

MR PRINSLOO: Which paragraph are you referring to?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I'm referring to paragraph 7(a) and (b) where his political affiliations have to be indicated but he doesn't state his membership number.

MR DE MEILLON: But Sir at that stage I was already a sentenced prisoner, I didn't have my membership card in my possession, it was in my parents' house.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In paragraph 8(b) you do mention your force number so you did enter some?

MR DE MEILLON: Yes my force number I remembered because I had to know it by heart.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you say your defence force number for which you didn't really want to serve you can remember but this organisation number you cannot remember?

MR DE MEILLON: No but it wasn't expected of us to remember our membership number, especially not by heart.

MR PRINSLOO: Sir is it doubted that this person was a member of the BWB because if that is the case we can obtain the documentation and submit it and we would possibly have to ask for an extension to go do so but evidence to the contrary can be led, we will investigate that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well it appears as if Mr van Schalkwyk is doubting the date of membership or debating it with your client. I'm quite sure, it depends on you how you wish to deal with the application but if it is an important point you can then deal with it.

MR PRINSLOO: Your Honour, I don't wish to waste unnecessary time but if it is a material fact we will have to submit it.

CHAIRPERSON: Let us see how the point develops.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir the attack which you wanted to launch in Vermeulen Street against the guards, would you have tied up and gagged the guards?

MR PRINSLOO: Sir on what basis are these questions now posed? My learned friend had the opportunity during cross-examination, he'd heard all the evidence and this is not stemming from another base, is everybody going to be allowed a second opportunity to cross-examine? Is the applicant also going to be allowed to ask more questions because then we're not going to reach any finality.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes it is true, it is the danger which I referred to. We do not wish to enter into unnecessary points and dwell on them but I don't want to be too technical, we're not a court of law here, we are trying to deal with the matter as fully as possible but it is indeed so that the point Mr Prinsloo is making is a valid point. I understand that the membership issue is something which had struck you but he had asked you and he had said during cross-examination, he referred to the membership number, you did not ask him to produce it, he had it in his possession. It was raised in re-cross but I don't wish to be too strict in this regard but I think you have to limit yourself to matters which really were raised afterwards, which you feel are really important to your client's purposes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Okay then briefly one concluding question. I thank the Honourable Chair. What is your number, can you remember it off by heart now?

MR DE MEILLON: No, as I said it was never expected of me to remember it by heart. I am honest, I cannot remember it by heart.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo I don't know whether you have further questions, Mr Kotze is the only person who does not seem to have had as bite, perhaps I should ask him?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KOTZE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Well there are three matters on which I wish to comment.

Mr de Meillon, my instructions are that at no stage during Messrs van Zyl and Holder's trial the ballistic report which at a stage was submitted here was held up to them. Do you have any knowledge of what testimony was made available to them, how their trial proceeded or which evidence had been led there?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I'm not at all aware of how their trial progressed. I was a prisoner, I had already started serving my sentence, prison term, and I'm not sure what documentation they received and what had happened at their trial.

MR KOTZE: Well I would just like to say Mr Holder denied firing any shots in that guardroom.

MR DE MEILLON: Well Sir then it must have been the co-guard who had been present there.

MR KOTZE: But you are sure that only two shots had been fired?

MR DE MEILLON: No, three shots

MR KOTZE: Three shots?

MR DE MEILLON: As far as I can remember, yes.

MR KOTZE: Messrs Holder and Van Zyl alleged that if they had been aware that the objective had been only to try and obtain two firearms they would never have participated in the operation?

MR DE MEILLON: Well Sir, as I had stated previously, they understood very clearly what the objective was and nevertheless they participated.

MR KOTZE: And they further allege that there had been no agreement regarding the division of firearms, they accepted that it would be divided but depending on somebody else's decision besides themselves, so are you saying that on that evening you had said to them you're going to get one and I'm going to get one or would it depend on how the evening progressed?

MR DE MEILLON: Well I'd say it would have depended more on how the evening progressed, one cannot count your chickens before they're hatched, one had to see how many firearms and then make the decision.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo any further questions?

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay I am going to take the lunch break. Is that the testimony of the first applicant?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I would just like to consider my position during this break so that we can make a decision regarding my position regarding any further applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. We will adjourn for lunch and we will reconvene at 2 o'clock. We're adjourned.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, Honourable Members, I would like to ask permission and apologise for this delay in this matter that is standing down. I would ask permission if possible we can deal with the matter Ntuli, it's application number 3391/96, it appears in the thick bundle marked a, b and c. It's the application on top, Mr Chairman, Mr Brian Kopedi is appearing on that matter and also then the application of Mokepe Bennet Msimange, that's application number 7371/97, Mr Chairman. There are certain recommendations that Mr Kopedi would like to make in this regard, I'm sure he will inform you properly what the position of those two matters is. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, the Ntuli matter is the first one that is before us. AM3391/96. What is the position with this one, Mr Kopedi?

MR KOPEDI: Mr Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, I will request that the matter of Ntuli be removed from the role and perhaps give a reason for that. We have received word that he is no longer interested in this amnesty. I wish to stress that I personally have not been able to talk to him but there is a letter which was faxed to our office by an officer in the Correctional Services Department who has spoken to Ntuli and who told us that he says he doesn't think he needs amnesty, he is out on parole. As to whether the matter is to be struck off the role or what I will leave that in the capable hands of this Committee, but we are not in a position to proceed with that matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, you say you've got a letter?

MR KOPEDI: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got it in your possession now?

MR KOPEDI: Yes I do Mr Chairman.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, copies were made available to yourselves, it's a letter with a letterhead of the Department of Correctional Services on top of it, it consists of two pages and the second page from paragraph 3 is indication, apparently the applicant is not interested any more. I can maybe just add I was informed by the ANC office that this applicant is also paroled as well. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes we have in fact been placed in possession of this letter which is from the Department of Correctional Services indicating that the applicant, Mr Ntuli, has been released on parole and as they put it in the letter, that he is not interested although I assume he is not interested in pursuing his amnesty application. All it says that he is not interested in TRC as he is already released from prison and he is enjoying his parole. Alright, well under those circumstances we can't compel him to proceed with his application, this of course is a voluntary process and we would accordingly strike the matter from the roll and make it clear that the consequence of that is of course that the applicant would not be in a position to renew the application.

ADV STEENKAMP: As you wish Mr Chairman. In the second matter, we're dealing with Mokete Bennet Msimanga. It's annexure to the thick bundle marked A, Amnesty Number 7371/97.

Mr Kopedi is also appearing in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kopedi, what is the position with this one?

MR KOPEDI: If I may, Honourable Chairperson, I'm going to ask for a postponement of this matter sine die. The reasons are that all the applicants are not here as we speak and also the victim, there is one victim in this matter, the victim is not here and basically we did not have any application forms from the TRC other than one until Monday. Now there hasn't been any proper consultation done with the applicants. However, there has been certain developments. The developments are that we first need to verify whether these people belonged to any ANC branch. Our initial investigations have not been able to prove that and my perusal of the documents that are before you shows me that we might also have a problem in establishing certain facts which we need for this amnesty and it is on - well perhaps finally I should mention for the record's sake that on Monday it was indicated to me by the applicants that the location of this hearing puts them out of hand in that they have to travel to Johannesburg when this could have been brought to Boipatong or Vanderbijlpark because this is where other applications have been heard. It is on those grounds that I will ask that this matter be postponed sine die, pending further representations of course from us and the applicants.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, may I be so rude, if you would allow me just - Mr Chairman, for the record, the applications concerned are not only that of Mr Msimange but it also concerns the application number 7353/97 which is the application of Mr Mzumbe, I'll spell that for the record, it's M-z-u-m-b-e, it's Mr Mzumbe, which will be the second applicant, Mr Chairman. It also affects the application of number 7290/97 which is the application of Mr JM Patose, P-a-t-o-s-e, Mr Chairman. It also effects the application of number 7123/97 which is the application of Mr EM Hlongwane, H-l-o-n-g-w-a-n-e, Mr Hlongwane. And the last applicant, Mr Chairman, I unfortunately don't have the application number but the surname is Mr Tsubella E. - T-s-b-e-l-l-a E. - Edmond. Those are the five applicants apparently, Mr Chairman, that are involved in this application. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any objection to the application for a postponement?

ADV STEENKAMP: I don't have any objections Mr Chairman, I'll leave it in the hands of the Chairperson, thank you Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: In the matter of Msimanga and four others there is an application for the matter to be postponed sine die and Mr Kopedi who appears for the applicants has motivated the application. We note that the applicants and interested parties need to follow up certain aspects which are material to the success or otherwise of the application and we are persuaded for those reasons that it would be in the interest of justice to have the matter postponed sine die in the circumstances. Can we just in conclusion comment on the fact that one of the issues which was raised by Mr Kopedi relates to apparent inconvenience which the applicants are occasioned by the venue of this hearing. We are not persuaded that is a sufficient basis for the postponement but the other grounds are compelling enough to justify that the matter be postponed.

In the circumstances then, the matter of Msimanga and four others is postponed sine die.

MR KOPEDI: Thank you, as it pleases Mr Chairman, Honourable Committee Members, I'm most indebted and may I be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you are excused, thank you Mr Kopedi.

MR KOPEDI: Thank you.

______________________________________________________ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, with your indulgence, I thank you for that and if possible can we proceed with the matter that was standing down before lunch? Thank you Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, we call the matter of De Meillon.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, before we start, there's a household matter, there's a request from certain applicants' attorneys and even from certain applicants if you would allow people to remove their jackets in the circumstances, if there is no objection?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think I should consult with my colleague Advocate Gcabashe in that regard, she will have the final word.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: No I see she's got no objection. In that case we are overruled and the majority of the panel has got no objection, gentlemen, if you want to make yourselves more comfortable.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: That concludes the evidence of the applicant and I will attend to obtain the application form for his membership and once I have done so, I will hand it in for your perusal. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Mr Kotze?

MR KOTZE: Thank you Chairperson, I think we might have some problems with the microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: Might I request then that you move it ever so slightly? Are you comfortable where you are seated, Mr Kotze, you are seated right on the edge of the table, would you like a little bit more room?

Very well, would you like to discuss the matter of Mr Holder?

MR KOTZE: As it pleases you Chairperson, I call Mr Holder.

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR KOTZE: Thank you. Mr Holder is it correct that you are a 37 year old electro-mechanic and that you are the applicant in this matter?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: Is it correct that you are married and that you have two children who are currently respectively 15 and 13 years old?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: Is it also correct that on the 5th November 1996 you were found guilty on charges of robbery with aggravating circumstances and murder and for each of these charges you were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment to be served concurrently?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: And this emanated from an incident which occurred on 23 April 1994?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: Have you had any prior convictions except this particular one?

MR HOLDER: No.

MR KOTZE: Mr Holder, if we could just begin with your background? In which environment did you grow up? Where did you undergo your education?

MR HOLDER: In Krugersdorp, primary and high school.

MR KOTZE: And after you passed matric is it correct that during 1979 and 1980 you performed your military service?

MR HOLDER: Yes that's correct in Ladysmith at 5 Infantry Battalion.

MR KOTZE: Did you follow any advanced courses there?

MR HOLDER: An officers course.

MR KOTZE: Did you achieve a rank?

MR HOLDER: Yes, that of corporal.

MR KOTZE: And as part of your military service and your obligations thereof, you performed duties in Namibia?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: For how long were you on the border?

MR HOLDER: Approximately one year.

MR KOTZE: And during this border duty, were you involved in any contact?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct, two incidents of contact.

MR KOTZE: And were any of your friends injured during this military contact?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: Did you lose any members of your family as a result of the border war?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct, my cousin Reino.

MR KOTZE: And was there anything specific about his passing?

MR HOLDER: He was one of the last who died during border duty and that was during the operation when they withdrew the land from Namibia.

MR KOTZE: And during your military training and border duty were any discussions ever held with you in order to motivate your presence on the Namibian border?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: Could you briefly expand regarding this motivation and these discussions?

MR HOLDER: Discussions about the border focused on communism and the fight against communism, they indoctrinated us extensively against communism and the ANC in it's entirety.

MR KOTZE: At that stage was the ANC also regarded by the army as an enemy?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: And this threat of communism, if you could just expand of that? What would that threat involve in general for you?

MR HOLDER: For me it would have meant that free religion would no longer have existed, that the free market economy would have collapsed and that everything that we believed in and everything that we had been taught would have been destroyed.

MR KOTZE: Until the point of your border duty, what were your political orientations, for which political party did you vote?

MR HOLDER: I think if one is young one votes for the party which your parents voted for, therefore I would have voted for the National Party.

MR KOTZE: And the policy of the National Party at that stage was one of separate development, how did you feel about that?

MR HOLDER: At that stage I felt it was entirely correct and acceptable that we should develop separately with regard to schooling, churches and with regard to our countries in their entirety.

MR KOTZE: And were these impressions made to you at school level?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: After you completed your apprenticeship, you then in 1983 joined the Secunda Town Council as an electro-technician?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: And from 1984 you were in service at the Secunda Mine in the same capacity?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: And in the meantime you were married and you had these two children?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: Did your political affiliations change at any stage?

MR HOLDER: Since 1993 my political affiliations have changed.

MR KOTZE: And what was the reason for that?

MR HOLDER: The environment in which I lived was overwhelmingly occupied by Conservative Party members and all of them were predominantly right-wing.

MR KOTZE: And with the withdrawal of the South African forces from Namibia what was your view then?

MR HOLDER: I felt that all the troops who had died on the border had died unnecessarily, that they had been shot unnecessarily because we had lost the land that we had protected with our lives.

MR KOTZE: And at that stage then did you begin to believe that the National Party did not keep it's promises?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: And then at a stage you joined the AWB?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR KOTZE: When was that?

MR HOLDER: That was December 1993.

MR KOTZE: And for which reason did you join this organisation?

MR HOLDER: I thought that with the assistance of the AWB or by means of the AWB we would have some form of political influence on the elections which were coming and the outcomes of these elections.

MR KOTZE: And what was your feeling when you heard that President Mandela was to be released?

MR HOLDER: First I was shocked because I felt that he was one of the leading figures of the then enemy and this had been indoctrinated in our minds by the army, I felt that he was part of the enemy of the day.

MR KOTZE: In Secunda, which is overwhelmingly a white mining community?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR KOTZE: And you said that it was predominantly occupied by conservative membership and thoughts?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR KOTZE: Were any political meeting held between December 1993 up to the elections of April 1994?

MR HOLDER: From an AWB perspective meetings were held and attended approximately every week as well as Conservative Party meetings.

MR KOTZE: How regularly were these AWB meetings held in Secunda?

MR HOLDER: Once a week.

MR KOTZE: And if you could just expand on the stature of the speakers, were they lower level speakers or high level right-wing politicians?

MR HOLDER: High level right-wing politicians.

MR KOTZE: And what was the broader range of these meetings which you attended?

MR HOLDER: Most of the time it was that the National Party at that time was busy selling our country out as it had done with the then South West Africa and for us as whites there could be no sovereignty or own piece of land or territory.

MR KOTZE: And this message, did you only hear it from AWB leaders or also from the Freedom Front and Conservative Party speakers?

MR HOLDER: From the Freedom Front as well as Conservative Party speakers.

MR KOTZE: And this message, did you believe it?

MR HOLDER: Yes I believed it.

MR KOTZE: With regard to AWB meetings, could you briefly indicate whether they were public gatherings or gatherings for members only?

MR HOLDER: The meetings began as open gatherings which could be attended by anyone and after the public gatherings there were closed meetings only for AWB members and supporters.

MR KOTZE: These public gatherings, let us accept that non-AWB members also attended these meetings from time to time?

MR HOLDER: Well it depended from meeting to meeting, it could have been a hundred people or more.

MR KOTZE: Were you under the impression that the right-wing politics were firmly established in the environment in which you lived and worked?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is how it appeared to me.

MR KOTZE: Could you briefly focus on the atmosphere before the elections took place on 27 April 1994?

MR HOLDER: I think the atmosphere before the elections was one of insecurity, we were all very uncertain of what would happen to us after the elections and that is why we attempted to politically ensure that there would also be something left over for us at the end of the day, a sovereign Volkstaat where we could maintain our norms.

MR KOTZE: Did you believe or what did you believe would happen on the election day?

MR HOLDER: I believed that we were on the bring of a civil war and I think that many other AWB and right-wingers believed this.

MR KOTZE: On local government level, were any notices given out amongst the public in Secunda regarding what could be expected with regard to the election?

MR HOLDER: We received notification of those things which we would need during a civil war and we all believed and we still believe that this came from the local town council.

MR KOTZE: This document to which you refer, is this the document which appears from page 57 to page 59 of the bundle?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: At that stage when it's mentioned, the aspect of fleeing, you and your family must flee, there is no time to pack, did you believe that this evaluation was not correct and I'm referring to page 59, the introduction?

MR HOLDER: Chairperson, I believed that on the day of the election there would be no time for packing, we would have to leave our things and flee.

MR KOTZE: After a number of guidelines are provided, the writer ends off with "May God help and protect us". Did you have any reason to believe that this, which appears to me to be a very earnest and serious plea for protection was ungrounded?

MR HOLDER: No.

MR KOTZE: During these AWB meetings or gatherings, was any indication given regarding how the AWB wanted to organise itself in the event of problems which may originate?

MR HOLDER: Chairperson, we had safe houses, as we called it, where we would have taken our wives and children in such an event and where we as the men would protect them.

MR KOTZE: And when was it believed that this event would take place?

MR HOLDER: We believed that this would take place on election day.

MR KOTZE: So the idea of the safe houses was that women and children would gather there and that some of the men would then protect them?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: Which weapons did you and the other members of the AWB have available to you to carry out these duties?

MR HOLDER: Most of us had handguns.

MR KOTZE: And which weapons did you believe were in the possession of the enemy of that time?

MR HOLDER: Semi-automatic combat weapons.

MR KOTZE: And did you believe that the weapons at your disposal would have been effective against the power which you believed existed?

MR HOLDER: No.

MR KOTZE: If you could briefly sketch the then structure of the AWB as it existed in Secunda, were there any ranks and who occupied these ranks?

MR HOLDER: Well our chief commandant for the region was Commandant Boshoff, then there were two other commandants below him. Our commandant was Ochert van Schalkwyk and below him was Lieutenant Flip Marais and then it was me and my fellow applicant Mr van Zyl.

MR KOTZE: Did you occupy any rank in the AWB?

MR HOLDER: No.

MR KOTZE: The ranks which you have mentioned sound like military ranks, could you indicate upon which basis this rank structure functioned within the AWB?

MR HOLDER: As far as I know it was very similar to that of the South African Defence Force.

MR KOTZE: The organisation as such, was it simply a social gathering of people who shared the same political objectives or was there a method according to which military methods would be used in the AWB?

MR HOLDER: We addressed our seniors according to various ranks and saluted them as one would do in the defence force.

MR KOTZE: And if there had been requests which were issued did you regard it as a request or something stronger.

MR HOLDER: I regarded it as an order.

MR KOTZE: Was at any stage a discussion held regarding the obtaining of automatic rifles to protect the safe houses?

MR HOLDER: Yes.

MR KOTZE: When did this happen? If you could just sketch the circumstances briefly?

MR HOLDER: It was approximately two weeks before the incident during which the victim died.

MR KOTZE: And who did you talk to at that stage?

MR HOLDER: I was attending a meeting at Mr van Schalkwyk's house, he spoke to us and there were other members present there.

MR KOTZE: And you and Mr van Zyl were friends, both personally and professionally?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR KOTZE: And he was also a member of the AWB at that stage?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: Who ultimately introduced you to Mr de Meillon?

MR HOLDER: Mr van Schalkwyk.

MR KOTZE: And you said this took place two weeks before the election?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: In which capacity was Mr de Meillon introduced to you?

MR HOLDER: He was introduced to me as a commandant of the BWB.

MR KOTZE: Was any indication given regarding his loyalty towards the Boer cause and any other such issues?

MR HOLDER: Mr van Schalkwyk told us that De Meillon was very trustworthy and loyal to his cause.

MR KOTZE: And were any instructions given to you regarding assistance that you should give to him and the BWB?

MR HOLDER: Mr van Schalkwyk told us at this stage that there would be opportunities and times during which the AWB and the BWB would have to co-operate.

MR KOTZE: Now the BWB, at that stage did it have any kind of familiarity in Secunda? Did you know what they stood for and what they were planning?

MR HOLDER: I simply knew that they were also a right-wing organisation. However, I wasn't entirely certain for what they stood and what they were doing.

MR KOTZE: But it was clear to you that they would attempt to influence right-wing politics?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: Did you then undertake any exercises with the BWB members?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR KOTZE: Can you expand on that briefly?

MR HOLDER: We had drills with vehicles and obstacles as well as night watches.

MR KOTZE: And who was involved in these night shooting and obstacle courses?

MR HOLDER: Various AWB and BWB members.

MR KOTZE: And was the emphasis on the idea that there would be an attack on a vehicle and you would have to know how to protect these vehicles?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: Did you at that stage believe that the threat of an attack on a convoy of vehicles was a real danger?

MR HOLDER: Yes I believed it.

MR KOTZE: With regard to the 23rd April 1994, that was the Saturday before the election, how did it transpire that you an Mr de Meillon and Mr van Zyl departed?

MR HOLDER: I was not at my house, I was at Mr van Zyl's house, my fellow applicant, and we were visiting there when Mr van Schalkwyk and Mr de Meillon arrived there. Mr van Schalkwyk told me that Mr de Meillon and the others knew where they would be able to get semi-automatic weapons for the safe houses and as I understood it, there was an arsenal of weapons which was illegally possessed and that the guards were usually drunk and that it would be rather easy to obtain these weapons, that we were to go with Mr de Meillon. I went to fetch Mr van Zyl and informed him of the situation and we departed with Mr de Meillon.

MR KOTZE: Did you know exactly what your destination would be?

MR HOLDER: Mr van Schalkwyk told us that the destination was a place in Pretoria which was being observed by the BWB and that they knew what was going on there.

ADV GCABASHE: Could I interrupt? Sorry. When Mr van Schalkwyk said Mr de Meillon knew where to find semi-automatic rifles, was this said in the presence of Mr de Meillon?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: He was there?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR KOTZE: Did you then arm yourself for this operation?

MR HOLDER: I didn't specifically arm myself, it was general AWB policy that at all times, in and outside town, we would carry firearms with us.

MR KOTZE: Did you then take a .38 revolver with you?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR KOTZE: And Mr van Zyl took a single barrel shotgun?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: And then you went with Mr van Zyl's vehicle in the direction of Pretoria?

MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: In Pretoria, how did it come that let's call it the first target was pointed out?

MR HOLDER: Well I don't know Pretoria well and I don't know how the city's set up is, what the street layout is like and Mr de Meillon asked Mr van Zyl to go to, what's the street name, Vermeulen Street and we trailed up Vermeulen Street, we stopped next to the building there which is the military headquarters. There were guards there and he wanted us to take away these guards' firearms from them and I asked him whether he was off his rocker when he wanted us to take away their firearms, I meant that I wouldn't do it and it was open, in the public, there were many people passing by, I was not prepared to get involved in a thing like that.

MR KOTZE: And how long did you spend in Pretoria before this planning was terminated?

MR HOLDER: Well I didn't take notice of the time but it wasn't very long Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: Were any proposals made that the action would have to achieve propaganda value?

MR HOLDER: Yes, Mr de Meillon said so.

MR KOTZE: What was the idea?

MR HOLDER: That if we were to attack these guards and rob them of their firearms it would have propaganda value because we could say that the BWB had committed this and this would give us some influence.

MR KOTZE: Given the danger, would you prepared to try and obtain or achieve this propaganda value?

MR HOLDER: No Sir.

MR KOTZE: In the end then you departed from Pretoria?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct, we returned to Secunda.

MR KOTZE: And what happened on the way to Secunda?

MR HOLDER: Just after passing Delmas we stopped next to the road and Mr de Meillon said to us that we had to go via Devon because that was one of the targets that they had observed, that they had attended military camps in the past and he knew exactly what was going on in the bases and that we had to just stop there, when we passed there.

MR KOTZE: You heard his testimony today that he had only on a few occasions in Pretoria driven past the building and that it had been quite some time since he'd last been in Devon. If it had been stated to you in those circumstances would you have been prepared to participate in this operation?

MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: Then in Devon, did Mr van Zyl remain behind in the vehicle?

MR HOLDER: Yes Sir.

MR KOTZE: What did Mr de Meillon tell you was the purpose of this visit to the base?

MR HOLDER: Well Mr de Meillon said we had to pass there, go and see how many guards there were, what arms we could get there.

MR KOTZE: Were you prepared to go along with that?

MR HOLDER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR KOTZE: You and Mr de Meillon then put on your military browns?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR KOTZE: And you also pulled a vest over your head?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR KOTZE: What was the purpose behind that?

MR HOLDER: Chairperson, if you had undergone military training you would know that your skin is white and it would reflect very easily at night and that was simply to disguise my complexion.

MR KOTZE: So you believed that this would make you less obtrusive at night while you were reconnoitring this place?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: Was it indicated to you at any stage that the plan was that people were going to be shot or specifically the guards were going to be shot?

MR HOLDER: No.

MR KOTZE: If that had been disclosed to you what would your action have been?

MR HOLDER: I would not have gone along with the action.

MR KOTZE: And ultimately you arrived at the guardhouse. At that stage who according to you occupied that base?

MR HOLDER: I believed that is was an airforce base according to what Mr de Meillon said.

MR KOTZE: And when you arrived at the guardhouse, what did you believe would transpire there?

MR HOLDER: I believed that we would take a look to see how many guards there were, so see if there were guards on the grounds and so forth.

MR KOTZE: And then depending upon whether or not they were there and whether or not they were awake, what would have happened?

MR HOLDER: I thought that we would have reconnoitred an arsenal which was familiar to Mr de Meillon perhaps for later action or if the opportunity presented itself and there was minimal risk, we would have stolen the weapons ourselves.

MR KOTZE: The events occurring in the guardhouse, could you sketch this to the Committee and could we just indicate to you Chairperson that the events as they appear in paragraph 18 of the application, it has appeared after consulting with the applicants on Monday that there are certain discrepancies. Would you like me to make a proposition to you regarding what their testimony would be or could I just guide the witness through this?

CHAIRPERSON: Is that with regard to paragraph 18 on page 25 of the record?

MR KOTZE: Yes, page 25 carrying on on page 26 of the record. CHAIRPERSON: I think lead him through this and if there are really radical differences then you have to deal with those.

MR KOTZE: Mr Chair I would just like to point out that when my turn arrived, the first applicant had already testified and very little could be done about that. But could you please explain in your own words what had happened in the guardhouse?

MR HOLDER: Well I stood at the window and as Mr de Meillon had said, he passed below the window and stood at the door. I look in through the window and saw that Mr de Meillon entered.

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, can you slow down, you're going to fast? So you looked through the window and he definitely did not, you observed that?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct, he passed under the window. Then Mr de Meillon stood at the door, I look through the window, I saw he entered, I immediately followed him, I entered the guardhouse, Mr de Meillon and the deceased became involved in a struggle. I approached Mr Swart and I saw that he was drawing his firearm. I grabbed him by the shoulder and the elbow. I heard a shot go off, then I pushed Mr Swart out of the way and I ran.

MR KOTZE: Did the lights in the guardhouse go out at any stage?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct, the lights did go out.

MR KOTZE: What caused it according to your impressions?

MR HOLDER: I don't have an idea, Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: And at what stage of the incident did the lights go out?

MR HOLDER: Well it was during the struggle between Mr de Meillon and the deceased.

MR KOTZE: How many shots did you hear in that guardhouse?

MR HOLDER: I heard one shot.

MR KOTZE: Could you perhaps give us an indication of the size of this guardhouse where this whole incident took place?

MR HOLDER: Well I would guess about four by four but I could be wrong.

MR KOTZE: After hearing the shot, what happened?

MR HOLDER: Well I ran out the guardhouse to the motor car where Mr van Zyl was working.

MR KOTZE: In the guardhouse did you pick up Mr Terblanche or Constable Terblanche's firearm?

MR HOLDER: No I didn't.

MR KOTZE: Was any attempt made to search or look for further firearms?

MR HOLDER: No we didn't.

MR KOTZE: Then you ran to the motor car and Mr de Meillon joined you there?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: When did you become aware that a firearm had been removed from the guardhouse to your waiting car?

MR HOLDER: Well only after the car had departed or pulled away.

MR KOTZE: Who made an announcement in this regard?

MR HOLDER: Mr de Meillon.

MR KOTZE: Did he also at that stage have the firearm pistol in his possession?

MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: Mr de Meillon also had a wound in his forearm?

MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair, he informed us that he had been shot.

MR KOTZE: Would you know who had shot him?

MR HOLDER: I don't have an idea.

MR KOTZE: The moment the shot had been fired would you say you were in a position to make a dependable observation about what had happened?

MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair, I was too afraid, I was scared and I ran away.

MR KOTZE: Okay, I would like you to focus on that very moment when the shot was fired which apparently had killed Mr Terblanche. Could you tell whether the firearm had been pointed at him, whether it had gone off in the struggle, what were your personal impressions?

MR HOLDER: My personal impression was that a shot had gone off while they were struggling.

MR KOTZE: Did you fire any shots in the guardhouse?

MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: When you were in the motor car did you remark anything towards Mr - did Mr de Meillon remark anything with regard to the shooting incident there to any of you?

MR HOLDER: Yes he made the observation afterwards to me and Mr van Zyl that he thought the guard had been shot.

MR KOTZE: You then went to Secunda, was Mr de Meillon in the motor car throughout that period?

MR HOLDER: Yes we departed from Devon to Secunda.

MR KOTZE: And then at Secunda you dropped him off?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR KOTZE: Was there any arrangement regarding the reporting of this incident to your structure of command?

MR HOLDER: After we had dropped off Mr de Meillon we went to Mr Gerhard van Schalkwyk's house. When we stopped in his yard he was already waiting for us and he told us that Mr de Meillon was already there, we had to return home, he would contact Mr van Schalkwyk.

MR KOTZE: That was Mr van Rensburg's house where you stopped?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: Did you at that stage know Mr Gerhard van Rensburg?

MR HOLDER: Yes I had only met him on the same occasion as Mr de Meillon.

MR KOTZE: Was he introduced to you by a rank?

MR HOLDER: Yes he was introduced as a general of the BWB.

MR KOTZE: During these night shooting and convoy protection operations and exercises, was Mr van Rensburg also there?

MR HOLDER: Yes he was in command.

MR KOTZE: What was the arrangement during the course of such an operation? Who would be in command?

MR HOLDER: Are you talking about the exercises?

MR KOTZE: Well we are referring to AWB/BWB co-operation, who would be in command?

MR HOLDER: I take it it would be the person with the highest rank.

MR KOTZE: During this whole incident did you take any initiative in carrying out the operation?

MR HOLDER: No, Sir.

MR KOTZE: Who would you say was in command?

MR HOLDER: Mr de Meillon I would say, Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: Do I understand correctly that although you had only seen him once he was then introduced to you and an announcement was made regarding his dependability and loyalty, you were prepared to undertake this kind of action with him?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR KOTZE: Why did you act in such a manner?

MR HOLDER: I believe it was out of fear for what we believed was going to happen and also to obtain the firearms to protect our wives and children.

MR KOTZE: You were then arrested and accused of murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances?

MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: You were initially charged together with Mr de Meillon?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR KOTZE: And then a division of trials took place?

MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: Testimony had been led regarding a .38 special bullet or projectile which had been found in the guardhouse?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR KOTZE: What is your knowledge of this?

MR HOLDER: It was news for me to hear about it here.

MR KOTZE: And during the first trial, the joint trial where Mr de Meillon appeared, was there any reference to a .38 revolver bullet?

MR HOLDER: The attorney came to me with a little bag with a bullet in it and he told me that the bullet was from my firearm. I pointed out to him that it was a bullet from a 9 mm pistol not from a .38. Mr de Meillon's attorney from Bloemfontein was also present. They took a lunch break and after that Mr de Meillon pleaded guilty and the two trials were divided in separate trials.

MR KOTZE: During your own trial in Springs were any allegations made that firstly you had shot and killed Mr Terblanche?

MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: Were there any allegations that you had fired a shot in the guardroom?

MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: Mr Holder if you have to look at the matter objectively, how do you feel about that action on the 23rd April 1994?

MR HOLDER: Well if I think back now, I feel that it is something that I will have to carry with me for the rest of my life, this feeling of self-loathing and I can't measure that against the heartache of the parents of the deceased and his family and never again would I like to become involved in something like this again.

MR KOTZE: Would you say that these events of the 23rd April took place according to plan or would you say that unforeseen things had happened?

MR HOLDER: I would say it was totally unforeseen what had happened.

MR KOTZE: And as far as Mr de Meillon is concerned, what are your present impressions regarding him as a person and his judgement?

MR HOLDER: Then I think he was fanatical, Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: But on the night of the action did you at that stage, were you in a position to form this impression?

MR HOLDER: Well I think after that I thought he was really a bit off his rocker and that he had acted impulsively Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: Did you at any stage meet Mr Terblanche's parents or family?

MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair, they were just in court the day Mr de Meillon pleaded guilty, it was the only time that I saw them and when we adjourned and after lunch when the judge separated the two trials, we returned home and they remained behind in court.

MR KOTZE: As far as the crime itself is concerned, do you accept that you were party to the murder and the robbery with aggravating circumstances?

MR HOLDER: Yes I accept the court's finding.

MR KOTZE: How do you feel about the crimes you had been involved in and committed?

MR HOLDER: Well I'm very sorry that I had participated in something which had led to the tragic death of such a young man and I can only express my sorrow and the fact that I feel remorse towards his family and his parents.

MR KOTZE: As far as your right-wing affiliations are concerned, are you still a member of the AWB?

MR HOLDER: I have given up all my ties with the AWB and all other right-wing organisations shortly after this event.

MR KOTZE: As you had stated you are a qualified electro-technician?

MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: Were any indications given to you regarding work that would wait for you were you to be granted amnesty?

MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: Could you give us more particulars?

MR HOLDER: Well many of the rental contractors could provide me with work at any time.

MR KOTZE: Should amnesty be granted, do you plan to become involved in crime at all in future?

MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kotze. Mr Prinsloo any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Holder, 1993 October, were you already a member of the AWB?

MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair, December I became a member.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you aware of meeting held by the AWB in Klerksdorp where there were big congregations of people, where many people met inter alia leaders of the AWB and stated ultimatums to the Government?

MR HOLDER: Yes I'm aware of many meetings arranged by the AWB before I joined.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you aware of the meeting at the Trim Park in Potchefstroom in April 1994, beginning of April where war talk was made and where people were called upon and where a Volkstaat’s borders would be sketched out?

MR HOLDER: I saw that on television Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you also aware of a variety of bomb explosions which preceded the elections? I'm not referring to Johannesburg, explosions to the Sunday onwards to election day but before that time in the Free State in the Western Transvaal, are you aware of those?

MR HOLDER: No I haven't heard of those.

MR PRINSLOO: So you didn't but you are aware of the fact that the AWB had propagated country wide to oppose the elections?

MR HOLDER: Yes I'm aware of that Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: And country wide, people would be protected and a Volkstaat and a Volkstaat would be formed and then violence would be committed?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct, Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: You testified that with regard to illegal firearms, that's the word that you used?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Now where would you have fetched illegal firearms?

MR HOLDER: I was given to understand by Mr Schalkwyk that people had firearms that were not registered in their name which were illegal as the word indicates, that they would be using during the time that the civil war would break out.

MR PRINSLOO: Those arms would then be taken physically from these people who were in illegal possession of them?

MR HOLDER: Yes that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Would that take place in Pretoria?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct, Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: In Vermeulen Street?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is what Mr de Meillon pointed out to us at this building.

MR PRINSLOO: But these illegal weapons that was referred to was in the words of Mr van Schalkwyk, he had told you about that?

MR HOLDER: Yes, Mr van Schalkwyk said we were under the command of Mr de Meillon, they had observed the whole matter and they had investigated it fully.

MR PRINSLOO: Just to get clarity Mr Holder, it is your testimony that Mr van Schalkwyk was as a matter of fact the commander and he told you, which had nothing to do with Mr de Meillon, that you would have to confiscate or take over by violent means firearms in illegal possession of people, is that what you said?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is what I said.

MR PRINSLOO: So you are not attributing it to Mr de Meillon?

MR HOLDER: We were under his instructions.

MR PRINSLOO: No, no you don't understand the question clearly, this is what Mr van Schalkwyk told you, not Mr de Meillon?

MR HOLDER: Mr de Meillon hadn't stated anything to me, Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: Good, according to your statement in paragraph 15 you furthermore state and that's on page 24 that he had reconnoitred the set up and knew where automatic arms could be obtained.

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So you were satisfied on that day you were just going to collect the firearms whether by violent means or not and that the necessary reconnoitring had already been done?

MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.

ADV GCABASHE: May I come in, excuse me Mr Prinsloo, can I again ascertain, when Mr van Schalkwyk said these things through that there were weapons to be found at Vermeulen Street, these were illegal weapons, this was in the presence of Mr de Meillon?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: This whole conversation he heard?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: But he said nothing at all?

MR HOLDER: No, Mr de Meillon didn't participate in that discussion.

ADV GCABASHE: And all the way to Pretoria he did not say to you what Van Schalkwyk said is not the position, he didn't contradict Van Schalkwyk at all?

MR HOLDER: No he didn't.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Holder, just to further investigate this question which the Honourable Advocate Gcabashe had raised, is it now your testimony that Mr van Schalkwyk had said that the firearms were to be obtained in Vermeulen Street?

MR HOLDER: No, Mr van Schalkwyk had said that Mr de Meillon had observed various places where we could obtain firearms, we had to go with Mr de Meillon and then thus in that manner find or get the weapons.

MR PRINSLOO: So Mr van Schalkwyk hadn't said to you that they were in Vermeulen Street?

MR HOLDER: No, Mr De Meillon took us there.

MR PRINSLOO: No, the question is, Mr van Schalkwyk never mentioned a specific place where the arms could be found?

MR HOLDER: No he didn't Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: So you answered very quickly and said Mr de Meillon had heard everything, are you saying this out of conviction or did Mr van Schalkwyk who was a member of the AWB or Mr de Meillon who was not enter into a discussion there?

MR HOLDER: No I say that with conviction Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: Well Mr de Meillon will deny that it had ever been said to him that firearms would be collected in Vermeulen Street.

MR HOLDER: Mr de Meillon said there were firearms in Pretoria and when we went there he said it was in Vermeulen Street.

MR PRINSLOO: But that was only raised when you were travelling there, not what Mr van Schalkwyk had said?

MR HOLDER: No Mr van Schalkwyk just said Mr de Meillon had observed a variety of places where we could find firearms.

MR PRINSLOO: You also replied to a question of the Honourable Advocate Gcabashe that it was semi-automatic weapons?

MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know what a semi-automatic weapon is?

MR HOLDER: I had used the wrong term, it was automatic weapons.

MR PRINSLOO: And those automatic weapons which you would go and collect there, you would take by violent means if necessary?

MR HOLDER: According to what they had told me, Mr van Schalkwyk in the presence of Mr de Meillon, these guards were normally drunk or these people who were in possession of these firearms and it would therefore be reasonably easy to take these weapons.

MR PRINSLOO: So you were given to understand that they would be in possession of these people, that you would take it from their person?

MR HOLDER: No, I thought it was a place, a stand, a house where people lived and where these firearms were on those premises.

MR PRINSLOO: But there would be people who would be guarding them?

MR HOLDER: Yes there would be people present.

MR PRINSLOO: And they would be armed?

MR HOLDER: He didn't tell us that they would be armed.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you in the defence force Mr Holder?

MR HOLDER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know of any place where arms weren't protected by armed guards?

MR HOLDER: In my opinion, I wouldn't protect firearms that I had illegally hidden away.

MR PRINSLOO: Now where did you expect illegal arms to be found in Vermeulen Street?

MR HOLDER: Well as I'd stated, I don't know Pretoria. We travelled to Pretoria, when we entered Pretoria, Mr de Meillon said we must drive up Vermeulen Street and he pointed out this building to us.

MR PRINSLOO: As I understand your testimony, you stated that Mr de Meillon had said that the arms had to be taken away from the guards and that this would have propaganda value for the BWB or the right-wing?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So by some or other means the guards would be robbed of the firearms?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So it was his testimony that it would be taken from these people?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So his testimony was never that they would remove firearms from a safe?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you have any equipment to remove firearms from a safe, like an ...(indistinct) torch or anything like that?

MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: So you knew that it would be taken from persons?

MR HOLDER: No I didn't, I thought it was a place where firearms were hidden away.

MR PRINSLOO: And if those people were to resist, you had a firearm to defend yourself?

MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: Or to carry out the plan?

MR HOLDER: I would have defended myself had I been attacked.

MR PRINSLOO: And you would also be able to carry your planning to effect by using that firearm to obtain those weapons?

MR HOLDER: Well if it had been my purpose to cold-bloodedly attack people would I have done that at the building in Vermeulen Street which Mr de Meillon wished to attack.

MR PRINSLOO: That's not the question, if the person were to resist or would refuse to hand over his weapon, would you use violence?

MR HOLDER: No, Mr Chair, I wouldn't try to take a firearm from any person.

MR PRINSLOO: When you arrived in Devon with Mr de Meillon, you went with Mr de Meillon, you got over the fence to the place where the act was committed?

MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: And when you entered that place did you see if there were people inside?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: What did you think then?

MR HOLDER: At that stage I didn't think anything. I thought nothing of it.

MR PRINSLOO: What do you mean you didn't think about it, you had a balaclava over your head and so did Mr de Meillon, you were both armed, you walked into a place which you know as a military institution, you walk into the place where the guards are sitting, what did you think was going to happen now? Why were you entering there?

MR HOLDER: Well I knew there were problems awaiting but after I had seen what had happened in Pretoria I tried to convince myself of a way to stop this whole thing but it was too late when we entered there.

MR PRINSLOO: So your testimony is that according to Van Schalkwyk, De Meillon had already done reconnoitring?

MR HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: So when he went in there was no reason for any reconnoitring because that had already been done according to your own testimony?

MR HOLDER: Well Mr de Meillon told me and Mr van Zyl that we were just going to see what was going on there.

MR PRINSLOO: But your testimony was that reconnoitring had already been done, that's your testimony?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And now he enters a place where there are guards sitting?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So I propose to you that Mr de Meillon's version means that guards would be robbed of firearms?

MR HOLDER: That is not what we were doing in Devon, Sir.

MR PRINSLOO: But you testified and I wish to state to you that Mr de Meillon was a person who had been trained in Devon, so he would certainly know where the arms safe would be, it wasn't necessary to go and search for arms because he would know where the were. Do you agree with that?

MR HOLDER: Yes, that's what he said.

MR PRINSLOO: So there was no reason for any reconnoitring in that regard. So when he entered that room where the guards were sitting, with reference to what he had said in Pretoria that the guards would be robbed of their firearms, did you assume that would happen there in Devon?

MR HOLDER: Yes when we went in there I assumed that is what would happen.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you agree with that?

MR HOLDER: No I didn't.

MR PRINSLOO: What were you trying to do?

MR HOLDER: I thought that perhaps I would stop the situation.

MR PRINSLOO: What were you going to do?

MR HOLDER: Well perhaps to stop Mr de Meillon possibly just be guilty of attempted robbery rather than a murder or something like that.

MR PRINSLOO: So did you do anything to stop Mr de Meillon?

MR HOLDER: No, when I went in it was already going on.

MR PRINSLOO: He said to them that they shouldn't be Rambos?

MR HOLDER: No.

MR PRINSLOO: He said to them they shouldn't be stupid?

MR HOLDER: Yes, he said to them they shouldn't commit stupid things.

MR PRINSLOO: And then?

MR HOLDER: He and Mr Terblanche, one of the constables, were in a struggle, I moved behind them towards Mr Swart. Mr Swart was pulling his firearm and I grabbed him by the arm and by the shoulder. A shot went off, I pushed Mr Swart away and I ran away.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you walk past De Meillon?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And at that stage was there no struggle between De Meillon and the deceased?

MR HOLDER: No when I went passed Mr de Meillon, Mr Terblanche jumped up and they got involved in a struggle.

MR PRINSLOO: After you had passed?

MR HOLDER: No, while I was passing.

MR PRINSLOO: So you were on your way to Swart?

MR HOLDER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Why were you walking towards Swart?

MR HOLDER: I saw him drawing his pistol.

MR PRINSLOO: What did you want to do?

MR HOLDER: I wanted to stop him.

MR PRINSLOO: Stop him from doing what?

MR HOLDER: From shooting me.

MR PRINSLOO: But why would he shoot you?

MR HOLDER: Because we came into a place where we were not supposed to be.

MR PRINSLOO: But had you done something that would justify his shooting you?

MR HOLDER: Well I was wearing a balaclava and brown clothing.

MR PRINSLOO: When you entered with the brown clothing and the balaclava did you foresee that this plan which De Meillon had would be carried into effect?

MR HOLDER: I just foresaw that there were big problems.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you foresee his carrying his planning to effect?

MR HOLDER: Yes I did foresee that.

MR PRINSLOO: You then went to Swart. Your concentration was on Swart?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So you don't know what was happening behind you?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you said that you then heard a shot?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: You don't know who fired the shot?

MR HOLDER: No I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: Was the light still on?

MR HOLDER: During the struggle the light went out.

MR PRINSLOO: Did the shot go off before or after the lights went out?

MR HOLDER: Just after the light went out.

MR PRINSLOO: After the light went out the shot went off?

MR HOLDER: I can't remember correctly.

MR PRINSLOO: So you can't say from where the shot came?

MR HOLDER: As I said I don't know who fired it.

MR PRINSLOO: Your co-applicant says that there were three shots and Mr de Meillon says this as well.

MR HOLDER: I heard one shot.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you argue that there could have been three shots?

MR HOLDER: It could have been so.

MR PRINSLOO: And according to a ballistics report which was submitted to the Committee, a police report, it says that a .38 shell was found. Would you argue that anything like this was found?

MR HOLDER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Why?

MR HOLDER: Because when I appeared in court the day that my and Mr de Meillon's cases were divided, the officer came with a bag with the bullet points and he said that it came from my firearm and it's impossible because it's too small. They ask that the court adjourn for lunch, after the lunch break we returned. Mr de Meillon pleaded guilty for murder and robbery, the case was divided.

MR PRINSLOO: And a .38 round is smaller than a 9 mm?

MR HOLDER: No, I said a 9 mm. was smaller than a .38.

MR PRINSLOO: And you said that this was a flattened bullet point?

MR HOLDER: No it was a small sharp point.

MR PRINSLOO: And you therefore argue that which the ballistic expert said in the police report?

MR HOLDER: As I've said in court they didn't show me a .38 point, they showed me a 9 mm point and said that this was the bullet which I had fired.

MR PRINSLOO: If you look at the bullet point of a .38 and compare it with a 9 mm you will see that they are the same size?

MR HOLDER: No they are not.

MR PRINSLOO: So the prosecutor was the one that came to you, not the legal representative? He showed you a bullet point and said that this comes from your weapon?

MR HOLDER: That's what he did. My advocate and Mr de Meillon's advocate were standing there with him.

MR PRINSLOO: And according to Mr de Meillon's evidence he said that he had a 9 mm and that the deceased had a 9 mm as well as Mr Swart and that you had a .38?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So if a .38 had been found there it would only have been yours.

MR HOLDER: If a .38 had actually been found there it would have been mine.

MR PRINSLOO: So what did you want to go and see in this guardhouse.

MR HOLDER: I was under command of Mr de Meillon, I assumed that we would go and see how many guards there were and whether they were there or not.

MR PRINSLOO: And if they were there or if they weren't there, what would happen then?

MR HOLDER: Well according to my knowledge of military bases there are always guards and one can never be sure of how many there are at a given time.

MR PRINSLOO: So there are always guards?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So whether it's that day or the next day, it would be exactly the same?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: How old were you at that stage?

MR HOLDER: I was 36 years old.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr de Meillon had just turned 21?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And your co-applicant is also older than Mr de Meillon? He's closer to your age?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you didn't belong to the same organisation so you couldn't have fallen under his command?

MR HOLDER: As I have already said sometimes the AWB and the BWB had to co-operate and I'm assuming that the person with the highest rank would then take up command.

MR PRINSLOO: You've stated that you'd met Mr de Meillon on that day?

MR HOLDER: No, I stated that I'd met him two weeks earlier.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon, did you just meet him fleetingly?

MR HOLDER: No we attended a meeting at Mr van Schalkwyk's house at which Mr de Meillon was also present.

MR PRINSLOO: And did he act normally that day?

MR HOLDER: Yes he did.

MR PRINSLOO: On that particular day in Pretoria did he behave normally?

MR HOLDER: Yes until we reached Pretoria and Devon he did and then in Pretoria he said he wanted to take the weapons from the guards.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, so why do you say that that's fanatical?

MR HOLDER: I didn't say that, I said that afterwards I realised that the man was fanatical.

MR PRINSLOO: But upon what do you base your definition of him as fanatical?

MR HOLDER: Well with regard to the evidence that's he's just delivered during which he said that he was disappointed in the fact that that which was planned for that day had not worked and from that I could see he was fanatical.

MR PRINSLOO: So what you're saying is that at stage you believed in a war, you believed in the protection of Volkstaat?

MR HOLDER: No, I didn't say that I believed in a war.

MR PRINSLOO: So you didn't believe in violence at all?

MR HOLDER: I didn't say that either.

MR PRINSLOO: You wouldn't have used violence at any time, so what did you need the weapons for, could you please tell the Committee?

MR HOLDER: We created safe houses in which we would protect our women and children and that is what we needed the weapons for.

MR PRINSLOO: So you would not have reconciled yourself with the idea of a Volkstaat, obtaining a Volkstaat?

MR HOLDER: I reconciled myself with the obtaining of a Volkstaat but not with violence.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Mr van Schalkwyk?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Mr Holder, did you ever consider lodging an appeal against your sentence?

MR HOLDER: Yes I did consider this.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you proceed with your appeal?

MR HOLDER: My former legal representative dissuaded me from continuing with the appeal.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you agree with the judgement of the judge in the case in which you were found guilty?

MR HOLDER: Yes I identified myself with the judgment of the court.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you agree with the judgement of the court?

MR HOLDER: Yes I agree with the court that I was involved in the death of Mr Terblanche.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you read the judgement of the court, did you read it personally?

MR HOLDER: Mr Kotze read the judgement to me.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you agree with the judges judgement as put out in the essential facts?

MR HOLDER: Well I can't remember all the facts right now.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are there specific facts which the judge found with which you did not agree?

MR HOLDER: If you could read these facts to me I could listen to it once more and then inform you.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: We will come to that shortly. Did you fill in form 1 of your amnesty application yourself? I'm referring to page 16, 17 and 18.

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you initial the page in order to indicate your agreement with what is contained thereon?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Paragraph 8(b), why didn't you fill in that you had undergone military training?

MR HOLDER: We filled in this application form together, Mr Kotze and myself and we did not answer all the questions here, we provided answers to this on other pages and documents which we formulated.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But I asked you whether or not you just filled this form in yourself, why didn't you indicate you military training?

MR HOLDER: With the rest of my application I did indicate my military training.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is it correct that you made an additional statement, page 43, 44, 45 of this application?

MR HOLDER: Yes that's correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: On which date was the second supplementary affidavit made?

MR HOLDER: I beg your pardon?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: On which date did you make this second supplementary affidavit?

MR HOLDER: The 6th June 1998.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Your legal representative has during the process made certain amendments with regard to a certain paragraph. Why were these amendments not made during your supplementary affidavit when you had the opportunity?

MR HOLDER: Because I did not have the entire amnesty application with me, only this portion of it was faxed to me.

My wife brought it to me and I took the oath at prison and it was sent back.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that the changes brought about by your legal representative on behalf of you are facts which would have been known to you before you made these changes?

MR HOLDER: I saw this on Monday.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I also put it to you that these amendments were made in order to adjust to the other applications of the other applicants?

MR HOLDER: That is not true.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You have just testified that you did not have all the documents at your disposal?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you are trying to tell us is that you made these amendments based upon the fact that you had perused all the documents?

MR HOLDER: No, we saw that it was not correct on Monday when we consulted with Mr Kotze.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you're actually telling us is that when you made the first affidavit there was an oversight according to which you did not see that there were certain errors?

MR HOLDER: My amnesty application was handled by attorneys, Mr Grobbelaar who handled my case in court. During 1996 when Mr Nelson Mandela announced the extension of the cut-off date set up this application a few days before the cut off date, a few days before the cut off date for amnesty applications my wife approached Mr Kotze, to undertake this thing with which Mr Grobbelaar had not done anything at that stage. So, this was compiled during a very brief time, it was typed and Mr Kotze's secretary brought the document, we perused it and initialled it and that Friday afternoon it was placed on an aeroplane to Cape Town so that it could reach Cape Town before the cut off date on that Saturday.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I refer you to paragraph 17, an amendment was brought about there from army bases to army headquarters and this was initialled by yourself and the Commissioner of Oaths?

MR HOLDER: What page is that?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Page 25, paragraph 17.

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you rectified this one error. Why didn't you rectify the other errors at this stage in the same fashion that you had rectified this particular error?

MR HOLDER: Well I didn't notice it on that day.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is it correct for us to say that you perused the paragraphs, saw this one error but did not pick up the incorrect set up of the essential facts pertaining to this case?

MR HOLDER: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But is it not these facts which formed the basis of your application which are of cardinal importance to you?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you realise that this was taken before a Commissioner of Oaths?

MR HOLDER: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you further confirm that the second affidavit is also a proper affidavit which was taken in front of a Commissioner of Oaths?

MR HOLDER: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir I put it to you that your cardinal evidence was changed at a very later stage, why did you do that?

MR HOLDER: As I've already told you I did not notice it, I did not notice it that day that I initialled the documents. You must realise that these things were undertaken on the 9th and applications closed on the 10th and my nerves were not in their best state on that day.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir, would you regard the first applicant, Mr de Meillon, as a confidante or a friend of yours?

MR HOLDER: Excuse me?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Would you regard the first applicant, Mr de Meillon, as a confidante or a friend of yours?

MR HOLDER: I would describe him as an acquaintance.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you wouldn't really describe him as a friend of yours?

MR HOLDER: No I wouldn't.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You heard Mr de Meillon's evidence. Do you believe that he has been open and honest regarding everything?

MR HOLDER: No I don't believe so.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In which regard has he not been open and honest?

MR HOLDER: I think he is trying to protect certain people.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: With regard to the events according to which he said that you were in the building with a firearm, do you differ from him?

MR HOLDER: Yes I do.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In which regard?

MR HOLDER: I did not have a firearm in my hand.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Where was your firearm according to you when you entered the building?

MR HOLDER: In the side pocket of my brown trousers.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Can you explain then why Mr de Meillon would present a lie to us?

MR HOLDER: I can't explain that.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: When you looked through the window did you see that there were SAP members in the building?

MR HOLDER: I saw that there were white people inside the building.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: At that stage did you see the uniforms of these people?

MR HOLDER: I saw the uniforms when I entered the room.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you think it is justified to shoot a policeman dead for the sake of his 9 mm pistol?

MR HOLDER: No I don't think so.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you think that any political organisation could account for itself by saying that it is justified to shoot one policeman in order to gain one 9 mm firearm?

MR HOLDER: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did Mr de Meillon at any stage when he was with you give an indication that he did not undertake reconnaissance of this base before the time?

MR HOLDER: No he did not.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Emanating from the discussion where you, Van Schalkwyk an De Meillon were present would you say that he would have said so if he had not undertaken reconnaissance of the area at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: I must lodge an objection here, he cannot ask the applicant what a reasonable person would have done in that situation, it is a speculative question.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Let me rephrase my question. If you had been Mr de Meillon at that stage and he testified today that since his military service he had never again entered that base would you have made it known to any other person that during that time you had never been there?

MR HOLDER: If he had informed me of this I would not have gone with.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did Mr de Meillon have the opportunity to disclose that he had not undertaken reconnaissance shortly before this incident?

MR HOLDER: I think that he had the opportunity, yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In as far as you were concerned were you ever aware or under the impression that you would be stealing personal weapons from people?

MR HOLDER: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You've said that you want forgiveness for the incident, is that correct?

MR HOLDER: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: How have you expressed this forgiveness or indicated this forgiveness to the family of the person who was killed?

MR HOLDER: I have had no contact with the family of the person who was killed.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But if somebody says that they are sorry you could have sent them a card, a gift, flowers or something similar during the funeral, but you didn't do anything like that?

MR HOLDER: No I didn't.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that if in fact you had shown real remorse you would have approached the family some or other way and indicated your remorse through this?

MR HOLDER: I can only say that if someone - if I had been in the same position, if someone had killed one of my family members I'm sure if I would be able to forgive them.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir were you ever in a position where you could have testified against some of your co-accused?

MR HOLDER: No Sir.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Were you ever approached by Inspector Nel to testify against Mr de Meillon?

MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you ever offer to testify against him in the court case in the criminal court?

MR HOLDER: No Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: If you ever had remorse about a situation which you wish to defuse yourself, why didn't you go and testify against the person who had committed the murder?

MR HOLDER: Nobody had asked me to testify against him so I assumed that there was adequate evidence against each and every one of us.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But you were in a position where you could have testified against him or could have offered to testify?

MR HOLDER: Mr de Meillon pleaded guilty to the charge so it wasn't necessary to testify against him.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I state it to you that he had only pleaded guilty after Constable Swart had testified?

MR HOLDER: That is correct, Constable Swart's testimony had been led.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Could we therefore deduce that he had first looked whether or wanted to see whether there was enough evidence against him before he turned around and pleaded guilty?

MR HOLDER: I wouldn't know Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir, a person who feels remorse and who wishes to plead guilty does so from the beginning, he doesn't wait until the State had called for the chief witness and the chief witness's testimony had been accepted by the court and then turn around and then plead not guilty?

MR KOTZE: Well I think this is a legal argument about how people who feel remorse would have acted and Mr Holder, who clearly doesn't have knowledge of legal processes and to ask him about why Mr de Meillon and his legal team had acted in a certain way I think is unreasonable.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I will leave it at that, I will not take it any further.

You yourself did not plead guilty initially?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: At which stage did you plead guilty?

MR HOLDER: During my court case I did not plead guilty.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And ultimately you were found guilty, is that correct?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: As a person who is telling us that you are remorseful why didn't you plead guilty from the beginning?

MR HOLDER: Upon the advice from my legal team I pleaded not guilty. I felt that I myself did not pull the trigger that killed the victim. As an accomplice I would have pleaded guilty.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: What sort of vehicle did you use to travel to Pretoria?

MR HOLDER: I did not use my vehicle, Mr van Zyl used his vehicle.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: What sort of vehicle was that?

MR HOLDER: It was a three litre Ford.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that it is improbable that you would have had enough time to travel to Pretoria and back in the time available to you?

MR HOLDER: We were in Pretoria.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: This action beforehand where you had done exercises in the protection of vehicles which you have given evidence about, was that undertaken in order to attack vehicles as well or only to protect vehicle convoys?

MR HOLDER: Only for the protection of vehicle convoys.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you undergo any training in the period prior to the incident in attacking places or arsenals or the disarming of people?

MR HOLDER: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Was your training strictly defensive?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are you going to call Mr van Zyl to testify on your behalf?

MR HOLDER: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why not?

MR HOLDER: He has been informed that his name will not be mentioned and he is not present.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you have any other evidence with regard to your participation in right-wing politics, any information which can prove this participation and involvement in right-wing politics other than your attendance of meetings of these organisations?

MR HOLDER: I believed that there are people who will testify that I was indeed a member of the AWB.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that all of those who were present at these meetings were necessarily AWB members and did not necessarily share the sentiments of the AWB?

MR HOLDER: That is correct, as I've already said the first part of the meeting would be an open meeting and after that it would be a closed meeting.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I'm taking you to page 59, the list of supplies which you had to keep ready in the event of a war. I put it to you that page 57 and 58 form a unit and that page 59 is a separate report?

MR HOLDER: That is correct, if I peruse it.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And I put it to you that it is highly improbable that a town council would issue a report such as that which appears on page 59 and place it in people's post boxes.

MR HOLDER: These were all found in our post boxes which were all at a central location, that is where we obtained it.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you're saying is that - can you say with certainty whether these guidelines were distributed by the town council, both sets? Is it only page 59 or page 57?

MR HOLDER: I wouldn't be able to say.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So in effect you're saying that these guidelines could have been distributed by somebody else or somebody else with access to the town council or the post office?

MR HOLDER: It must have been someone from the post office or the town council, that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: The person whom you married, are those your own children?

MR HOLDER: I beg your pardon?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You were married during this process, the person whom you married, did you marry this person before or after the incident?

MR HOLDER: No I was married before the incident and these children are my own children.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you. I would just like to take you to Constable Swart's statement. Do you know about his statement which he made in court?

MR HOLDER: Yes I do know about it.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You agree with his evidence which he gave during the court proceedings?

MR HOLDER: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In what regard would you say that his evidence is incorrect?

MR HOLDER: I can't remember his statement explicitly because it was made two years ago and there are certain aspects of that statement with which I do not agree.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that he will make a statement during which he said that the words were never uttered that you were acting on behalf of a right-wing organisation. What do you say about that?

MR HOLDER: I said so just now, Mr de Meillon said "don't do anything stupid". I didn't hear him say that he was from a right-wing organisation.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Constable Swart goes further to say in his statement that it was never put to him or said to him that weapons would be taken from any person?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In both these statements is Mr de Meillon incorrect in saying that this happened?

MR HOLDER: I wouldn't know I was not with him in the room at that moment.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that it was a very small room and that you stood at the open door and if this had been said you would have heard it?

MR HOLDER: No, as I have already testified, I stood by the window when I saw Mr de Meillon go in and upon that I followed him.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would just like to pick that up, the political deed, do you have any evidence that the political organisation you allege you belonged to had given approval for the killing of policemen?

MR HOLDER: No I don't have, Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you feel that is justified to kill a policeman for one firearm?

MR HOLDER: No it isn't justified.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In which respect could this deed have contributed to any political purpose or objective?

MR HOLDER: It couldn't have contributed, Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sibanyoni?

MR SIBANYONI: No questions thank you Mr Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Holder, there is one aspect I'd like to clarify with you. You talked about the request or a request being equated to an instruction, you equated requests with instructions if they came from a commander, is that what you're saying? Am I right?

MR HOLDER: That's right.

ADV GCABASHE: But did you consider Mr de Meillon to be your commander?

MR HOLDER: During the evening of the event, yes that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Now I know that the detail of where you were going to or the broad terms rather, where you were going to you got from Mr van Schalkwyk. I'm trying to find out who gave you the instruction, was it Mr de Meillon, Mr van Schalkwyk or if there were two instructions, just clarify that for me because both of them seemed to have had an influence on what you did?

MR HOLDER: I was given the instruction by Mr van Schalkwyk, Mr Chair.

ADV GCABASHE: Could you have refused to go with Mr de Meillon?

MR HOLDER: I saw my involvement with the AWB as the same as the then defence force, in other words if a higher ranking officer gave an instruction you carried it out.

ADV GCABASHE: And in this instance the high ranking officer was Mr van Schalkwyk?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: There are actually a couple of more areas that I have notes on here. Coming to the guardhouse you were at the window then you went to the door. Did the struggle start when you were at the window, when you were at the door or when you had already walked into the room?

MR HOLDER: When I walked into the room the struggle started, ja.

ADV GCABASHE: That's the struggle between Mr de Meillon and the deceased?

MR HOLDER: That's right.

ADV GCABASHE: You had walked in already?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: I understood you to say that you walked into the room because you saw Mr Swart pull his firearm?

MR HOLDER: No.

ADV GCABASHE: Correct me?

MR HOLDER: I walked into the room when I saw Mr de Meillon go in then I followed him into the room.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, at what point did you observe Mr Swart pulling his firearm?

MR HOLDER: As I entered the room the deceased jumped up and he and Mr de Meillon were struggling then I saw Mr de Swart pulling his firearm.

ADV GCABASHE: You see again I'm trying to understand, when you walked into the room you were going in to separate De Meillon and Terblanche or whether you walked in because at that point you observed Mr Swart pull his firearm and that's where you were headed, I'm not too sure, just help me with that?

MR HOLDER: His firearm wasn't pulled yet, he was busy pulling it when I came into the room and Mr - the deceased jumped up and struggled with Mr de Meillon then I went to ...(intervention)

ADV GCABASHE: You went straight to Mr Swart?

MR HOLDER: That's right.

ADV GCABASHE: And then finally, I have to come back to where you were supposed to find these arms, again it's a note that I had made. When you were told about these arms that Mr de Meillon knew about, that were in various places, were you told that they were from the Government, they were Government arms, were you told that there was a camp where certain people were and I had assumed and I read the documents that it would either be the ANC or the SACP where they had these illegal arms? Whose arms were you going to take in terms of structures, political structures?

MR HOLDER: I believed at that stage that these firearms were PAC or SACP or ANC or any one of those groups.

ADV GCABASHE: And the premises that you were headed for as far as you knew was a camp where these particular people were holding these illegal arms as far as you were concerned?

MR HOLDER: That is correct, or a house or a location or something like that.

ADV GCABASHE: It had nothing to do with the government of the day?

MR HOLDER: No.

ADV GCABASHE: Or any declaration of war against the government of the day?

MR HOLDER: No.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kotze any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KOTZE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

And when you had taken these weapons do you still say that these weapons would then be used for protection of the safe houses with the people you have already mentioned?

MR HOLDER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR KOTZE: And did you believe at that stage that it was a political and military order?

MR HOLDER: That is correct.

MR KOTZE: Mr Holder, you had been questioned regarding the finding of the judge as to where you agree and you don't agree. Part of his finding was that you and Mr van Zyl and Mr de Meillon on that particular evening didn't go to Pretoria at all. What is your attitude about that?

MR HOLDER: I still agree with the finding of the Judge, but we were in Pretoria, I know we were there.

MR KOTZE: Then it was also found that Mr Swart could have seen your blue eyes through a vest, what is your opinion about that?

MR HOLDER: Well I don't believe Mr Swart could have seen my eyes.

MR KOTZE: You were also cross-questioned or questioned regarding Mr Swart's evidence during the trial and your comment was that there were certain aspects with which you didn't agree, a matter with regard to where your firearm was. Do you think Mr Swart would have been in a position to make an observation in this regard?

MR HOLDER: I don't know whether he could have made this observation because he was busy drawing his firearm, he was wasn't really looking at what was going on at the door.

MR KOTZE: You also remarked just now that this couldn't contribute to a political objective, if we now look at the isolated incident of the 23rd April, that sort of senseless killing of a police officer, is that what you're referring to?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: But the broader idea of trying to obtain firearms, do you believe that that could have a political influence?

MR HOLDER: Yes that is correct, Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kotze.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I have one brief question if the Chairman will allow me to reply? On page 66 the judge says in his finding with regard to Swart the policeman, that he was an honest and impressive witness, do you agree with that?

MR HOLDER: I agree with what the judge had found.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is there any reason why you could believe that he was not an impressive and honest witness?

MR KOTZE: I have to object against this question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think it is a well founded objection, he has replied to your question Mr van Schalkwyk.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Yes I'm satisfied that he has replied, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I see we've almost reached the end of the day. You have one client whose case you have to offer, I don't know whether you have any further testimony or evidence in this regard?

MR KOTZE: Mr Chairman, no further evidence on behalf of Mr Holder.

CHAIRPERSON: So you conclude his application?

MR KOTZE: Yes I do conclude his application.

CHAIRPERSON: I think under those circumstances, time has caught up with us at any rate and we therefore will have the matter stand over. We'll adjourn this application until tomorrow and we will reconvene at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. So we are adjourned.