APPLICATION NO: AM 5002

CHAIRPERSON: For the record, it's Wednesday the 12th of May 1999. We are continuing with the amnesty applications in respect the murder of MK George and MK Brown. Yes, Mr Prinsloo, I was told that you would interpose your client at this stage.

MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases you, Mr Chairperson. I will then call the applicant, Mr Gert Visser, to give testimony.

ADV DE JAGER: Your full names please.

GERT VISSER: (sworn states)

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairperson, the application of the applicant appears on page 115 to 117 and 122 to 123, and also the further end, which is the political motivation, 124 to 131. Mr Chairperson, before you I have already ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR PRINSLOO: Volume 1, that is correct, Chairperson. It's been placed before, which is Exhibit R and the application of the applicant which appears on page 116 and 177 which is hand-written, has been typed over for the comfort of the Committee, so that it can be read easier. This would be Exhibit R with your permission.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR PRINSLOO: R, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, is Exhibit R from page 116 to 121 to 117?

MR PRINSLOO: This is the incident that is serving before the Honourable Committee. Where it says Incident 1, Chairperson, page 116 of volume 1, from there it is typed. It is typed up to where it starts again, where the paragraph 9.A.1 starts. Just before that the typing stops, just to make it legible for you and also the Honourable Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: I see the last word on the written piece is shot...

MR PRINSLOO: Sorry, Chairperson, that is correct. As it pleases you.

MR PRINSLOO: ...(inaudible) just in order to be of some assistance to my learned friend, Mr van der Berg. He has turned up with relations of the victim in the Simelane matter, because it was at the pre-trial conference suspected that we might get to that matter this week. I've just told him that the position, what the position is, that we've been called up to go to Pretoria during the course of the day and that we'll probably not be available - well, we'll definitely not be available tomorrow, but probably also not on Friday and then the matter will only come on on Monday. Perhaps it might be appropriate for you to confirm to Mr van der Berg, so that he knows to make his arrangements, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well I'm sorry, nobody brought that to my attention. I have also haven't noticed that. Is it in the Simelane matter that you're appearing?

MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We are having a logistical difficulty as a Committee in the sense that we are trying to get all these remaining cases done as quickly as we can and often there are overlaps in the sense that legal representatives have clients appearing at more than one of our sessions at the same time. This has happened between this session in Johannesburg and the one in Pretoria.

Our colleagues in Pretoria have concluded their roll. They've got only the matters remaining where Mr Wagener and Visser appear and in order to enable them to facilitate and conclude their hearing over there, what we have ruled here is that we will listen to the remainder of the witnesses in this matter that we are hearing, which is a different matter from the one that you are appearing in, and then we will release Mr Visser and Wagener to conclude the matter in front of our colleagues in Pretoria and then to revert to us as soon as they are through there.

So we're definitely not going to be able to take another today unfortunately. So you know there would no sense in your staying on today. What I want to suggest - we're not quite sure how it will work out, and when we are going to be able to reconvene. Perhaps you should in touch and Ms Thabethe should be in touch with you as well, just to keep you posted and give you a clearer indication as to when we would hear your case, so that you don't have to come through here and to hang around and wait for your case.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Ms Thabethe had contacted me late yesterday afternoon, unfortunately just via a voice-mail message. We weren't able to speak personally about just where you were placed and what the arrangements were. As a result of that I was unable to contact my clients to prevent them from coming through today. They've come through from Mpumalanga. They understand the logistical difficulties that we have, but obviously they're disappointed that their matter won't come on. I need to be able to give them some sort of notice as to whether we're going to start on Friday, or whether it's going to be Monday.

You know from my perspective it doesn't matter whether we start this afternoon or tomorrow or whatever, I'm prepared and ready. It's really just to facilitate their travel arrangements more than anything else, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, no, we appreciate that, Mr van den Berg. Just give me an indication, Ms Thabethe, do we have another matter apart from Simelane, that we would be able to continue with if we were to reconvene between now and Monday? Because it appears to me, if the interested parties are from Mpumalanga - I might have been wrongly under the impression that they are local, from Johannesburg, in that case perhaps it is better if we give them a fixed arrangement. And it looks to me at this stage as if Monday is a more sort of definite indication, instead of telling them that we will phone them and that sort of stuff you know. So would it make sense for us to say that we will arrange for them to come back on Monday instead of being in limbo in the meantime, and that if we reconvene we've got some other things that we can listen to.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, I think it would be proper if we reconvened this matter on Monday. Should we, between now and Friday, have any other matters - there is the matter of Herbert Mbali, which I understand is quite a short matter as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think that's better. Mr van den Berg, will you then convey that to your clients and just convey our apologies as well. We are trying to balance out, which is often totally impossible to balance our in this process. But please apologise to them and tell them that we will stand the matter down until Monday and we should be able to help them pretty soon.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, they are present in the hall and they've heard what you said and I will simply confirm it with them. Thank you, Mr Chairperson. And I'm indebted to my colleagues for the period that we've interjected in their matters. Thank you. Might we be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, indeed, you're excused. Thank you. Mr Prinsloo?

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairperson, may I just indicate to you, the last paragraph in Exhibit R, there is a typographical error, it should be "shot". That is what confused me. It should not be "shot dead", it should just be shot. Thank you. Can I then continue with the ...(inaudible)

Mr Visser, you apply for amnesty in relation to the incident that is serving before this Committee, and according to your evidence happened on the 8th of December 1981 at the border of Swaziland, close to Oshoek.

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: You refer to the people that were killed there as George and Brown.

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Visser, you since 1966 have been a member of the Security Branch and at the time of this incident you were stationed at Pretoria, Northern Transvaal Branch under the command of a Colonel Viktor, one of the applicants and also Major Nel, who is also an applicant.

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you also heard the evidence that was given by Mr Nel. Do you confirm his evidence?

MR VISSER: I do confirm it, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: You were then busy with the investigation of the Voortrekkerhoogte incident, which is also referred to in bundle 5, is that correct?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you were also involved and present with the arrest of Johannes Mnisi, is that correct?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: You were also busy with the interrogation of Johannes Mnisi, is that correct?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you also heard the evidence of a plastic card that was in the possession, found in the possession of Johannes Mnisi.

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Johannes Mnisi, did he give you his co-operation there?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson, he gave us his full co-operation.

MR PRINSLOO: Did the information that Johannes Mnisi gave you, was that followed up on?

MR VISSER: Yes, we did follow up on that, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: That information that he gave you, did you see it as reliable, by going to places and to see if that was the truth or not?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson, we accompanied him on a journey where he pointed certain places out to us, which accorded with the information we got from him.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you doubt at all in the credibility of Johannes Mnisi?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage, was there a rather high or low intensity of attacks by the ANC/SACP alliance on the Republic?

MR VISSER: There was a high intensity, according to me, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And as a result of the information that Johannes Mnisi had given to you, was there any information indicating that further deeds of terror were being planned?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Amongst others, according to the map that he had with him and the points that he pointed out to us, that he wanted to sabotage all the power lines in the Eastern Transvaal.

MR PRINSLOO: The persons that Johannes Mnisi had contact with, who were commanders, did you see them as high profile or not?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson, definitely.

MR PRINSLOO: And would they have operated from Swaziland?

MR VISSER: They were the people who gave the orders, a George and a Rashied.

MR PRINSLOO: Now the person Rashied, according to your knowledge at that stage, was he involved in acts?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairperson, we were already aware that he gave orders and that he was involved with the acts of sabotage in the Republic.

MR PRINSLOO: Was he a person that the Security Branch was interested in?

MR VISSER: Definitely, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: As a result of the information that Johannes Mnisi gave, there was by way of Johannes Mnisi, George was contacted in Swaziland?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: That information that was gathered there, were you busy with this?

MR VISSER: I was involved in there and most of the time that the contact was made I was also present.

MR PRINSLOO: Were arrangements made for a possible meeting in Swaziland?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And this specific information that was gathered in this way and the co-operation of Mnisi, was this discussed with the high command of the Security Branch?

MR VISSER: We did tell this to Colonel Viktor.

MR PRINSLOO: And were steps planned so that these people could be arrested in Swaziland?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And what did this planning involve?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, the planning was that we would identify the rendezvous place that Johannes Mnisi described to me, that we would wait for the people there.

MR PRINSLOO: This rendezvous place that Johannes Mnisi described to you, was it at that stage known to you?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairperson, I knew the environment there, but I had to go and identify the place myself. It is however a well-known insurgency route from Swaziland to the RSA, in the environment of Oshoek border post.

MR PRINSLOO: Does this mean it is an area that is far away and that it is only used by smugglers, or by the general public? What is the situation?

MR VISSER: The situation, Chairperson, is that it is a place where you can illegally cross the border and one of the times that we went in, there is a foot path there.

MR PRINSLOO: In other words, you would climb through the wire or over it?

MR VISSER: Yes, and that would be entrance illegally.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you do planning as a result of a command from high command in the Security Branch, and what was this?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairperson, I - or let me rather say that Major Strydom contacted me. The two of us planned it together, or we together planned by going to Oshoek border post, where on the route that Johannes Mnisi had described to us, entered Swaziland and the place that he had described to me we identified. We then returned and I verified this specific point with Johannes Mnisi.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you as a result of what you had seen and what Johannes Mnisi had told you, satisfied about what the point would be?

MR VISSER: I was satisfied.

MR PRINSLOO: Were steps then taken where you had gone to Oshoek border post for these steps?

MR VISSER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: You heard who the people were that were present at these specific steps.

MR VISSER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you confirm this?

MR VISSER: I confirm it. I did not mention the name of Schoon. I can't remember if he was present or not.

MR PRINSLOO: And with these specific steps, did you accompany the then Major Steyn, or Strydom, did you accompany him into Swaziland?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And was he accompanied by anyone?

MR VISSER: He was accompanied by a few members of the Task Force.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you climb through the fence and not identify yourself at the border post?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson. We used this - we went into Swaziland by the same route that we described.

MR PRINSLOO: So you went into Swaziland illegally?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you go to this specific point?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And what happened then? Did a motor vehicle arrive?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, Mr Strydom deployed his people there in the terrain where we suspected that the vehicle would stop. The specific time and - at the specific time a light coloured vehicle arrived there and I could see that there were two people sitting inside the vehicle. The vehicle stopped quite a distance away from us. It switched off its lights and the people stayed seated in the car. After a short while the vehicle moved away again.

MR PRINSLOO: These specific steps, that the vehicle arrived at a specific time, switched off its lights and the two sitting - and you noticed two people sitting inside it and also the vehicle, did this accord or not with the information that Johannes Mnisi had given to you and that was organised?

MR VISSER: It accorded completely, Chairperson, we just misjudged the place where the vehicle would stop.

MR PRINSLOO: And what happened after this, after the vehicle departed again?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, we returned to the RSA again.

MR PRINSLOO: And upon your return, did you make any other arrangements?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I went to the Commander who was at that stage at Oshoek border post in a house made of stones. Mr Strydom and his people went to their vehicle and he told me that they would go back to Pretoria.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you have a conversation with Mr Nel again?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson. We spoke with the Commanders, amongst others, Mr Nel as well and the possibility was discussed to try and arrange another appointment the same evening and Major Nel then departed along with Johannes Mnisi to Carolina, to go and make a telephone call.

MR PRINSLOO: And after this, were more steps planned in the same evening?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, that is correct. I accept that it was Colonel Visser who followed Mr Strydom and who stopped them and who asked them to return, and when Mr Nel reported back that they had succeeded in contacting them again, we went in immediately, using the same route as we used the first time. This would be myself, Mr Strydom and the Task Force.

MR PRINSLOO: The Task Force, under the leadership of Major Strydom, were you immediately with them at the scene, or were you behind them?

MR VISSER: Upon our arrival there, Chairperson, Mr Strydom deployed his people, bearing in mind where the vehicle had stopped the first time and I also took in position a bit behind these people.

MR PRINSLOO: If I can just take you back. Before you went in, Major Nel as he was then, gave you further orders and told you what your steps would be in relation to the people that would come in, is that correct?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson, he told me that Johannes Mnisi had contacted the people, that he had reported to them that he had seen them, but that he could not get to the vehicle before they depart. That he saw them depart and that he asked them to return again.

MR PRINSLOO: While you were there, what happened then?

MR VISSER: Mr Strydom and his people were deployed. They were in position.

MR PRINSLOO: Did the vehicle arrive?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson, a vehicle did arrive.

MR PRINSLOO: And the vehicle that arrived then, where did this vehicle stop?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, more-or-less at the same place where it stopped the first time. A little bit closer to us, if I can remember correctly.

MR PRINSLOO: And the appearance of the vehicle, did it differ?

MR VISSER: It was the same vehicle that stopped there the first time.

MR PRINSLOO: And were there more people in there?

MR VISSER: I could see that there were two people in the vehicle again.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage, did you have any doubt that the vehicle standing there and the people inside the vehicle were other people, other than the George and Brown that you were interested in?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, it was the same vehicle that stopped there the first time, and I was sure that these were the people that we had to contact.

MR PRINSLOO: And what happened then?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, shortly after the vehicle stopped and it switched off its lights, I heard someone speak in a black language, I also heard a weapon being cocked. At that stage I head movement in front of me and shortly afterwards I heard shots.

MR PRINSLOO: And there was already evidence given that the vehicle caught fire and that there was a strong fire in the vehicle.

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson, the vehicle did catch fire.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there any possibility to retrieve any people from the vehicle, or to save them?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson, the fire that had started in the vehicle was a very strong fire.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you then withdraw from that vicinity and return?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson, we used the same route to withdraw and myself and Mr Strydom reported to our commander about what had happened there.

MR PRINSLOO: After these events, did you at any stage receive any information regarding the steps that had been taken there, who these people were, or did you not?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, via sources we later realised that the two people in the vehicle were a George and a Brown, both MK members and these were their MK names.

MR PRINSLOO: You have already given evidence that you knew the activities of the ANC. Did they normally use MK names instead of their real names?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson. Even amongst each other they only used MK names and their activities were done very clandestinely.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Visser, your purpose to go there was to arrest those people and you know that your steps there were illegal, to go into another country to arrest people. Are you aware of this?

MR VISSER: I am aware of this, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage you attempted to abduct those people from Swaziland.

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage foresee that these people could be killed there and that the steps would be illegal in that aspect?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, it was foreseen from the beginning in the planning.

MR PRINSLOO: And evidence has already been given that the people had AK47 East block weapons with them.

MR VISSER: Is this the people that were with us?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And under these circumstances, did you reconcile yourself with the fact that killing these people would be illegal?

MR VISSER: ...(inaudible)

MR PRINSLOO: Now during your steps there, did you act there for your own gain?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson, I acted in the interest of the RSA and the point of view of the then government.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage, did you act as a member of the South African Police?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And I understand then that you are saying that you acted with the approval of the South African Government.

MR VISSER: I had no doubt about this, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And the then government was the National Party, whose interest you wanted to promote, is that correct?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And under the circumstances, do you then apply for amnesty for the deeds that you had done there?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And that you acted against a liberation movement, which was the ANC?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And the alliance with the SACP?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And the application - and the circumstances that you had a conspiracy to abduct these people illegally?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And also the vehicle that was destroyed there, was malicious damage to property?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And the offences then would be conspiracy and murder, is that correct?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And also damage to property and any other lesser offence that might flow from this?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And also the damage that you had caused to the people that there killed there?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Visser, you currently still employed in the service of the police?

MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you have the rank of Senior Superintendent, which is a full Colonel?

MR VISSER: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you are the Station Commissioner at Middelburg?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And since 1992, you were tasked with the institution of the new dispensation?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Would you please enlighten the Committee as to this.

MR VISSER: In 1992 I was transferred from the Security Branch - at that stage I was a commander in Eastern Transvaal, to the Divisional, or Regional Office and my responsibility was community policing. I was also tasked with the paragraph 5 negotiations of the Groote Schuur Minute, in order that the elections could continue smoothly. I was also a delegate of the police in the Eastern Transvaal, in the Peace Committee in the Eastern Transvaal. And with the restructuring of the Police Force, I received the post as Regional Commissioner of the Eastern Transvaal.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you accept this post?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you accept it as it is presently?

MR VISSER: I accept the current situation. Yes, I do, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Mr Visser, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Visser, just three matters. Were you not aware that the initial planning entailed that George, MK George would be arrested within the borders of South Africa and that he would be enticed to come to South Africa?

MR VISSER: I was aware of that, Chairperson.

ADV VISSER: But you did not mention this in your evidence, you just mentioned a meeting in Swaziland. As I understood it from the other applicants, it is something that emanated later, that MK George would arrested.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, with the telephone discussions that Mnisi had with George, it seemed that MK George did not want to come to South Africa, and I was aware thereof.

ADV VISSER: And you said that at the scene you heard somebody talk. Colonel Steyn's evidence was that somebody had shouted in some African language. What would you say, what was the position? Did somebody shout or did somebody just talk?

MR VISSER: Chairperson as I recall, something was said in an African language and immediately thereafter a firearm was cocked.

ADV VISSER: Do you say it was loud? Was it said in some panicky ... or was it just some conversation?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I cannot recall any shouting, I could just hear a voice. I also have to add that at that stage I was behind Major Strydom and his men and I was not in the same position as they were.

ADV VISSER: I would just like to ask you, how far behind them were you?

MR VISSER: I was quite a way behind them. It was dark. It is difficult to judge, but approximately five to ten yards behind them.

ADV VISSER: Very well. This weapon which you heard was cocked, where was this weapon cocked according to your observations?

MR VISSER: This came from the vehicle, Chairperson.

ADV VISSER: Did you judge this from this direction which the sound came from?

MR VISSER: That's correct.

ADV VISSER: And were you satisfied that the gun was cocked in the vehicle?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt, have you got any questions?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair, I do.

Mr Visser, you have testified that you heard people talking in an African language and then you heard a firearm being cocked. Did this - would you think that these people in the car saw you approaching them?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson, I did not make this inference.

MS THABETHE: You wouldn't say that the talking and the cocking of the firearm was in reaction to them seeing you?

CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat that.

MS THABETHE: You wouldn't say that - it wouldn't be correct to say that the cocking of the firearm and the talking was in reaction to them seeing you approaching them?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: After you heard the firearm being cocked, who fired the first shot?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I'm not sure. Shortly afterwards there was a whole lot of shooting.

MS THABETHE: ...(inaudible) to ascertain maybe if you have information as to what led to the shooting in the first place?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I am not entirely sure who fired first and how the command was given to fire, I just heard them firing.

MS THABETHE: ...(inaudible) clarify something as well. You say after the whole incident you and Mr Strydom reported to your commander. Who was your commander? Sorry, I missed that one.

MR VISSER: Colonel Viktor was my commander.

MS THABETHE: Then you also said in your evidence that after the incident you did indeed verify the fact that the people who were attacked were indeed George and Brown. How did you verify this?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, this information I read in security reports.

MS THABETHE: My question to you is, do you know what happened to the bodies of Mr George and Brown?

MR VISSER: I have no idea what had happened to the bodies, Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: ...(inaudible) Mr Chair, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Ms Thabethe.

How far were you from where this vehicle had stopped for the second time?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, we were quite close to the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: If you could give us an estimation.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I do not believe that the persons from the Task Force were further than 20 metres from them. I was a little bit behind them, approximately 25/30 metres.

CHAIRPERSON: You had understood that you would execute an arrest, or to use the other term, an abduction, that you would abduct persons, but in the eye of the police it would be an arrest. This is what was planned?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: But you have wanted to arrest George.

MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was any attempt made to arrest them at the scene?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I was not part of the command and the persons who would execute this, that is why I was a little way behind them. As I also state in my statement, I saw or I heard some movement of the persons before me and just shortly afterwards they opened fire.

CHAIRPERSON: They were approximately five metres from you?

MR VISSER: Give or take.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you able to see them in the dark?

MR VISSER: I could see - I could not see the persons personally, but I could see the silhouettes of the persons lying in front of me.

CHAIRPERSON: You could see the silhouettes?

MR VISSER: Yes, I could, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you heard some movement, where did the movement come from?

MR VISSER: It came from the persons, from the Task Force members who were lying in front of me.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they lying down you said?

MR VISSER: The ones that I saw were in a lying position, some of them were kneeling down. It depends on the cover that they had at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: They were partially behind cover?

MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you heard some movement, did you see anything?

MR VISSER: I just saw the red flames that the traces made.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not see whether the Task Force members moved towards the vehicle?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson, I did not observe this.

CHAIRPERSON: This movement which you were aware of, would this be that they were readying themselves to shoot?

MR VISSER: I don't know, Chairperson. As I have said, I just saw or heard some movement in front of me and it was shortly afterwards that this weapon was cocked, and shortly afterwards they opened fire.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not see the Task Force members storm the vehicle?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: Would it be safe to say that no attempt was made to arrest these people in the vehicle?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I cannot comment on this, because at that stage I was a little way behind Major Strydom and he was in command and he had to make the decision as to what would happen there.

CHAIRPERSON: But from your observation, would it be reasonable to say that according to your observation no attempt was made to arrest these persons?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, not an attempt that was visible, so that I could see it. That somebody grabbed somebody or somebody stormed the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you were aware of this and they were about 20 metres from the vehicle. If they had stormed the vehicle and tried to open the doors, you would have seen.

MR VISSER: I did not see this, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So we could accept that this did not happen?

MR VISSER: I did not see any such action, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And could we then accept that the Task Force members were quite some way from the vehicle when they opened fire?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Not much closer than the 20 metres you approximated?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: According to the evidence of the other applicants it would seem that it is common cause that they fired first.

MR VISSER: That is how I heard it, Chairperson, and I accept it as such. I cannot comment on this.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not open fire yourself?

MR VISSER: No, I did not, Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: I would accept that if you could only see silhouettes in front of you, approximately five metres in front of you, then that was the only thing you could see in the vehicle?

MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You could not establish what sex these persons in the car were?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You just saw two silhouettes?

MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson. Chairperson, very close there - or the border post is in the vicinity there and the lighting sheds some light quite a way from there and the vehicle, from where we were the vehicle, the lights were in the background, so I could only see the silhouettes.

CHAIRPERSON: But you could only see the silhouettes in the vehicle?

MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you could not say whether the voices you heard was a discussion between the persons? And where did these voices come from?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, the personal inference that I made was when they stopped and nobody approached the vehicle and these persons became a little bit tense and somebody said something in a language about this, which was the reason why this weapon was cocked.

CHAIRPERSON: But you could not deduce that they were panicking, or it was a panicking reaction from them, you could only hear somebody say something in an unknown language?

MR VISSER: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: And you heard something like a weapon being cocked?

MR VISSER: Definitely, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say that these persons, according to your observation, could not see where you were? I'm talking about you now.

MR VISSER: I don't think that they could see us at that stage, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. So your group was not in any danger? For example, that these persons could attack from the vehicle?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, where I was I did not feel that I was in danger, I don't know about the persons who were lying in front of me.

CHAIRPERSON: But it would be logical that if the persons could not see you, then there would not be any risks of them attacking you?

MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So if your group had not done anything and you had just remained where you were, then this vehicle could have just left the scene?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, yes, but our planning also foresaw that we would want to eliminate these people. So if there was no arrest, I would not want to have seen that these persons just escape and continue with their plans of sabotage.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's say if there was a failed attempt to arrest them, that you would accept that they could be killed?

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But if I understand you correctly this was not the primary objective, the primary objective was to arrest them. We say this in quotation marks, but it was to "arrest" them?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And it would seem that there was no attempt to apprehend them?

MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, in our planning we heard that if we could not arrest these persons, then we would eliminate them.

MR VISSER: ...(inaudible) the persons who would arrive there.

CHAIRPERSON: Anybody who arrived there?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson, the two persons or the person by the name of George, whom Mnisi had contacted and that at that stage we knew who gave, he was the one who gave orders with regards to his actions in South Africa.

CHAIRPERSON: So you expected George there?

MR VISSER: Yes, we expected George there.

CHAIRPERSON: If George was at the scene then according to your authority you could have killed him?

MR VISSER: If we could not arrest him, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But you don't know whether George was at the scene or not?

MR VISSER: I assumed that it was George.

CHAIRPERSON: But you assumed this, you did not know whether it was him or not.

CHAIRPERSON: I did not know him, Chairperson. I don't know what he looked like and therefore I cannot say, but I assumed at that stage and I believed that that was George.

CHAIRPERSON: But nobody made any attempt to identify the persons in the vehicle?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: So you cannot say who was in the vehicle?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I can only say that after contact was made again and it was conveyed that Mnisi had again contacted George and that George was on his way to the rendezvous point.

CHAIRPERSON: This is what you had heard?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But we understand each other, that no attempts were made to verify that this was indeed the persons?

MR VISSER: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you say it was the same vehicle?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, the vehicle which arrived the first time, we could identify it, it was a light vehicle, it was exactly the same vehicle that arrived the second day.

CHAIRPERSON: What make was it?

MR VISSER: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Registration number?

MR VISSER: There is no registration number that I can recall.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you identify the vehicle?

MR VISSER: It was the type of vehicle that I saw the first time.

CHAIRPERSON: The colour?

MR VISSER: Yes, it had a light colour.

CHAIRPERSON: So you just assumed it was the same vehicle?

MR VISSER: I was convinced that it was the same vehicle, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you accepted that it was the same two persons that had arrived before?

MR VISSER: Yes, I did, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know what authorisation was given for this act?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, it was conveyed to me by Colonel Viktor, that there was authorisation with the planning which we had done, that these persons would be arrested in Swaziland, or could be eliminated.

CHAIRPERSON: He did not give you any particulars as to where he received this authorisation?

MR VISSER: As to who he received it from? No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: He said it was authorised?

MR VISSER: Yes, he said it was approved.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you aware that some of these cross-border operations were approved by the relevant chief, or head, whether it was the Army or the Minister or the Cabinet or the State President and so forth? Were you aware thereof?

MR VISSER: I was not aware thereof, Chairperson. I would have assumed that it was as such, but I was not aware of it. All that I know is that Colonel Viktor went to Head Office at that stage, where he received approval.

CHAIRPERSON: So you don't know?

MR VISSER: I did not know, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: If there was any political authorisation?

MR VISSER: I was not aware of that, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: At both instances you reported to your commander?

MR VISSER: Yes, I did, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you report at the second instance? That it was a successful operation?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson, I told them that we had succeeded to kill these persons.

CHAIRPERSON: Who did you tell them, who were the persons?

MR VISSER: I said the two persons in the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: So you basically told them that there was a vehicle which arrived at the scene with two occupants and these two occupants were killed?

MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Visser, you state that you read in security reports that indeed it was George and Brown, who had been the victims.

MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: Would these have been reports prepared by people in your structure, your command structure, or would these have been reports from a totally different structure?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, it was reports compiled within the security community, which was received from other sources.

ADV GCABASHE: So this information wasn't sourced from your activity on that day, this information was sourced from a different person or different angle?

MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson. The reports which I received from the Eastern Transvaal.

ADV GCABASHE: ...(inaudible) and do you say that at no stage did Mnisi tell you who George and Brown were, what their real names were?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, the persons only worked with MK names, I did not know who they were and right up to today I do not know what the real names of George or Brown are.

ADV GCABASHE: And one final question. Nobody got out of the car before the shooting started, or did somebody get out? I'm not sure if I ...

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson, I cannot recall that anybody climbed out of the vehicle. As far as my observation went, they remained in the vehicle.

ADV GCABASHE: And the reason you could hear them speak was because their windows were open? I'm just trying to picture the scene.

MR VISSER: I cannot say anything about open windows, I can just recall that I heard some African language.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

ADV DE JAGER: Before you departed to the scene, were you together with Mnisi, to Carolina to make this telephone call?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, Major Nel took him to Carolina to make the calls.

ADV DE JAGER: Which report did you receive back from Nel, as to when the vehicle would arrive or who would be in the vehicle? What did he report back to you?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, Mr Nel told us that he succeeded in contacting George in Mbabane and Mnisi told him that he must return to the rendezvous point and he would be there.

ADV DE JAGER: Did Mnisi at that stage supply you with a name as to who he was talking to?

MR VISSER: He said he was talking to George.

ADV DE JAGER: He spoke to George. And was this the name that he initially gave in his information? That this was the person who sent him into the country?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson, this was his contact person, George, and every time in previous discussions it was with George.

ADV DE JAGER: This path where the vehicle had stopped, is this a main road that is used by many vehicles?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson, it is a dirt road and where the vehicle had stopped was a U-turn, you cannot go any further. You cannot go any further with the vehicle.

ADV DE JAGER: There were no lights at the scene itself?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: I am a little stupid, how do you arrest a person that sits in a vehicle? Did you assume that they were armed?

MR VISSER: We assumed in our planning that they would be armed.

ADV DE JAGER: And you heard this rifle being cocked?

MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Then how would you arrest them?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, that is exactly why we used trained personnel from the Task Force to execute this And this was Mr Strydom and his people's responsibility, as to how they would go about this. My task was to take them in.

ADV DE JAGER: Why did you decide to use specialised persons, why did you not execute the arrests yourself?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, it was in a foreign country, and from my side I would say that we could not take the risk of anything going wrong and that is why we used trained personnel. And because we also knew that these two persons whom we wanted to arrest were highly trained MK members.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you afraid to arrest them, or did you see it as dangerous to arrest them?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I would not have seen myself as trained enough to, under these circumstances, to go and arrest trained people myself.

ADV DE JAGER: Why not?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I was a member of the Security Branch then, who had the task to interrogate people and to do intelligence work and there were more trained, more professional people available.

ADV DE JAGER: Trained in which sense, to handle dangerous situation? Or why could you not go yourself? In your life you probably had arrested many people.

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson, but it involved specific planning and the feeling was that we would have to use specialised people.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you have any information about which weapons they possibly would have in their possession?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson, we only knew that MK members usually were armed and that is why it was also incorporated in the planning, that the people would be armed.

ADV DE JAGER: And you say that in your order it was foreseen that they should either be arrested and if they could not be arrested they should be eliminated?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mnisi, he was a trained MK member, wasn't he?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And he was arrested a few days before this happened?

MR VISSER: A few weeks. It don't know if it was two or three weeks, but it was a while back.

CHAIRPERSON: But he was himself a trained MK member with a high profile?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you took him to a telephone and he spoke to someone?

MR VISSER: You are now talking about the evening when we could not succeed the first time.

CHAIRPERSON: And it looks as if you contacted twice.

MR VISSER: We phoned a few time from Pretoria, to arrange this contact and that evening when we moved back, before we went in the second time, I'm just aware that Major Nel took him to Carolina where he phoned. I'm not aware of whether he phoned once, twice or three times, but it was reported back that he had contacted George.

CHAIRPERSON: Good. Then may I misunderstood you. Mnisi then at an earlier occasion, made telephone calls or a telephone call and organised or tried to get George to come to the RSA?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And when it appeared as if this was not working, he was asked to organise to meet George on Swaziland territory at a point where you could then get hold of George?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So Mnisi spoke over the telephone with someone, with George, and did he tell you that this is George that I'm talking to?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson, we had the conversation monitored and we could also hear what the other person was saying.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were listening in?

MR VISSER: One of the members were listening in for us.

CHAIRPERSON: And at Carolina?

MR VISSER: I don't know what happened there, because I was not present there. Mr Nel took him there.

CHAIRPERSON: So he contacted someone in Carolina and he said then that George would come.

MR VISSER: He phoned to say that I missed you with the appointment and I'm on my way and you must come back to the rendezvous point?

MR VISSER: That is how I heard Mr Nel tell me.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were all under the impression that he was then talking to George?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is also what he told you?

MR VISSER: I accept it like that. I was not there, Chairperson, but that is the message that I had received from Mr Nel.

CHAIRPERSON: It would then appear from what he had said, that you accepted that George would be at the scene.

MR VISSER: I was convinced that it was going to be George.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is what Mnisi told you?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And were you under the impression that George himself had a higher profile in the MK than Mnisi?

MR VISSER: Undoubtedly, Chairperson, because this was his contact person and this was also the person that sent him the orders and this was also the person to which he had to report back.

CHAIRPERSON: So Mnisi had enticed a high MK member to a place where you could arrest him?

MR VISSER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were convinced? And why were you so convinced that this plan would work?

MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, according to the planning that we had done, I accepted that the plan would work.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were largely dependant on Mnisi?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And is co-operation?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So you believed that you would, that you could get a high profile MK member to lure a higher profile MK member and that you could then arrest that person?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, that is correct, but the word "lure" is maybe not correct, he had to establish contact with the person because he was in the RSA, he was not aware of the fact that this person was arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: And he had to report this information back to George and this was a meeting had to take place. And Mnisi then succeeded to let George come to this specific point twice?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you. Mr Visser, the question that was asked to you by the Honourable Chairperson, when that weapon was cocked in the vehicle, the one that you heard, would it have been safe for the Task Force members to stand up to go to the vehicle, taking into account that a weapon had been cocked?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I would not have personally approached such a vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: You relied here on the information of Mnisi and if those people had become aware that there were people who wanted to arrest them, what would the position regarding Mnisi have been?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, the information that we had got from Mnisi, and the co-operation ...

MR PRINSLOO: Would these people have been able to start another operation?

MR VISSER: They would then have done other planning, of which we would then not have been aware at that stage.

MR PRINSLOO: You heard a voice from the vehicle, could you tell if it was a man or a woman?

MR VISSER: It sounded to me like a black man's voice.

MR PRINSLOO: After these persons in this vehicle were shot, whom you still today believe were George and Brown, did the name George ever again appear in your security investigations?

MR VISSER: Not that he was alive, Chairperson, just that he was in the vehicle and that he was killed in the vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: Just to get some clarity as it appears that there is a misunderstanding. What Mnisi had to come and do, his order in the country was with this map as already given evidence to by Major Nel, and this information that Mnisi had to get in the Republic, he had to give back to George. Is that correct?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And it is as a result of this that Mnisi contacted George, where there was listened in on, is that correct?

MR VISSER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And it was the arrangement that Mnisi would meet them there to do the report-back at that point, is that correct?

MR VISSER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairperson, I did not take something up. I don't know if I did it, I just want to confirm with the witness. The declaration that appears and also what is referred to as the political motivation, which is Annexure B. Do you confirm this?

MR VISSER: Yes, I do.

MR PRINSLOO: And also Exhibit R?

MR VISSER: ...(inaudible)

MR PRINSLOO: And then there was also reference made to Exhibit A. Did you see this and do you concur with this?

MR VISSER: Yes, I do.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo.

Mr Visser, what I had forgotten to ask you is, Mnisi, was he an askari or what was he?

MR VISSER: At that stage he was held in relation to Section 29.

CHAIRPERSON: In relation to the Internal Security Act?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson. Shortly after that he was released, but at that stage he was still held.

CHAIRPERSON: So before this occasion he hadn't done any work for you, as someone helping you or as an informer?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson, he was still in terms of Section 29 and under these circumstances he gave his co-operation to us.

CHAIRPERSON: So he was never charged?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Prinsloo, is there anything else?

MR PRINSLOO: Just one question that flows from this.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser, you are excused.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MS VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, with Mr Visser's co-operation we now call on my client, Schalk Jan Visser. His application number is 5000-9. That is the number.

ADV DE JAGER: Your full names please?

SCHALK JAN VISSER: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Visser, your application is in bundle 1. The prescribed form is from page 132 to 134 and then the events that serve before the Honourable Committee, appears on page 136 under the heading of B, Johannes Mnisi, up to 138. Is that correct?

MR S J VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And do you confirm this statement as taken up in bundle 1?

MR S J VISSER: I do confirm it.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did you also see Annexure B, from page 148 to 155 in bundle 1? This is the political motivation. Do you also confirm the contents thereof?

MR S J VISSER: I do confirm the contents thereof.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then serving before the Committee is Exhibit A. Did you see this?

MR S J VISSER: I did, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you agree with the evidence as it is compiled there?

MR S J VISSER: I do agree with it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Does it relate to you?

MR S J VISSER: It does relate to me.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is there anything that you would want to leave out that is not relevant to you?

MR S J VISSER: The parts relating to Botswana and Lesotho, I would see something that is not pertinently relevant to me.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the evidence as compiled in Exhibit A is basically what appears in Annexure B of your application, is that correct?

MR S J VISSER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Visser, you are currently retired, and you were a member of the police, is that correct?

MR S J VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: When did you retire?

MR S J VISSER: At the end of 1992, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you were then busy in the Security Branch?

MR S J VISSER: Not specifically at that stage, until '88, I was attached to the Security Branch and four years before I retired I was at Head Office in Pretoria.

MS VAN DER WALT: For how long were you stationed at the Security Branch?

MR S J VISSER: About 25 years, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did you do any other special services while you were in the police?

MR S J VISSER: I did border duty on the northern border on the Angolan and Zambian border for a relatively long time.

MS VAN DER WALT: So basically you were stationed there on a permanent basis?

MR S J VISSER: I was stationed at Katima Malilo for five years.

MS VAN DER WALT: And during 1981, where were you stationed then?

MR S J VISSER: At that stage I was a Division Head of the Security Branch, Division Eastern Transvaal, or Mpumalanga as it is called currently.

MS VAN DER WALT: And as you also indicate on page 132 of your application that you were a member and also a supporter of the National Party.

MR S J VISSER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Regarding the incident that serves before the Honourable Committee, you mention on page 136 that during '81, Johannes Mnisi, who was an ANC militarily trained MK member, was arrested. Was this told to you or were you personally involved with the arrest?

MR S J VISSER: I was personally involved in the arrest in the vicinity of Oshoek border post, on the road between Oshoek and Carolina, on the South African side.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you also mention sketch plans that were found. What knowledge do you have of this?

MR S J VISSER: I personally found it in his possession and it consisted of a plastic, cellophane type of plastic on which certain notes were made in pen.

MS VAN DER WALT: You continue and you say that Mnisi at a later stage gave his co-operation, or promised his co-operation to the Security Branch. Were you at all involved in his interrogation?

MR S J VISSER: I did not personally interrogate him, Chairperson, but I was - by the then Major Nel and Captain Visser, they told me that he promised his co-operation.

MS VAN DER WALT: At that stage, was Mr Viktor in any way involved with you? Was he your subordinate?

MR S J VISSER: He was the Division Head of Security Branch Pretoria at that stage.

MS VAN DER WALT: And what was your rank at that point?

MR S J VISSER: At that stage I was a Lieutenant Colonel.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you were his subordinate?

MR S J VISSER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You heard the evidence of Mr Viktor and also Mr Nel, do you agree with this evidence?

MR S J VISSER: I agree with it, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And do you ask that where it relates to you, that the Committee also regards it?

MR S J VISSER: That is true, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Certain planning was then done, as you mention in paragraph 2 on page 137, regarding the operation, that you were not involved with this planning?

MR S J VISSER: I was not involved with the detailed planning, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you at a later stage on that specific day, which we now know to be the 8th of December 1981, you then went to Oshoek border post?

MR S J VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you go there?

MR S J VISSER: Oshoek border post was in my command area and I saw it as necessary that I should have knowledge of activities under my command.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did you also have an interest in the information that Mnisi had given to the Security Branch?

MR S J VISSER: I did, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. And you also heard the evidence of Mr Gert Visser, as well as Mr Strydom. Do you agree with the evidence as it was given by them?

MR S J VISSER: I do agree, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: In paragraph 4 on page 137, you gave a short summary of what happened, but it would appear now as if Swaziland was entered twice on that specific evening. Do you agree with this evidence?

MR S J VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: After the person's return the first time from Swaziland, what happened then?

MR S J VISSER: They made a report that indicated that they could not contact the people and that the vehicle had then departed. And then between the members that were present at Oshoek, the decision was made that an attempt had to be made that Mnisi could contact his controller, George, in Swaziland again.

Major Nel, as he was known then, then went to Carolina with the aforementioned person so that the telephone call could be made.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you have any part in calling Mr Strydom and the Task Force members back?

MR S J VISSER: Mr Strydom shortly after Mr Nel had departed to Carolina, they also returned as I accepted, to their base in Pretoria, because it was then decided that contact had to be made again and I followed them and I caught up with them from behind and on insistence of General Wandrach I asked them to return so that we could handle the further communication.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Swaziland was then entered a second time, is that correct?

MR S J VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And there where you were situated, could you hear any rifle fire happening in Swaziland?

MR S J VISSER: Personally I heard no shots.

MS VAN DER WALT: You, on page 138, paragraph 6, mentioned that it was necessary to take these steps in order to prevent that large scale sabotage with possible loss of life could be executed by the ANC. Was it your aim to arrest these people?

MR S J VISSER: It was the order to arrest these people.

MS VAN DER WALT: In your capacity and in the position that you held, would you have wanted to arrest these people?

MR S J VISSER: I would have given anything to be able to arrest them and to be able to get information in this regard and to be able to stop future sabotage and terrorist activities. As I understand this action, was it very necessary for the Security Police to gather as much information as possible in order to know what the ANC planned against South Africa at that time?

MR S F VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: So do you reconcile yourself with all the evidence given before the Committee? Is there something that you would want to add?

MR S F VISSER: I reconcile myself with what has been said so far.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the action of yourself and the people who committed these acts, did you feel and believe that you did this on behalf of the South African Police?

MR S F VISSER: I did, Chairperson. And at that stage, as you've also confirmed in your ...(indistinct) B, there was a revolutionary onslaught against the government of the day, that you had to fight against at all costs?

MR S F VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And your action you then saw in that light, in regards the South African Police and also the government. You also asked in your written application on page 132, that amnesty be given to you with regard to murder or any other offence or unlawful deed that might flow from these hearings and for this specific - because there are other applications in the same bundle, but for this specific bundle you ask with relation to murder because you foresaw that quite possibly if resistance was given, these people could possibly be killed. Is that correct?

MR S F VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And also conspiracy to murder?

MR S F VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: When you executed these steps with the other people, did you get any personal gain from these steps?

MR S F VISSER: Absolutely not, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you by any personal or malicious act do these steps?

MR S F VISSER: No, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: It was primarily aimed against the revolutionary struggle of the time.

MR S F VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Walt. Mr Prinsloo, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: No questions, Chairperson - just one question, Chairperson.

From your experience Mr Visser, the members of MK who had acted, were they always armed or not?

MR S F VISSER: In general they were armed when they moved about, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: The weapons that were used, was it heavy artillery, automatic weapons, Tokarevs, Makarovs, AK?

MR S F VISSER: It was from Eastern origin, Chairperson, heavy artillery.

MR PRINSLOO: And the fact that these persons were killed under these circumstances, did it add to water down the struggle against the country?

MR S F VISSER: Yes, Chairperson, I believe that it did add to it.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you, Chair.

Mr Visser, you've indicated that you personally arrested Mr Mnisi, how did you arrest him?

MR S F VISSER: I did not say that I personally arrested him, I said that I was present at his arrest at the Oshoek/Carolina road, where he came out of the field and moved towards the road, Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: Okay. I accept that you didn't personally arrest him, but you were present when he was arrested. So my question still remains, how was he arrested?

MR S F VISSER: He was stopped and I think there was a surprise element there because he did not resist. The police were in the vicinity were prepared that he would arrive there and they apprehended him and arrested him.

MS THABETHE: Was he alone?

MR S F VISSER: He was alone at that stage.

MS THABETHE: Was he armed?

MR S F VISSER: Not as far as I know, although he indeed had the map with the sketches with him.

MS THABETHE: You've also testified that a decision was made to arrest George and Brown, were you part of the decision that was made?

MR S F VISSER: Not with the initial planning, but I was aware that an order was given where wherever possible these persons had to be arrested, Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: As far as you know, was there a plan on how George and Brown were going to be arrested?

MR S F VISSER: In general or in the broad, I knew that an arrangement for meeting in Swaziland would be made and that they would attempt to arrest them there or attempt any other action there.

MS THABETHE: Like I'm trying to ascertain the fact - considering the fact that you had foreseen that they would be armed, how did you plan to, how was it planned that they were going to be arrested?

MR S F VISSER: I was not involved with the finer details of the planning, with the planning that was done in Pretoria, Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: Were you there at the scene when the attack took place?

MR S F VISSER: Please repeat.

MS THABETHE: Were you present at the scene when the attack took place?

MR S F VISSER: No, I was not present in Swaziland, I was at the bases.

MS THABETHE: Okay, thank you, Mr Chair, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I'm not sure what your role was in this whole matter. Did you - was there any offence on your part?

MR S F VISSER: I was part of the planning and I was the Divisional Commander of the Eastern Transvaal and the planning was done through my division where I was part, and therefore I was part of this conspiracy.

CHAIRPERSON: But you have just told us that this was things that people had done in Pretoria, where you were not involved.

MR S F VISSER: No, I was not involved with the finer details, but I was well aware that my fellow security members would act in my jurisdiction.

CHAIRPERSON: But were you aware of this plan?

MR S F VISSER: I was.

CHAIRPERSON: But were you not a participant in making this plan?

MR S F VISSER: Not in making the plan, but in order to facilitate so that Major Strydom could go through the border and return.

CHAIRPERSON: But there is nothing illegal in that, to drive after another vehicle and to tell them that Colonel Wandrach said that they must return.

MR S F VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were not involved with the murder?

MR S F VISSER: No, was not involved with the murder.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't know what happened at the scene?

MR S F VISSER: I was not at the scene, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So basically, if I understand you correctly, you are the Head there in Eastern Transvaal and you felt that if these persons were to act in my area, I want to be there and to see what happened. Was that your attitude?

MR S F VISSER: I had wanted to be there if an arrest was executed. I wanted to know what the further planning would be with regard to future sabotage and what I could do to prevent this in my division.

CHAIRPERSON: If it was outside your jurisdiction you would not have gone to the trouble to go there?

MR S F VISSER: Chairperson, it's a policy that when somebody else wants to execute an arrest in your jurisdiction, then you want to be involved with these actions.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, to be familiar with what happens there. It would be strange if somebody comes into your jurisdiction and just acts on their own.

MR S F VISSER: This did not happen, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were aware of what had happened here?

MR S F VISSER: Yes, I did, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You do not know who was killed or was burnt to death?

MR S F VISSER: It was later reported, as the other members have also given evidence, that it was George and Brown and I have no further particulars.

CHAIRPERSON: And you cannot confirm or deny this according to intelligence reports?

MR S F VISSER: I would accept that it was one George and one Brown that was killed in this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Because it was written in these reports, that's why you accepted it?

MR S F VISSER: Yes, I do, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not want to kill anybody?

MR S F VISSER: Preferably not. One does not want to kill your intelligence.

CHAIRPERSON: But I speak of this incident.

MR S F VISSER: I did not want to kill anybody, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Let us assume it was not George and Brown in the vehicle, would you reconcile yourself with the killing of those persons, whoever it may be?

MR S F VISSER: I could reconcile myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Whether it could be proved or not, that it was trained MK members who were part of the armed struggle against South Africa?

MR S F VISSER: I could then reconcile myself with that action.

CHAIRPERSON: And then further, you would need further information before you could decide if you can reconcile yourself with this.

MR S F VISSER: Yes, I would want to be familiar with the fact whether it was MK members. And according to what I was informed, there was reasonable certainty that it was trained personnel whom the contact was made with.

CHAIRPERSON: And by the same instance, if it was innocent people you would not reconcile yourself with this action? If I understand you correctly.

MR S F VISSER: Yes, I would have had second thoughts about this if it was innocent people, bona fide innocent persons ....

CHAIRPERSON: ... killed there and we really do not know who it was, there is very little information, but let's assume that people were killed there, do you reconcile yourself with that?

MR S F VISSER: When one wants to combat an onslaught Chairperson, which is directed at your country and the circumstances indicate as in this instance, that it was from the enemy who was involved, then I do reconcile myself with that, with this action and the action against these people.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you reconcile yourself with the fact that there were people killed there?

MR S F VISSER: To combat the onslaught, I would reconcile myself with that.

CHAIRPERSON: And was this on the understanding that it was George and Brown?

MR S F VISSER: That was the understanding that it was trained MK members and the name George was mentioned.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is on that basis that you reconcile yourself with these actions?

MR S F VISSER: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But if it is not so, then you want more detail so before you could decide whether you could reconcile yourself with this action?

MR S F VISSER: Chairperson, I would not want to be involved with the killing of bona fide innocent people.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Did I hear you correctly, did you understand from your colleagues that what had happened was that Mnisi was questioned and then he promised the Security Officers that he would cooperate with them?

MR S F VISSER: That was what was conveyed to me.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you think, this was a trained MK member and he made some promise he would help you?

MR S F VISSER: This was not strange, I was in the Security Police for many years, I had already arrested a terrorist myself. I had had contact with these persons and many of them in interrogation, promise that they would cooperate with the Police.

CHAIRPERSON: But will you not be sceptical with regard to the information that he gives to you or the co-operation that he gives to you.

MR S F VISSER: When he gives me information it is controlled and evaluated to see whether there is any value attached to this information.

CHAIRPERSON: So you would not just rely on this information and the so-called promise that he would cooperate with you?

MR S F VISSER: No Chairperson, I would proceed with the necessary caution and evaluate this information.

CHAIRPERSON: And if he tells you that at such and such a place such and such a person would be present, you would want to confirm this or have some indication as to his trustworthiness?

MR S F VISSER: Yes Chairperson. And I believe that is why observations were made Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that you also said that you want amnesty for conspiracy to commit murder, is that correct?

MR S F VISSER: That is what I asked for Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you part of a conspiracy?

MR S F VISSER: I was part of the set up there Chairperson and had waited for feedback after the operation was planned, therefore I consider myself part of the whole group Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand.

MR S F VISSER: Globally I was involved there, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Visser any re-examination?

ADV DE JAGER: You were asked the question or you were not part of the planning, you were not part of the murder, assume that you were aware that I plan a murder to murder innocent people and in your capacity as a Police Officer, what would your duty be?

MR S F VISSER: I would not accord with this Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Would you not be guilty of some offence if you did not disclose this?

MR S F VISSER: Yes, I would Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: So if you as a Police Officer know of some unlawful act, it is your duty to disclose this?

MR S F VISSER: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: And even if it was just the abduction, then you would be aware that some abduction was planned?

MR S F VISSER: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: And this is an unlawful act which you had to disclose?

MR S F VISSER: I had to disclose such, Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: And as you have said, you associated yourself with this plan?

MR S F VISSER: I did Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: You were aware that possibly persons would be fired upon and killed?

MR S F VISSER: That is correct Chairperson, that is why I was globally involved with the overhead totality Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: You told us when Mnisi came out of the bushes, he was arrested while he was on his way to the main road?

MR S F VISSER: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: With your experience, you say you were involved with other arrests?

MR S F VISSER: Yes Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you ever find that some of these MK members would walk on a main road with weapons?

MR S F VISSER: Not openly, but they would hide it at some place and fetch it at some later stage. When they reach the vicinity of a main road, he would not be armed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know if you would have any further questions?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You are excused Mr Visser, thank you very much.

MS VAN DER WALT: That is the application, Chairperson.

ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, I see it is twenty passed eleven, I don't know whether you want to take a tea adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn for 15 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Visser, I think it is back to you.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson, I call Mr Steenberg. Chairperson, for the last four witnesses, unfortunately we don't have statements to place before you, I do apologise for that, but believe me if I had the time, I would have done that.

DANIëL JOHAN STEENBERG: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Steenberg, you are an applicant for amnesty for an operation that was executed across the Swaziland border which we know happened on the 8th of December 1981, is that correct?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Your application appears in Bundle 4, page 822 to 834, is that correct?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Apart from what we will discuss here in evidence, do you confirm the correctness of the contents of your application?

MR STEENBERG: I do, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Paragraph 7(a) and 7(b), you had written there

where you were asked whether you were a supporter of a political organisation and to name the organisation and in which capacity you were a supporter, you said "not applicable", what is the precise situation there?

MR STEENBERG: Chairperson, I was a member of the Security Forces and the South African Police and from this I was a-political, that I was not an active member of any political party, but indeed of the Police Force and as such the government of the day and this was the National Party.

MR VISSER: So paragraph 7(a) must read National Party and (b) should read supporter?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You have studied Exhibit A which serves before the Committee, is that correct?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Have you studied it carefully?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, I have Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Are there any parts thereof that you believe is not applicable to you except for the reference to Lesotho and Botswana?

MR STEENBERG: Where I was never in these countries, I reconcile myself with this Exhibit.

MR VISSER: You request that the evidence therein be incorporated with your evidence?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Where you mention your Police career, you have set it out there, were you ever a member of the Security Branch?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And when was this?

MR STEENBERG: This was before 1997, between 1986 and 1997 and then after 1987 I was a member of the Security Branch.

MR VISSER: And then you were based at Soweto?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: During this incident, were you attached to the Task Force?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: What was the purpose and the activities of the Special Task Force of the Police?

MR STEENBERG: Chairperson we were trained to execute high risk operations, hostage situations, rescue situations, the finding of bodies in dams and such.

MR VISSER: So you were required to be very fit?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And if we refer to operations which involved arrests, they had you for these?

MR STEENBERG: Chairperson, I think because of the fact that we were trained, as I - how can I say - to move quickly, move quietly and the fitness level, and I mean because we know each other and at times when sensitive arrests had to be executed or where there was a high risk, we were possibly the best choice and we are still the best choice.

MR VISSER: You do not serve in the Police Force any more?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You have heard the evidence of Gen Strydom?

MR STEENBERG: I have Chairperson.

MR VISSER: In so far as it affects you, do you concur with his evidence?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, I do Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Can we then arrive at the day of the incident? Can you recall, or can I ask in this way, was there any reason why you personally were sent to the Eastern Transvaal?

MR STEENBERG: Chairperson, if I can recall correctly, I was part of the support group during that time.

MR VISSER: And the other members who accompanied you?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, they would have accompanied me as a standby group.

MR VISSER: And then as I understand it, you received an order to move to the Eastern Transvaal?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson. This was a type of scramble order.

MR VISSER: What do you mean by that?

MR STEENBERG: A scramble is a matter of that one carries out your order as quickly as possible and then that you move to the place where you were called to or where you were sent to.

MR VISSER: Very well, but how would you know what type of weapons and clothing you could take?

MR STEENBERG: We would receive such an order from the Commander and he would inform us as to what type of weaponry and clothing and such we had to take with, whether it was a day operation or a night operation or whatever the nature of it would be.

MR VISSER: If your Commander wanted you to wear camouflage, what would he have told you?

MR STEENBERG: He would have said "listen, take along camouflage" and then we would have worn this.

MR VISSER: And the weapons, with regard to weapons if he wanted you to take weapons which could not be traced back, Eastern Block weapons, very well. You received your instructions from whom on this particular day?

MR STEENBERG: I cannot recall exactly from whom we received the instruction, but it came from General Strydom, Captain Strydom at that time.

MR VISSER: And then you left for the Eastern Transvaal and how did you travel there?

MR STEENBERG: Chairperson, it was a small bus or two, I cannot recall correctly.

MR VISSER: And when you arrived at the border, was it still light or was it dark already?

MR STEENBERG: If I can recall correctly, it was dark.

MR VISSER: Did you meet Strydom there?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Were you at the border post with the other members of the Security Branch who were present there?

MR STEENBERG: No, not at all Chairperson, we were at a different location.

MR VISSER: Did you receive the information there?

MR STEENBERG: That is so Chairperson.

MR VISSER: What did this information entail?

MR STEENBERG: It was conveyed to us that a vehicle would come to a rendezvous point in Swaziland.

MR VISSER: Was this vehicle described to you?

MR STEENBERG: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: By means of colour and model and so forth?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson and that in the vehicle, the occupants would be two trained terrorists whom we had to apprehend, but it was also said to us that if these persons would resist and put our lives in any danger, and then we had to eliminate them.

MR VISSER: So the first priority was to arrest them and if not possible, eliminate?

MR STEENBERG: Definitely Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did all of you move into Swaziland?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: What is your recollection as to how far did you move into Swaziland?

MR STEENBERG: If I recall correctly Chairperson, I would reconcile myself with what Commissioner Strydom had said and we moved about a kilometre into Swaziland, into the territory.

MR VISSER: I understand that this was a gravel road where you waited for this vehicle?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You did not move through the border during the normal, legal means?

MR STEENBERG: No Chairperson, we crossed over the fence.

MR VISSER: The persons who accompanied there, do you recall who they were or some of them?

MR STEENBERG: Chairperson, it was Commissioner Strydom and Mr Visser, Gert Visser was also part of the group, Danie le Roux, Dercksen as well as Hope, Moolman, I can specifically remember them and I don't know if I mentioned his name, but Hope.

MR VISSER: Yes, you have mentioned Hope. Do you recall if the deceased Prinsloo was there?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct, he was also there.

MR VISSER: There may have been other members whom you cannot recall?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Because there were apparently between eight and twelve of your Task Force members?

MR STEENBERG: It was closer to eight, but it could be more Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: I understand that he confirms the evidence of the others and he confirms his application, maybe it is not necessary or we could ask some questions when we would want some more information, but if you feel that you have to give us all the details ...

MR VISSER: Chairperson, this is just in regard to questions that has been asked beforehand and which is why I thought that I have to go into more detail with this witness, but if you are satisfied, then I could go much quicker. Thank you Chairperson. You then moved through the bush and you arrived at some place where this road was?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: What happened there?

MR STEENBERG: We hid ourselves there and we waited for the vehicle to arrive. The vehicle arrived, I cannot recall how long afterwards. It stopped some distance from us, so that it was impossible for us to approach the vehicle properly and to execute the arrest and thereafter the vehicle departed and we withdrew.

MR VISSER: If I understand correctly, you did nothing, you just remained hidden?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Was there any specific plan as to who should do what at the scene?

MR STEENBERG: Chairperson, it would be impossible to do this because one did not know where exactly you would hide yourself in terms of where the vehicle stopped and therefore in other words, we decided that the persons closer to the vehicle, if they were close enough, they would approach the vehicle and execute the arrest. So it was impossible to determine who would do what beforehand?

MR VISSER: And the location, was it a place which was identified to you by or Strydom or Visser or both of them?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: It is not that you had to search for this place?

MR STEENBERG: No Chairperson, we went straight to this location.

MR VISSER: When you saw the vehicle leaving and then we know that you returned back, across the border, you climbed into your vehicles and you returned to Pretoria?

MR STEENBERG: Yes Chairperson, we returned to Pretoria.

MR VISSER: Then we know that the vehicles were caught up with and you were stopped and you were told to return?

MR STEENBERG: That is quite correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And then a second time, you returned to the same location?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson, there were just some amendments as to how we positioned ourselves, which was over a broad area because of the fact that we saw that it was impossible to say that the vehicle would stop here exactly and therefore we covered a larger area and we amended our positions somewhat.

MR VISSER: And the vehicle came there?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, the same vehicle arrived there.

MR VISSER: Can you recall the make of that vehicle?

MR STEENBERG: If I recall correctly, it was a blue Golf 1. At that stage the Citi Golf was not yet in circulation, but I may be incorrect, but I think I am correct when I say it was a blue Golf or I say Citi Golf, but it was a light Golf Mark 1.

MR VISSER: That is correct, a Golf. Where did it come to a stop this time?

MR STEENBERG: A little closer than the previous instance.

MR VISSER: Yes, but this time you were covering a more wider area?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What happened then when the vehicle stopped?

MR STEENBERG: When he switched off the lights and we started moving closer but what I can think is that he must have suspected something. There was this loud, I wouldn't say a loud shouting, but there was this shout and some weapon was cocked and the shooting ensued.

MR VISSER: Who cocked the weapons, one of you?

MR STEENBERG: No, our weapons were already cocked because one does not go into such a situation without your weapon being cocked.

MR VISSER: The cocking of the weapon, the sound came from the direction of the vehicle, so you said that you started moving?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, we started moving to get closer to the vehicle to execute the arrest.

MR VISSER: So you moved closer to the vehicle?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You were there, do you think it is possible that one or both of these persons in the vehicle, could have seen you?

MR STEENBERG: It is difficult to say but I suspect that they must have seen something or must have heard something and became suspicious.

MR VISSER: Very well, Mr Visser says that he heard you moving, maybe the persons in the vehicle also heard you, but whatever the case may be, we will not speculate. When you heard this weapon being cocked, how long thereafter did the command come to open fire?

MR STEENBERG: It was basically immediately because I believe that our lives were endangered at that stage, because we did not know whether these persons had seen us or whatever the position would be. So in other words to me this element of surprise was not on our side any more and we had lost that edge.

MR VISSER: So the surprise element had been lost and you were convinced at that stage?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, I was Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you know which weapons they might have had in the vehicle?

MR STEENBERG: No, I don't believe so, but if one looks at the normal weaponry that we find at trained persons, it could be anything but whether it was handweapons or automatic firearms, the danger was still there that one of us could die.

MR VISSER: Where exactly when one has regard for where the car stopped the first time, with regard to the front or the back or left or right, where were you exactly?

MR STEENBERG: If one, how can I say, if one looks from the driver's side of the vehicle, I was on the right front of the vehicle.

MR VISSER: Can you recall where the other members were?

MR STEENBERG: I just know that Mr Hope was to the left of me and Mr Strydom was also on my left, but further left.

MR VISSER: Yes, further left. How far were you from the vehicle when it stopped?

MR STEENBERG: If I have to say it was approximately between 15 to 20 metres.

MR VISSER: And this was the area which you had to cover to get to the vehicle if there was an arrest?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you move forward already?

MR STEENBERG: Well, we started moving forward.

MR VISSER: Yourself?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And when the command came to open fire or whatever you say when you want your people to fire, did you open fire?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, I did Chairperson, I opened fire.

MR VISSER: On the vehicle?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, on the occupants of the vehicle and the vehicle itself.

MR VISSER: According to you it is possible that you might have hit some of them?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: What had happened to the vehicle then?

MR STEENBERG: Because of the tracer bullets which we used, the vehicle caught alight. The fire within a vehicle is quite intense and the intensity reaches a quite high intensity, in other words we could not get to the vehicle in time to rescue anybody from the vehicle and the vehicle burnt.

MR VISSER: You are saying that the tracer bullets set the vehicle alight at such, in such a manner that the vehicle started burning seriously very quickly?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: When you realised this, what did you do then?

MR STEENBERG: We withdrew.

MR VISSER: So you withdrew and you went home?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: If you wanted to eliminate these persons, what would you have done then?

MR STEENBERG: Chairperson, it is my judgement that the first time when that vehicle had stopped, it was easy to fire from a distance and to shoot the persons in the vehicle. I mean we would have shot at it or attacked it the first time.

MR VISSER: And in any case if you wanted to shoot at them, you would have moved closer?

MR STEENBERG: No Chairperson, we were close enough to fire on the vehicle. It would have not served any purpose if you wanted to move closer to fire on the vehicle?

MR VISSER: With regard to you, you apply for amnesty for the illegal crossing of the border and your participation in the attempted abduction and the killing of these persons, is that correct?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And you yourself have no other information with regard to the identity of these persons, you acted on information which you received via Captain Strydom, which he received from the Security Branch?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: When you went in you knew that the possibility existed that these people would resist and that circumstances would arise that a shooting would take place?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And did you also realise that it is possible that persons, not only your own people, but the other person or persons could be killed?

MR STEENBERG: Definitely Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And did you reconcile yourself with that?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, I did Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson, that is the evidence of this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Visser. Mr Prinsloo, any questions?

MR PRINSLOO: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Just two Mr Chair, thank you. Mr Steenberg, you have testified that you are applying for attempted abduction, in your own words how can you say you attempted to abduct these people before you actually shot at them?

MR STEENBERG: Because we went to arrest these people and I think that the arrest if I can put it as such, was not a legal arrest, because it was to be executed on another country's territory and therefore I see it as an abduction in the correct terminology.

MS THABETHE: My last question is what would you say gave rise to you shooting the victims instead of arresting them? What gave rise to that change of plan so to say?

MR STEENBERG: Because we heard the weapon being cocked and then we thought that a shooting would ensue and that shots would be fired on members of the group, that is why we opened fire.

MS THABETHE: I have no further questions, thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Ms Thabethe. Where you took up your position, were you hidden?

MR STEENBERG: In the grass, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were either hunched down or you were laying down?

MR STEENBERG: I was laying down.

CHAIRPERSON: So one could not see you so easily?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You say when the vehicle stopped and they switched off the lights ...

MR STEENBERG: And I moved forward in a hunched position, on my haunches.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you move forward?

MR STEENBERG: I was on my haunches, in a haunched position.

CHAIRPERSON: So one or two movements forward?

MR STEENBERG: It is difficult to describe it, but if one has to say that it is a type of bent down and crawl closer.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you receive an order?

MR STEENBERG: Chairperson, there could be no order because otherwise - not a verbal command.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you know what to do?

MR STEENBERG: I mean, I cannot say it is part of the training, but it is part of our attitude towards each other that I saw that this was the time to move forward now and to approach the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: What plan did you have

MR STEENBERG: I don't understand the question Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What would you do there at the scene?

MR STEENBERG: We would have approached the vehicle, opened the doors and if the doors were locked, we would have broken the windows and we would have grabbed the persons within the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: How would you go about doing all of this? There were no signs, no agreed sign or Mr Strydom did not tell you what to do at what stage, you just knew that you would approach the vehicle?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson, by nature of the situation it is very difficult to say beforehand that, I mean, how can I say, to give a specific sign in terms of a verbal sign, it is just not done. When the vehicle's lights were turned off, I realised that now we must move closer.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Strydom not tell you "look at me", he did not say anything like that?

MR STEENBERG: I mean Chairperson, it was dark, we could not see him.

CHAIRPERSON: So you had absolutely no idea as to who would do what to initiate this process?

MR STEENBERG: Chairperson, the persons closer to the vehicle, that was the plan, that the persons closer to the vehicle would start approaching the vehicle as soon as it stopped.

CHAIRPERSON: So at some stage you decided that very well, you will move closer?

MR STEENBERG: No, it is not at some stage, this is shortly after the lights were switched off and we decided to move closer.

CHAIRPERSON: But nobody told you to move closer, nobody gave you any sign, you decided that I will move closer?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you approached, how many of you?

MR STEENBERG: This was in the process of moving closer, I would not say very much closer, it is possible about three or four metres that I have moved forward. I cannot precisely recall at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this afterwards, after you moved the three or four metres that you heard the voice?

MR STEENBERG: I was in the process of starting to move closer, when I heard this voice and I heard this weapon being cocked.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, so you started? You were not really moving closer?

MR STEENBERG: It is difficult to say Chairperson, whether I started moving or whether I moved closer, how can I say that was about two metres, three metres I started moving closer, in a reasonably hunched position to get closer to the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: So you moved and then you heard this voice?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you heard the weapon?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, I heard the weapon being cocked.

CHAIRPERSON: And then, what did you do then?

MR STEENBERG: Shots were fired from my left hand side and then I assumed or, but, I mean this was Mr Strydom ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom had started shooting and you started shooting, so you heard some shots being fired and then you also opened fire, there was no command to open fire?

MR STEENBERG: No Chairperson. Well, there could have been a command, but the surprise element, but I cannot specifically recall it. If I recall correctly then I went upon the shots that were fired from my left hand side.

CHAIRPERSON: So in other words there was no command?

MR STEENBERG: I cannot recall it now, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So what is your evidence actually about this aspect of the order?

MR STEENBERG: I cannot remember it Mr Chairperson, that there was a real verbal order, that Mr Strydom would have said "fire". I mean if I have to say now, then my evidence now is that I went on the shots that emanated from my left hand side.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what you remember now, you don't remember anything else, no order?

MR STEENBERG: I cannot remember an order now, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So based on what you are saying to us now, you shot based on shots that were fired on your left hand side?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, basically that was a sign if I can put it that way and I acted upon this.

CHAIRPERSON: And if it weren't for these shots, then you would not have shot personally?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Were there shots fired at you from the vehicle?

MR STEENBERG: Not as far as I can say Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you see into the vehicle?

MR STEENBERG: It was dark. After the vehicle had started to burn, I think I can say yes, but not beforehand.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you see then?

MR STEENBERG: If I can remember now then I can say that there were two people occupying the vehicle. As a result of the fire, I can now say that according to me, there were two people occupying the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Could there have been more?

MR STEENBERG: I saw two. Unless someone was laying down or something of that matter, I cannot say that there were more people, I can only say that there were two.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are there any other questions from the panel?

ADV GCABASHE : Just one Mr Chairman, the people in the car were trying to get out of it, they were screaming as you observed the car burn?

MR STEENBERG: No, I did not see something of that nature.

ADV GCABASHE : What did you see, you know watching the car as it burnt?

MR STEENBERG: I saw two people in the vehicle, according to me they were hit by the fire, the firearm's fire and according to me, there were no attempts by them to get out of the vehicle.

ADV GCABASHE : So there was no movement in fact in the vehicle at all?

MR STEENBERG: No, not discernible movement, no.

ADV GCABASHE : Tell me, the first time the car came, when you aborted the mission, did they switch off their lights as well then?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, yes, they did. They waited around a few minutes, whereafter they left. I cannot say how long they were there unfortunately because you know, time ...

ADV GCABASHE : But on that occasion, you did not start moving forward to try and get closer?

MR STEENBERG: No, because they were too far.

ADV GCABASHE : Had you been told that the car must be at a particular place before you start moving forward?

MR STEENBERG: No, I think what, no, no, that wasn't it, but according to each and everyone's own how can I say, perception, the vehicle was too far to attempt to move forward and according to me, there might have been, you know the people might have seen one in the attempt.

ADV GCABASHE : And there was just grass in the area, flat land, no rocks, no trees, it is just a flat area?

MR STEENBERG: If I remember correctly, it was grass land with sort of low, very low bushes. How can I say a type of a shrubbery type situation.

ADV GCABASHE : Do you recall how long it took you to come back on the second occasion, were you away about an hour, were you away about two hours? Just a rough recollection?

MR STEENBERG: Chairperson, that is very difficult to recall because really, no, I cannot recall, because we took some time walking out, we packed our stuff into the vehicles, eventually I think that Mr Strydom went and, I can't remember, but I think he went and reported the fact that we have returned and that we are going to Pretoria and thereafter we started to drive. It might have been that we were on the road for 20 minutes or so, I really cannot, it is very difficult.

ADV GCABASHE : You are just estimating?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, it is very difficult to make an estimation on that.

ADV GCABASHE : And from the planning side, what you had been told about these two persons, they were essentially be coming from one of the major towns, you have no clue as to where they were coming from?

MR STEENBERG: No, no, unfortunately no.

ADV GCABASHE : Nothing?

MR STEENBERG: I do not have any clue.

ADV GCABASHE : Any detail? Thank you, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: You were a well practised Unit?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you practice together, did you know how you reacted with one another, if one person does something another person does something else or how did you practise this in?

MR STEENBERG: Mr Chairperson, I think at the time of the training it is very intensive training and we work together and we practice together every day and it is as Mr De Jager says, Mr Chairperson, we knew one another very, very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination Mr Visser?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson. In this whole matter, would it be correct to say that you were just acting on orders?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: I am not specifically talking about when you fired shots, but in general, to go there, to take part in this project and everything like that, you were told to do that and you did that?

MR STEENBERG: That is absolutely correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you believe that what you did was in the interest of the country?

MR STEENBERG: Absolutely Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: In which aspect?

MR STEENBERG: To be able to take preventative action, because if we could arrest the people, then as the other witnesses said, then they could be interrogated so that other steps could be prevented and so that we could then prevent loss of life.

MR VISSER: Steps in the revolutionary onslaught?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Mr De Jager questioned you about this, but I just want to ask you, in your group who were there at the time, did you previously have steps in which you participated, steps of any nature where you got to know each other?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, a lot.

MR VISSER: And was that also part of your specialist training that you do not wait for orders, your training was of such a nature that you knew how to act on situations?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Flowing from this, in such a situation where no order is given or no verbal order is given, would you shoot before your Commander shot?

MR STEENBERG: It depends because due to the nature of it, it depends on the situation. If it was of such a nature that I am the person closest to the vehicle then the first shots would quite possibly have come from me. I think that one would have shot if our own lives were in danger and if I had been the closest to the vehicle.

ADV DE JAGER: Would you not normally wait for the General to shoot or the Commander to shoot first or for them to give the sign to shoot?

MR STEENBERG: It is impossible to do that in such a situation because due to the nature of the matter, the General might not be in a position to make such a decision or to say "good, my people's lives are now in danger", or whatever the case may be, it is impossible and in this case, according to me, it was such a matter and it is not like this in every case. It can't be like this in every case.

ADV DE JAGER: But you did not fire first in any case?

MR STEENBERG: No, I did not fire first.

CHAIRPERSON: You are excused.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, the next witness is Mr Dercksen, his amnesty application is in Bundle 4, page 796.

ADRIAAN JOHANNES DERCKSEN: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Dercksen, you are an applicant for amnesty ... (tape ends) ... and you were also one of the people who took part in the action on the evening of the 8th of December 1981 in Swaziland, is that correct?

MR DERCKSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You filled in an application form with the Amnesty Committee where you ask for amnesty, which appears in Bundle 4, from page 796 to 801?

MR DERCKSEN: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Do you confirm the correctness of this?

MR DERCKSEN: I do.

MR VISSER: In your application form you said on page 796 in paragraph 7(a) and 7(b) that you were not a supporter or whatever the case may be, of any political party, is that correct?

MR DERCKSEN: I said that Mr Chairperson, but I do reconcile myself with the point that you had made with the previous witness.

MR VISSER: Were you also then a supporter of the National Party?

MR DERCKSEN: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Would you have an outline of your history, were you ever a member of the Security Branch?

MR DERCKSEN: No, I was never a member of the Security Branch.

MR VISSER: In 1981 were you then a member of the Special Task Force?

MR DERCKSEN: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What was your rank at that stage?

MR DERCKSEN: I think I was then a Sergeant.

MR VISSER: Did you listen to the evidence of Mr Steenberg that you were a support group, do you agree with this?

MR DERCKSEN: I accept that that is the case.

MR VISSER: Can you not remember what happened on the day, if you were on standby or how it happened?

MR DERCKSEN: I cannot remember exactly.

MR VISSER: Whatever the case may be, you received orders that emanated from the then Captain Strydom and then you went to the Eastern Transvaal, the Oshoek border post?

MR DERCKSEN: That is correct sir.

MR VISSER: And do you agree that you waited a while away from the Oshoek border post, while Mr Strydom was informed about the operation and where you had received certain information?

MR DERCKSEN: That is correct sir.

MR VISSER: What information can you remember that you received at that point?

MR DERCKSEN: Mr Chairperson, the information that I can remember that I received and we received was that we would be taken in, in a group, into Swaziland where we would be deployed at a place that would be pointed out to us, that a vehicle would stop there, that there would be terrorists in the vehicle that were wanted by the Security Branch and that these terrorists had to be arrested.

MR VISSER: This would of course be an abduction because it was in Swaziland, is this not the case?

MR DERCKSEN: Yes, we can refer to it as an abduction.

MR VISSER: Can you remember if a description was given to you of any vehicle?

MR DERCKSEN: A description was given of vehicles Mr Chairperson, but I cannot remember it at this point what was described to me.

MR VISSER: You then went into Swaziland under the leadership of Captain Strydom, is that correct?

MR DERCKSEN: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And at a certain point you were deployed?

MR DERCKSEN: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What happened after this?

MR DERCKSEN: Time periods are difficult for me to remember at this point, a vehicle stopped there that I can remember and this satisfied the description that was given to us. We did not do anything, the vehicle was too far away from us. The vehicle departed at a point and we returned to the RSA.

MR VISSER: From there onwards you made your weapons safe and you packed it in and you went? And then you were caught up with and you were told to go back and you went back and you also returned to this specific point where you had been the previous evening?

MR DERCKSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: What happened then?

MR DERCKSEN: We were redeployed again, but not at exactly the same places. There were certain amendments made.

MR VISSER: You were spread a bit further from one another?

MR DERCKSEN: That is correct Chairperson. The vehicle that was there earlier, arrived again.

MR VISSER: Did it stop, switch off its lights?

MR DERCKSEN: It switched off its lights.

MR VISSER: And in relation to the vehicle, where were you?

MR DERCKSEN: Chairperson, I was at the vehicle's right, to the back of the vehicle.

MR VISSER: So the vehicle actually moved passed you when it stopped?

MR DERCKSEN: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And how far away from the vehicle were you?

MR DERCKSEN: Chairperson, I didn't measure this but if I can estimate, it can be anything between 20 to 30 metres, it can even be further away or it can be closer, I am not hundred percent sure.

MR VISSER: So you were quite far away from the vehicle?

MR DERCKSEN: I was quite far away from the vehicle.

MR VISSER: And can you remember who was next to you or who was close to you?

MR DERCKSEN: Mr Moolman. Deceased Mr Moolman was very close in the vicinity, I can't remember exactly at this moment if he was to the left or to the right of me and how far away from me he was, but I do know that he was with me at the meeting point.

MR VISSER: The vehicle stopped and then what did you do?

MR DERCKSEN: When the vehicle stopped and the lights went off, I got myself in a readiness position to move in to the vehicle.

MR VISSER: Please tell us about this readiness position, what does this mean?

MR DERCKSEN: When we were deployed, I was laying down between the grass. No person can move while he is laying down. You must get yourself in a position where your legs are on your arms or in a hunched position. My exact steps, it is a long time ago, I can't remember, I can remember that I did not try and crawl on my stomach to the vehicle.

MR VISSER: Did you start moving forward?

MR DERCKSEN: I came into a position so that I can go from a laying position to a moving position.

MR VISSER: But you had not started moving yet?

MR DERCKSEN: No, I had not started moving forward yet.

MR VISSER: What happened then?

MR DERCKSEN: At that stage, while I was in this position, I don't want to say shouted, sorry I do not want to say I heard a shout, I heard a loud voice, but what was said I do not know. I would want to compare it, if you would say in English there was a sort of a commotion that I could see, there was a commotion.

MR VISSER: Did you think that there was a commotion as a result of noise that you had heard or something that you had seen?

MR DERCKSEN: As a result of something that I had heard.

MR VISSER: Where did this noise emanate from?

MR DERCKSEN: From the vehicle which was to the right of me.

MR VISSER: Did you hear anything else?

MR DERCKSEN: I did not hear anything else.

MR VISSER: You did not from where you were situated, hear the noise of a weapon being cocked?

MR DERCKSEN: No Chairperson, I did not.

MR VISSER: You only heard the voice?

MR DERCKSEN: That is positive sir.

MR VISSER: And then what happened?

MR DERCKSEN: It is difficult to say but with the commotion that I heard, I immediately heard rifle fire, I saw the tracer fire that was used.

MR VISSER: Did you fire any shots yourself?

MR DERCKSEN: No, I did not.

MR VISSER: Why did you not fire any shots?

MR DERCKSEN: Mr Chairperson, the angle at which I was laying was completely out of proportion in relation to where the vehicle was standing. I was afraid that if I fired any shots at that point, I did not know where my own people were and that I might hit one of them and subsequently I did not fire any shots.

MR VISSER: What you did that evening, did you do it because of orders that you were executing?

MR DERCKSEN: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You have studied Exhibit A is that correct, Exhibit A is the background document.

MR DERCKSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you study it?

MR DERCKSEN: I did go through it Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Are there parts that you feel is not relevant to you?

MR DERCKSEN: That is the case Chairperson, the cases dealing with Botswana and Lesotho.

MR VISSER: But for the rest you would then that the contents of this Exhibit A would be incorporated to your evidence? Just one aspect about deceased Moolman, do you know if he fired a shot?

MR DERCKSEN: The part or the group or the point where I was situated and laying down, no shots were fired from that point.

MR VISSER: Moolman then also did not fire?

MR DERCKSEN: I believe that he also would not have fired.

MR VISSER: Honourable Chairperson, that is the evidence in chief, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Prinsloo, any questions?

MR PRINSLOO: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Who else was with you at the scene where the shooting occurred?

MR DERCKSEN: Chairperson, the people who have already been mentioned here, those are the people that I can remember being present there.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was that?

MR DERCKSEN: It was Captain Strydom, now Commissioner Strydom, Mr Steenberg, Le Roux, Mr Hope, Mr Moolman, deceased Mr Moolman and deceased Mr Bezuidenhout.

CHAIRPERSON: Bezuidenhout?

MR DERCKSEN: Prinsloo, pardon me.

MS VAN DER WALT: Prinsloo, that is correct because there is not a Bezuidenhout there?

MR DERCKSEN: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Are those the only people that were there according to you?

MR DERCKSEN: That I can remember, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That you can remember or were there more?

MR DERCKSEN: There could have been more, I am not sure Mr Chairperson, it is a long time, one goes with a group, there are a couple of times where you work with different people, I cannot remember how many we were at that point.

CHAIRPERSON: So your memory is not very good concerning this incident, it did happen 18 years ago? Do you know why the other people fired shots?

MR DERCKSEN: Chairperson, I accept that there was a reason that caused them to feel threatened and to feel that their lives were in danger and I believe that this was the reason why they fired shots.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you think that they might have thought that their lives were in danger and that is why they fired shots?

MR DERCKSEN: I think so.

CHAIRPERSON: You are speculating?

MR DERCKSEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not feel that your life was in danger?

MR DERCKSEN: At that stage, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Your intention was to arrest the people, we do know that it was an abduction, but your intention was to arrest them?

MR DERCKSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not afterwards stand up and say "wait, I will kill them", you never fired a shot?

MR DERCKSEN: No, I did not fire a shot, but I would want to add this, if it had happened that the vehicle stopped where it was directly in front of me, and in the attempt that I would have made to arrest the persons, and if I had felt threatened, then I would have fired myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, naturally. If you were endangered personally in the attempt to arrest, then you would have defended yourself, that would just be natural or am I understanding you incorrectly?

MR DERCKSEN: No, it is not a question of whether I would have defended myself, it is more about the nature of the operation. The abduction that had to happen and if that had failed and if they had resisted, to then eliminate them.

CHAIRPERSON: If they had resisted, how would they according to you, have resisted, with weapons?

MR DERCKSEN: That is the case.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you would have fired back?

MR DERCKSEN: That is the case.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see anything in the vehicle?

MR DERCKSEN: Chairperson, at this point I cannot remember that I saw anything in the vehicle. A vehicle burning, that is what I saw.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see anyone of your colleagues move before the shooting?

MR DERCKSEN: There was movement around me, I heard and I cannot at this point specifically say that this person ran three steps or this person did that, there was movement that I had realised. It is a matter of at that point, one's attention is focused on what is happening in front of you, you want to see what is going on there because that is what it is going about. I was not that aware of the people next to me or the rest of the group.

CHAIRPERSON: So you cannot really say what happened?

MR DERCKSEN: I can only say that I heard movement.

CHAIRPERSON: And please, explain to us the commotion? What actually happened there, how did this commotion come about?

MR DERCKSEN: It is basically if I can remember correctly, it was people calling out, it is a language that I could not understand. I can't think of words. I also do not want to say that it was panic, it was just calls that had been heard. There was talk or conversation was held in the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: By how many people?

MR DERCKSEN: That is difficult for me to explain to you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Were sentences being said or what was it, was it just one single noise or what?

MR DERCKSEN: No, it was not a noise like a dog barking, or a person saying good morning or good afternoon, it is more ...

CHAIRPERSON: Is it getting a fright for something and making a noise?

MR DERCKSEN: I can maybe put it to you in this way, it is more a fright. If I can picture myself as to what you would do, what is going on there, who are you, that type of thing, but those are not the exact words, it just gave me that impression.

CHAIRPERSON: That is all, you only heard this noise, there was no movement or anything.

MR DERCKSEN: You mean movement inside the vehicle, no, I did not see movement at the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Were any shots fired from the vehicle?

MR DERCKSEN: Not that I know of.

CHAIRPERSON: What are you applying for amnesty for?

MR DERCKSEN: For my involvement in the operation Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you do? What offences are you guilty of?

MR DERCKSEN: I feel that I was part of the group, that I had knowledge of the abduction and that it was illegal and that in case it would happen that the vehicle was in front of me, that I was prepared to execute orders that were given to me.

CHAIRPERSON: You have just told us that you were a member of the group, did you have knowledge of the illegal abduction and what did you say last, if the vehicle stood in front of you - I am talking about something that you had done. I want to know what you did wrong. Is there anything else? Can't you think of anything else?

MR DERCKSEN: No, I can't.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you cross the border with a passport?

MR DERCKSEN: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it legal to go there without a passport?

MR DERCKSEN: No, it was not legal.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you formulate any idea about how many people were in the vehicle and what their destiny was?

MR DERCKSEN: You mean ...

CHAIRPERSON: At any stage while you were at the scene?

MR DERCKSEN: The only idea that I had was that it was said that, the information that was coming through or that was given to us, that there would be two people, I did not see it, who they were, I do not know. With these proceedings I only learnt the names of the people were apparently MK Brown and something else.

CHAIRPERSON: You do not know what happened at the scene, if people were injured or if people were killed or whatever happened?

MR DERCKSEN: At the time of this vehicle catching fire, the vehicle was still away, a distance away from me. I did not move to the vehicle, we immediately departed and I do not have knowledge apart from the reports that I have received afterwards, but I do not have first hand knowledge.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Dercksen. Questions from the panel?

ADV GCABASHE : Thank you Chair. Mr Dercksen, did I hear you correctly when you said the car moved passed you or did I not hear properly?

MR DERCKSEN: That is correct Chairperson, the vehicle moved from the border post side, coming in, it moved passed us and it turned around and it stopped.

ADV GCABASHE : ... turned and stopped, it moved away from you, further away from you or slightly closer to you?

MR DERCKSEN: I will demonstrate it like this, it went passed us, turned around and stopped from the point where I was.

ADV GCABASHE : Now considering that cul-de-sac you have just drawn, you had entered from the circle side, is that where you had entered from originally?

MR DERCKSEN: I am not sure that I understand the question.

ADV GCABASHE : The cul-de-sac or the circle at the bottom of the road going out, and you said the car came down, turned at the cul-de-sac and faced back the way it had come.

MR DERCKSEN: That is positive.

ADV GCABASHE : My question is, when you arrived before the car got there, did you arrive from the circle side, from the cul-de-sac side, is that where you entered and deployed yourself along the road, or did you come from the road side and deployed yourself around the circle?

MR DERCKSEN: No, no, it is difficult to explain it here without having a graphical outlay of it. As the road lies like this, the RSA border is parallel with the road, the border post is on that side and the road comes from this side, like that, a cul-de-sac and that is how the vehicle turned. Our steps were from the border direct to here.

ADV GCABASHE : All right, that gives me a better picture. But from where you were, you obviously could not see the border post, it was a kilometre away?

MR DERCKSEN: Only the lights glimmering.

ADV GCABASHE : ... passed you in particular, were you able to observe that there were people in this car and how many people were in this car, as it drove passed you?

MR DERCKSEN: No, Chairperson, I could not see this.

ADV GCABASHE : ... aspect, you were told that you were going there to arrest these people, to abduct them and take them where?

MR DERCKSEN: Back to the RSA to give them to the Security Branch people, where the Security Branch's people were.

ADV GCABASHE : ... and then everybody else would ...

MR DERCKSEN: No, no, according to what I can recall, we had to give them to the Security Branch's people there. I believe it, we did not have room to transport them if we had to take them to Pretoria.

ADV GCABASHE : Last question, were there black members of the Task Team with you, the Task Force with you?

MR DERCKSEN: During those years, there were not black members in the Special Task Force. There were no black members.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination Mr Visser?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Just that one aspect Chairperson. Mr Dercksen, before you went in, you knew that the possibility existed that some people could be injured or killed?

MR DERCKSEN: That is positive and that includes myself Chairperson.

MR VISSER: But other people?

MR DERCKSEN: That is positive Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And did you identify with that?

MR DERCKSEN: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: And we know that according to the evidence, that two persons were indeed killed, whether you had seen them or not that evening, that is the situation?

MR DERCKSEN: That is positive Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And it is in terms of this that you apply for any offence which is related to murder with relation to these persons?

MR DERCKSEN: Definitely Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And that is why you apply for amnesty?

MR DERCKSEN: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You are excused.

MR DERCKSEN: Thank you very much Chairperson.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: I don't know how full one must lead the evidence, Mr Dercksen before you leave, perhaps I should ask him the next question as well, did you after the incident, did you report your participation in the illegal crossing of the border to try and abduct people?

MR DERCKSEN: No, I did not Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I assume there are no questions arising from this question? You are excused Mr Dercksen.

MR DERCKSEN: Thank you very much.

ON RESUMPTION:

MR VISSER: I call Mr Hope Chairperson, Bundle 4, page 802.

D.G. HOPE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Please sit Mr Hope. Mr Hope, you apply for amnesty, you have completed an application form which appears in Bundle 4, on page 802 up to page 807, is that correct?

MR HOPE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Do you confirm the contents thereof?

MR HOPE: I confirm it, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And you have also said in paragraph 7(a) that you did not belong to any political party or were a supporter, are these the correct facts?

MR HOPE: This is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: In 1981 you were a member of the Special Task Force of the South African Police?

MR HOPE: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And you received instructions to at a date which we know now is the 8th of December, to go to the Oshoek border post of Swaziland?

MR HOPE: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Can you recall who accompanied you there and who participated in the operation?

MR HOPE: I can recall Chairperson, I can recall Mr Le Roux, Dercksen, Mr Steenberg, Commissioner Strydom, then Captain Strydom and I am not sure of Mr Moolman.

MR VISSER: Mr Prinsloo?

MR HOPE: Mr Prinsloo was right next to me, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Are these the only persons whom you can recall?

MR HOPE: There may have been others, but these are the only ones that I can recall today.

MR VISSER: At the border post were you informed as to what the operation entailed?

MR HOPE: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: What was said to you?

MR HOPE: It was told to us that a vehicle would arrive and a description was given of the vehicle, it would be a light vehicle, but I cannot recall what type of vehicle it would be and there would be two occupants whom they described as two high profile terrorists, whom we had to attempt firstly to arrest and if we could not, we should eliminate these persons.

MR VISSER: Did you receive such instructions?

MR HOPE: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You went in?

MR HOPE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: At the scene, did a vehicle arrive, stopped for a while and then departed again?

MR HOPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Did this vehicle answer to the description that you had?

MR HOPE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And through out you were under the command of Captain Strydom?

MR HOPE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did he tell you that you had to leave?

MR HOPE: Yes, we withdrew and we went to Pretoria.

MR VISSER: A vehicle caught up with you and you were informed to return?

MR HOPE: Yes. At that stage, I was sleeping when the vehicle reached us, I woke up and we went back to the border, that is positive.

MR VISSER: Did you go back to the place that was identified to you?

MR HOPE: Yes sir.

MR VISSER: With certain adaptions, you were deployed over a larger area?

MR HOPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Did a vehicle return?

MR HOPE: Yes, the same vehicle returned which was there the evening.

MR VISSER: Could you see if there were any occupants in the vehicle?

MR HOPE: My head was hidden behind the grass, I could not see it. When it turned and came back, and at that stage, at the angle at which I was laying, I could only see the driver of the vehicle.

MR VISSER: Did the vehicle stop?

MR HOPE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: It switched off its lights?

MR HOPE: Yes, it switched off its lights.

MR VISSER: What happened then?

MR HOPE: Mr Chairperson, the lights were switched off and suddenly I heard some movement to the left of me and then there was an exclamation from the vehicle. I cannot say whether, if I can connect it to some language. I heard some weapon being cocked and just before that, I put myself in such a position where I could jump up and run to the vehicle. When the firearm was cocked, I threw myself down and the next moment, I heard some commotion and there were some shots and I started firing.

MR VISSER: Can you recall who was close to you?

MR HOPE: Directly next to me was the deceased Mr Ertjies Prinsloo.

MR VISSER: On which side?

MR HOPE: He was on my left hand side.

MR VISSER: Anybody else you can recall at the scene?

MR HOPE: To my right I think was Mr Le Roux.

MR VISSER: So you just rose up to start moving closer and you heard this cocking of the weapon and then you threw yourself down again?

MR HOPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Did you start shooting first or did anybody else, the members of the Task Force, start shooting first?

MR HOPE: To my left somebody started shooting and therefore I started shooting.

MR VISSER: Could it have been Prinsloo?

MR HOPE: No, it was further to the left.

MR VISSER: Who was there?

MR HOPE: That group was Captain Strydom, now Commissioner Strydom and his group who was on that side.

MR VISSER: In relation to where you were laying Mr Hope, where did this vehicle stop?

MR HOPE: I would say that basically it stopped right in front of me.

MR VISSER: It stopped right at you, how far were you from this vehicle?

MR HOPE: Approximately 15 metres.

MR VISSER: And when you opened fire, did you fire from a laying position?

MR HOPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And which weapon did you have there?

MR HOPE: I had a 7.62 Russian weapon, I cannot recall what make.

MR VISSER: Was it a rifle?

MR HOPE: Yes, it was a rifle.

MR VISSER: Do you think that you may have hit the persons or person in the vehicle?

MR HOPE: From such a distance it is quite possible.

MR VISSER: What happened to the vehicle?

MR HOPE: My first burst of shots were only tracer bullets and when I fired, I heard a whistling sound and the vehicle caught alight.

MR VISSER: Could you see afterwards how many people were in the vehicle?

MR HOPE: That is correct. When I heard this sound and the vehicle caught alight, I was afraid that it could explode and I moved back.

MR VISSER: Could you see how many people were in the vehicle?

MR HOPE: That is positive, I saw that there were two occupants in the vehicle.

MR VISSER: Both on the front seats?

MR HOPE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did they move or were they (indistinct)

MR HOPE: I can recall, but I think they were not moving.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I notice it is one o'clock, I don't know what the arrangements are now about Pretoria, but we are obviously not going to finish before lunch time. It seems to me that we will probably be another, well the other aspect is the question of argument, it seems to me we are going to be the rest of the day.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, our intention was to complete this matter. We are told that in any event we don't have this venue for tomorrow, so by the looks of it, it looks like we are into Monday, but we were hopeful of completing this matter. You know, at the same time, we want to assist our colleagues. How many witnesses are left? One?

MR VISSER: If I may add Chairperson, that that witness has nothing really to add to what you already know, but he is available to give his evidence. We will obviously finish this afternoon, but certainly not now.

CHAIRPERSON: ...

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, that is the evidence in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, any questions?

MR PRINSLOO: No questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Van der Walt, questions?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.

MS THABETHE: No questions, Mr Chair.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I didn't take him through the evidence every time about what he applies for amnesty for, we have never done that before in the sense that we believe that the facts should speak for themselves.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: But if that is going to be a requirement, then I would have to ask him those questions.

CHAIRPERSON: If he knows what he is applying for, then you can ask him.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Hope, you apply for amnesty and in regard to the crossing of border post, border regulations and the attempted abduction on persons in Swaziland, is that correct?

MR HOPE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you also foresee that persons might be killed or injured during this operation?

MR HOPE: It is so Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you also identify yourself with that?

MR HOPE: Yes, I did Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And you also committed, you also defeated the ends of justice by not reporting these incidents to the correct authorities?

MR HOPE: Indeed Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And you also fired directly?

MR HOPE: That is so Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And your shots could have killed one or more of the persons?

MR HOPE: Indeed Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And therefore you apply for amnesty for murder?

MR HOPE: That is true Chairperson.

MR VISSER: As it pleases you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Can you please tell us Mr Hope, why did you open fire?

MR HOPE: When I heard the weapon being cocked, I realised that our lives were in danger because these persons were already ready to fire, so it would not be my people.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you open fire because your lives were in danger?

MR HOPE: No Chairperson, because it was an illegal action.

CHAIRPERSON: So your life cannot be endangered in an illegal action?

MR HOPE: Chairperson, at that stage as they say, no legality could emanate from this, "don't worry".

CHAIRPERSON: What I want to ask you is was your life in danger? Forget about the technical things.

MR HOPE: I believe that from the time that I crossed the border until the time that I returned, my life was in danger.

CHAIRPERSON: But at the scene before you opened fire, was your life in danger?

MR HOPE: I believe at any stage my life was in danger, but I believe that my actions were all illegal.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you open fire?

MR HOPE: I opened fire because there was an instruction given to me that if these persons could not be apprehended, that they should be eliminated and with that I felt that my life was in danger when the weapon was cocked.

CHAIRPERSON: So you felt that your life was in danger when the weapon was cocked and that is why you opened fire?

MR HOPE: I also opened fire as part thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean as part thereof, as part of what?

MR HOPE: Because there were other aspects, I had to ensure that the people, the other people who were there, their lives were also not in danger.

CHAIRPERSON: But all your lives were in danger according to you?

MR HOPE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is why you opened fire, to take out the person because they were a problem at that stage, for the government. Did you shoot to take these persons out or because your life was in danger, what is the position?

MR HOPE: The position is that these persons, if they were not arrested, we had to shoot them. In this process, I also felt that my life was in danger.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it now both together, your life was in danger and in any case you had to take out these people?

MR HOPE: If they could not be arrested, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is these two, so you could not arrest them, so you had to take them out, but your life was also in danger?

MR HOPE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And this is why you opened fire?

MR HOPE: Not necessarily because my life was in danger, but to take out these people.

CHAIRPERSON: And these are the two reasons why you opened fire, so you wanted to take out these people and you also wanted to protect yourself?

MR HOPE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Against the danger which you found yourself in?

MR HOPE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Which persons did you want to take out?

MR HOPE: According to our information, the people were high profile terrorists who were in the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: But you acted against two specific persons?

MR HOPE: At that stage, I had no names or information, just that it was two high profile persons.

CHAIRPERSON: So you do not know whom you had shot?

MR HOPE: No. In consultation with the legal representative, I found out who was shot.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see any weapons in the vehicle?

MR HOPE: I did not see any weapons. At the angle where I was laying at, I could not see anything.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there any shots fired at you or your colleagues, from the vehicle?

MR HOPE: Not that I could observe.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Thank you. Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: No re-examination Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hope, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, (indistinct), is he one of the operators?

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, but he also fired shots, very similar to ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION:

DANIE LE ROUX: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Le Roux, you apply for amnesty with regard to an illegal attempt to execute an abduction, for murder or any other offence which might emanate from the facts, as well as for the illegal crossing of the Swaziland border and for defeating the ends of justice?

MR LE ROUX: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: He is not one of the persons who fired, I just saw his face and I remembered he didn't shoot. I made a mistake. You have handed up an application which appears in Bundle 4, on page 808 and it runs up to 814, do you confirm the correctness of the contents thereof? May I just turn your attention to paragraphs 7(a) and (b), page 808. Were you a supporter of any political party during 1981?

MR LE ROUX: Not an official supporter, but I could vote.

MR VISSER: Do you want to say that you were a police officer and not a member of the party?

MR LE ROUX: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you support any political party?

MR LE ROUX: The National Party, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And then 7(a) must then read National Party and 7(b) supporter?

MR LE ROUX: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You have also studied Exhibit A, this is the General Background document, is that correct?

MR LE ROUX: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you study it carefully?

MR LE ROUX: Indeed Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Is there anything in there that is not applicable to you?

MR LE ROUX: It is applicable to me but I was not in Botswana or Lesotho.

MR VISSER: So you cannot comment on that and with regard to the rest of the document you asked that it be incorporated into your evidence?

MR LE ROUX: Affirmative Chairperson.

MR VISSER: If I understand correctly you were given an instruction on the 8th December and now we know it's the 8th December 1981, to depart to the Swaziland border at Oshoek and with your arrival there did you receive any information there?

MR LE ROUX: Captain Strydom met us there, he informed us and told us that a vehicle with two high-profile terrorists would arrive at a specific point and we had to attempt to arrest them and if not, if a shooting would ensue, then we had to make sure that we kill them.

MR VISSER: Was the vehicle described to you?

MR LE ROUX: Yes the vehicle was described to us.

MR VISSER: And do you have a recollection as to what the description of the vehicle was?

MR LE ROUX: According to me it was a light blue Golf.

MR VISSER: You evidence in that regard is the same as Mr Steenberg?

MR LE ROUX: Yes.

MR VISSER: Did you cross the border?

MR LE ROUX: Affirmative, we did cross the border.

MR VISSER: And did you arrive at the point which was identified by Mr Strydom to you?

MR LE ROUX: That's affirmative, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And what did you do there?

MR LE ROUX: We deployed ourselves there and the vehicle which was described to us arrived there, it came to a stop too far from us and it departed again after it stood there for a while. And then General Strydom, then Captain Strydom, told us to return and we went across the border back to Pretoria.

MR VISSER: When the vehicle arrived there if you wanted to you could have killed the occupants there?

MR LE ROUX: That is affirmative Chairperson.

MR VISSER: On your way to Pretoria you were stopped and you were told to return?

MR LE ROUX: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And did you cross back over the border?

MR LE ROUX: Yes Chairperson, we redeployed ourselves with some adaptations. We wanted to cover a larger area as to when the vehicle would stop that we could be able to see it. The vehicle arrived, it stopped, it killed the headlights, we started moving closer. I specifically was behind a wire fence and I was climbing through the fence. I heard some exclamation, I heard a weapon being cocked and the team to the right of mine, where Captain Strydom was, I heard some shooting from them.

MR VISSER: In relation to where the vehicle stopped the second time, where were you positioned?

MR LE ROUX: I was to the rear left of the vehicle.

MR VISSER: You were left to the rear of the vehicle?

MR LE ROUX: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you open fire yourself?

MR LE ROUX: No I did not.

MR VISSER: Why not?

MR LE ROUX: At that stage I was climbing through the fence when the incident happened and my angle was too diagonal to the vehicle and only the persons who were closest to the vehicle would shoot.

MR VISSER: You have heard the evidence of the other witnesses who have given evidence with regard to this incident?

MR LE ROUX: That is affirmative.

MR VISSER: And do you agree?

MR LE ROUX: I do.

MR VISSER: Will you please grant me a moment Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: What are you looking for?

MR VISSER: What I wanted to ask you was that you were all armed with Eastern Bloc weaponry, is that correct?

MR LE ROUX: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Can you recall today what you were armed with on that day?

MR LE ROUX: I had a PG7, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Do you know Captain Gert Visser?

MR LE ROUX: I saw him there for the first time.

MR VISSER: At both times he accompanied you across the border?

MR LE ROUX: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And did I ask you whether you recall who all the members who were involved?

MR LE ROUX: No you have not, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Can you tell us who were all there?

MR LE ROUX: As far as I can recall it was myself, Rudolf Strydom, then Captain Strydom, Moolman and if I recall correctly he was a warrant officer and Mr Dercksen, I think he was a sergeant then, Mr Hope was a constable, Mr Prinsloo if I remember correctly was a constable, Mr Steenberg if I recall correctly was a sergeant.

MR VISSER: How did you justify your action that evening, you acted on an order, we realise that but how did you regard it, why was it necessary to act in such a manner?

MR LE ROUX: Chairperson at that stage according to me we were involved in a war, we acted to protect people, meaning our country as well as the police force.

MR VISSER: And the government?

MR LE ROUX: Definitely.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mrs van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Just one Mr Chair.

What happened after the attack?

MR LE ROUX: If I recall what directly happened after the attack, when I came out of the bush which I was behind, behind the fence and the vehicle was diagonally to the right of me, I saw the petrol coming out where the petrol tank was and it spread around the vehicle as petrol does and immediately afterwards I received an instruction from Captain Steyn to withdraw and we withdrew.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

What is a PG7?

MR LE ROUX: It is a rocket launcher.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what you had, and what else?

MR LE ROUX: That was all.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not even have a hand weapon?

MR LE ROUX: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What would you use this for?

MR LE ROUX: It was action in a foreign country and it could have been an ambush and to protect us.

CHAIRPERSON: This was the rocket launcher?

MR LE ROUX: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you move closer to the vehicle?

MR LE ROUX: Directly after the weapon ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, I did not make myself clear. Before the shooting why did you move closer?

MR LE ROUX: I could not see, I could not see properly what was happening there and I moved closer to place myself in a better position and to be supportive in case an arrest could be executed.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the intention to protect the group with the rocket launcher?

MR LE ROUX: Amongst others and then I wanted to participate in the arrest.

CHAIRPERSON: If it was necessary?

MR LE ROUX: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Le Roux, thank you.

Mr Visser any re-examination?

MR VISSER: None Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Le Roux, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo and Mrs van der Walt, was this the only further matter before us?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: That is correct, Chairperson.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any idea as to how long it will take you to address us?

MS VAN DER WALT: I won't be long because you already have heard the complete argument of Mr Visser in the first instance. The only thing which I will address you on is the requirements of the Acts and this will be brief.

MR VISSER: And Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: I will also inform you briefly as to the facts with regard to our client.

CHAIRPERSON: I want to meet you half way. Mr Visser is before us for one or two other matters so it is not necessary, there won't be any time, but he will be here on Monday and at that stage I want to consider whether if you want to return if we could not continue Mr Visser's argument.

MR PRINSLOO: There may be some aspects which is applicable to us in Mr Visser's argument and it would be more applicable if Mr Visser argues first and then we also argue at the same time because if Mr Visser will tell you but I would assume that it was the same problem, I would think it was applicable if all of us are present.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser do you know how long you will be?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I thought that you would tell me that you've heard me so many times that you do not hear me at all. I cannot see what I can add any more as to what would be new to you. I don't think I will be very long. I just have to add, Chairperson, that we've reached a point where there is no point to go back to Pretoria in the hope that we would reach something there.

CHAIRPERSON: That's on the cards, I think we can just continue at a leisurely pace. Yes, if all of you are not going to be very long then there is a temptation to complete the matter before I adjourn now. I would have been surprised if you had a very long argument.

MR VISSER: But I think my temptation is to rest a but now. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know, yes. Maybe we should and then we can take the argument. Very well.

Yes Mr Visser, have you got any submissions?

MR VISSER IN ARGUMENT: Yes Chairperson. Are we excused in Pretoria until tomorrow?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR VISSER: Then I had better upset this panel.

Chairperson, the amnesty application before you now is really in my respectful submission a reasonably straightforward one. The planning here was to be able to get at George, MK George. The planning started off with a straightforward arrest, it later and we don't know when changed when it became clear that MK George was not prepared to come into the R.S.A. and it then became what is referred to as a "grypaksie" an abduction, a man stealing. The security branch members who testified before you made it clear that they were desperate to get hold of MK George, alive as it were, in order to elicit from him information particularly concerning the group which was coming into the country and which they had been alerted to by Johannes Mnisi. Later at some stage and again it is unclear when it happened, it became clear that two people would be involved. We know that this happened before they went in because Strydom explained to you and some of the applicants whom you heard this morning that their briefing was already before they went in that they were going to arrest two people and not one. Chairperson...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, sorry, just remind us, is it Strydom that set that out?

MR VISSER: I didn't hear the question?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it Strydom that said that?

MR VISSER: Yes I believe Strydom gave that evidence and the witnesses this morning all gave the same evidence to say that they were going to arrest two people in Swaziland. So whenever that decision was made we know that it was before Strydom and the group of members of the special task force went into Swaziland.

CHAIRPERSON: They identified the - we know George, did they identify the second one?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, it's a long time ago and they clearly can't remember and to the best of their ability they couldn't reconstruct whether they knew beforehand whether the names were mentioned and if so whether MK Brown was mentioned due to the passage of time they can't remember that detail but as far as their identities are concerned we draw your attention to the fact that when they went in they knew that it was two people that they were going to arrest, a description of a car was given, two people before, two applicants before you could remember something about the car, it being a light blue Golf motor car and that was Steenberg and Le Roux. The rest couldn't remember that detail but what they do say is that they were taken to a location, to a particular spot which had been previously identified and which could only by necessary inference have been the spot arranged between Johannes Mnisi and MK George. Nothing else makes any sense. That already would have been sufficient, Chairperson, but on top of that the motor car stopped in the wrong place the first time and the same car came back. That would then cement the inference that it was them.

You also heard evidence here this morning that the road is an ordinary farm road as it were and it was clearly a smuggling route or an infiltration route and it's not a road much frequented by motor cars and lastly, Chairperson, you heard evidence that from Captain Gert Visser and others that later it was established through intelligence reports that the two people who had died there were in fact MK Brown and MK George.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the thing, Mr Visser, is that the only source that we have in regard to the identity of these people who eventually died in this?

MR VISSER: Apart from what Johannes Mnisi obviously told the security branch in regard to MK George. We know with fair certainty that MK George must have been one of the two. Chairperson, it's a pity that in this case and I don't say this by way of criticism but by way of fact that enquiries were not perhaps made by the TRC investigating unit.

MS THABETHE: Sorry Mr Chair, I don't know whether I can correct my learned friend, enquiries were made even to Mr Mnisi himself.

MR VISSER: Well, no enquiries that we are aware of were made by the investigation unit with the offices of the ANC to discover the real names of these two people, we don't know whether the real names would be available to them. What we have done is we have worked through the various written submissions which were made by the ANC to the Human Rights Violations Committee, Chairperson. We have them here with us and there is no reference to an incident on the 8th December, there is no reference anywhere to be found which we could find last night to an MK Brown or an MK George, not in the structural composition of the ANC, MK in Swaziland or Mozambique, nor under the lists of cadres who had been killed by the security forces in the ANC lists. In short, there is simply no reference at all to these two MK names.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that a bit strange if they had such high profiles in uMkhonto weSizwe?

MR VISSER: What can I tell you, Chairperson, we can only tell you what our information is. The applicants can only come and tell you that they ask for amnesty for an incident which involved two people. To the best of their knowledge they say that these are the two people but they may be wrong. In fact General Wandrach keeps on saying to me, we know, we don't know whether these were the people, we just don't know but what is common cause is that, it seems, is that two people were in fact killed in that car that night.

CHAIRPERSON: What else was there, was there any newspaper articles in this matter? I can't remember now.

MR VISSER: Yes there were, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What does that say?

MR VISSER: And what I referred you to, the Oggendblad of the 9th December, it only refers to two "onbekende mense" unknown persons, unfortunately and it refers to a firearm that was found in the hands of one of them, clamped in the hands of one of them and other than that the newspaper articles only serve to confuse matters because they have their own theory about what happened there and it's totally different from what we know now had happened there.

CHAIRPERSON: At least it confirms that there were two people.

MR VISSER: There were two people, it's for that reason only and for the date that I mentioned that newspaper. There are two more that we have, two other newspaper clippings which do exactly the same, there's no identification so Chairperson, in the present circumstances we did as best we can in order to attempt from our side to establish who they were but we couldn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, Mnisi applied for amnesty as far as you know. You don't know whether he's been approached in order to get further information?

MR VISSER: Yes, I may mention to you Chairperson you are absolutely correct, he did, he applied for some, if I remember correctly, seven incidents for amnesty. My attorney has just reminded me that Mr Trengove was instructed by Mr Eric van den Berg's firm who was here earlier this morning and it didn't occur to me then and certainly occurs to me now that one might ask Mr van den Berg to get in contact with his client, Johannes Mnisi and try to discover from him whether he has any information which he may well have because we know the history of Johannes Mnisi. After his arrest he later became an Askari and he then absconded and fled again through Swaziland, I believe it was - I'm not sure about that but he fled and rejoined MK so it may be, it may be that he might know something. We'll make enquiries. Thank you for the suggestion, Chairperson.

Chairperson, all the applicants before you acted under orders from headquarters and it's clear that those orders concerned an abduction and if not possible the elimination. There can be no doubt about that on the evidence given by all the applicants before you. None of them understood the direction any different from that. That action on the evidence before you again was directed against military personnel of MK of the ANC. There's no suggestion of any ill will, spite or personal vengeance and we don't even address that, Chairperson, because there is nothing at all to point in that direction.

They were all members, Chairperson, of the security forces and all of them committed their act, omission or offence in the words of Section 22(b) within the course and scope of their duties and in the scope of their express or implied authority. Here the authority was, as I've already stated, that they received direct orders from head office and of course down the line they received orders from their immediate commanding officers. They all associated themselves with the fact that they were going to abduct people and they all foresaw and realised the possibility of death or serious injury and they associated themselves therewith. In that sense, Chairperson, with regard to the Act, we refer you to Section 22(g), we say that a person who merely associated himself is already a person who has locus standi to apply for amnesty in terms of the provisions of the Act. Insofar as 22 sub (g) specifically refers to persons referred to in sub-sections a, b, c, d, e and f of Section 20 sub-section 2.

Chairperson, the task team members, all of them, including Captain Visser of course, contravened border control regulations and or statutory provisions and all of them, Chairperson, are guilty of defeating the ends of justice insofar as none of them made any disclosure about either their own association or that of others after the fact.

Chairperson, on the evidence, as one might expect there are differences, sometimes of fact, sometimes of opinion, as one would expect after such a long passage of time but it is my submission and I believe it's a correct submission to say that there is nothing material, no material discrepancy in the evidence of all the witnesses whom you have heard. Insofar as the incident itself is concerned, and insofar as Captain Visser's evidence may have suggested that no serious attempt was made at abducting or arresting as they said, arresting these two people, we want to suggest, with respect, the following. First of all he was apparently in a spot where he could not see clearly, he says he couldn't see the people even, he only heard noises although he did say that in the dim light from the border post a kilometre away he could see that there were two people in the car but the reality of the situation is this that first of all the orders were to arrest the motivation for that order has been explained to you and it's a feasible one, they wanted information from these people particularly from MK George. So that all other things being equal already there would have been some attempt. The other fact is and this cannot by gainsaid, is that if they had decided not to attempt any arrests, they would simply have done what they had to do on the first occasion when the car went past them and as Mr le Roux said, "ons kon dit toe maklik gedoen het" - we could have done it then very easily. Quite clearly the intention remained up to the last moment when the firearm was cocked that they were going to arrest. Now under the circumstances of that evening and one must be careful here not to adopt an armchair approach. One will probably have difficulty in placing yourself in the same position and see the situation through the eyes of the operators of that evening during that night, Chairperson. They tried to explain to you what they could remember where they were, who were next to them, what each of them did but what is clear is that the moment they started moving in, even before some of them had started moving forward, the passengers of the car must have noticed something because there was some commotion and a voice, as I understand the evidence, excitedly spoke out in a loud tone and then they heard the cock of a firearm. Now as the operatives told you this morning, once that happens, there's no question of an arrest any longer, then it's a danger to you, it's a question of how do you approach the matter and they immediately fired.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, that's the one thing I want to ask you about. The moment they thought that their own lives are threatened, did they act to eliminate or did they act in self-defence.

MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, Hope gave you the right answer, I'm sorry, gave you the correct answer in my submission. No one would be able to deny that the thought of preservation never entered the minds of those operatives on the ground but one's got to look at it from a point of view of what they were ordered to go and do. The planning, the information that was given and the whole execution of the plan according to all of them was arrest, if that cannot happen, eliminate and they acted under those orders. The fact that self-preservation became foremost or even a thought in their minds makes no difference to their criminal liability in those circumstances Chairperson. They went to arrest and if that couldn't be accomplished, to eliminate.

ADV DE JAGER: So if your own motive would be on that crucial moment to act in self-defence and let's assume the circumstances were such that life was in fact threatened, would it then be an offence?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson of course that would again then depend on the circumstances, you know and I know that for 8 to 12 people if to take the extreme example, if all 8 to 12 task member teams fired on a vehicle where it turns out objectively that there was only one pistol in the vehicle, one will say well, that could never have been self-defence, that exceeded the bounds of self-defence by far and a court of law will not easily be convinced otherwise. So there is that fact, yes but the point I'm making is that if there is an element of self-defence while you are executing your order, it could not make any difference to the grand scheme of things because if when a soldier goes to war one has to believe that his first thought is always going to be about himself, doesn't matter what his general tells him to do and he might do what his general tells him to do but certainly he will always have, it's human, he will have a thought of self-protection in his mind. In this particular case Hope was very honest with you, he said "yes I feared for my life, of course" and Strydom gave the same evidence. He said that he had to protect the lives of his members. So yes, it was an aspect. In all dangerous situations it would be surprising to find that it was not an element but the purpose of the plan, the execution of the plan was precisely that they wanted to arrest or eliminate, Chairperson, and that is what happened and not by a long stretch of the imagination can it be said that these people acted merely in self-defence and that is my submission on that score.

So Chairperson, to wrap it up we submit that these applicants have all complied with the provisions of the Act. All of them except Mr Hope told you that they were also supporters of the National Party, they would fall therefore under Section 22(a), 22(b), 22(f) and 22(g). They all acted under orders, Chairperson, with respect and we submit that they qualify for amnesty in this case.

Could you bear with me for a moment? Chairperson, we as far as other matters, more technical matters, are concerned, we refer you to the previous argument and it is also applicable here. Chairperson, in order not to grant amnesty the situation in the present case is that you would have to decline to accept the evidence of all the witnesses in the sense that all of them on the material aspects of the matter gave identical evidence before you. We would then ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Or on the finding that they haven't established who was killed?

MR VISSER: Well, Chairperson, does the Act require that an applicant for amnesty must show what the identity was of the person who was killed? We submit not. The Act speaks merely of a member or supporter of a liberation movement from the point of view of the security forces. There is no indication that the Act expects you to identify. For example we had the same situation in the Church Street bomb where the operatives and the commanders who gave the orders in regard to the Church Street bomb couldn't identify one single one of those persons. They were identified in another way. Here we have no other way in which they could be identified but that's not a requirement of the Act, Chairperson, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes not in such a focused form. Of course you have to at least show that the victims were on the other side, opposite side of the conflict from where you were. I think all the applicants had made it clear that they were acting against these highly trained MK members thought to be George and MK Brown and that was really what they were ordered to do and that is what the order that they were executing but of course if we are not satisfied as to who these people were that got killed, then of course your clients haven't shown that they have killed somebody on the other side of the conflict.

MR VISSER: Well, Chairperson, that makes the test a very hard one to pass. First of all I may submit to you that there is of course no onus of proof before you. We know that on the authorities, I thought that had been accepted. You have to be satisfied not even on a balance of probabilities that in the words of his Lordship, Justice Price, I've forgotten the case name, it's something less than that because of the fact that this is a commission of enquiry. You've got to be satisfied about whether they did or did not act against someone on the other side as you put it on something less than a balance of probabilities but we submit that on the probabilities, there's nothing to show that they are wrong, there is nothing before you to show that they are wrong. You can speculate but there's nothing at all by way of evidence or arising on the probabilities to show that it was not MK Brown and MK George who were killed there. Chairperson, we have seen often in the past applications brought for example death of an unknown activist near Mamelodi, we had problems with identification in the Nietverdiendt 10 to such an extent that we were certainly, on our side, seriously in doubt as to whether the identities which had been proposed by family members of persons who had lost some of their family members, whether they were really the correct ones, we've had that before.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm with you on that submission. It's not necessary for your clients to identify the victims in the sense of giving their names and their addresses and I.D. numbers. All that your clients need to try and satisfy us on, bearing in mind your submission on this question, is that these people were part of the other side. If I say identify then I mean in that sense, not necessarily as being George or Brown.

MR VISSER: No, that is with respect stating the position correctly Chairperson but if you bear in mind ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: I want to put to you this proposition, if I have the intention, the motive of acting against the opposition and I'm shooting a Russian soldier attending a church, he's not on the other side but my intention was to kill somebody on the other side so isn't that why the word associated is used? My intention is this, a political objective and this act, the act of killing, is associated with that objective.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I was just coming to that. I was just going to give you the example of the St James' Church massacre. There, the way I understood that amnesty application, there was absolutely no attempt even made to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Are you submitting that it was correctly decided, that particular one that you are referring to?

MR VISSER: I'm saying, Chairperson, that we're dealing here with the process of amnesty, we're dealing here with an Amnesty Committee who has made certain decisions and I'm saying that from the point of view of fair administrative action and I've made this submission before, there has got to be evenhandedness.

CHAIRPERSON: But if it's wrong? If it's wrong, that's why I ask you ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Well it's right until it's proved to be wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you accepting as your submission from the perspective of somebody excepting that that was correctly decided?

MR VISSER: I have to accept it because it is a standing decision until it's been set aside, that is a decision which has to be accepted to be accepted as incorrect.

CHAIRPERSON: And are we in the same position that you are?

MR VISSER: In my submission you are, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We have to accept that that is correct?

MR VISSER: In my submission you have to, yes, Chairperson.

Unless you're telling me that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Even if I understand the principle of stare decisis I mean if something is clearly wrong, no subsequent tribunal is bound by that ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: That's also not correct. A single judge is bound by a wrong decision of a full bench, Chairperson, and here you have a full bench, you have the original Amnesty Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that doesn't apply in this particular instance, I mean ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: No, no, but you mentioned stare decisis. I said it doesn't apply.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, no, I'm just talking about whether you are bound by a wrong decision?

MR VISSER: Yes, I'm bound by those decisions, I believe yes, Chairperson and my clients are bound until they're set aside.

CHAIRPERSON: But I've got difficulty to understand that. We are bound by a wrong decision ...(inaudible) assume it is wrong are we bound by it?

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, well of course one's got to follow your own convictions and execute your duties as you see them and it's not for me to tell you how to do that. The point which this is really about is the point that Commissioner de Jager makes to me. There are many, many instances where the wrong persons had been attacked and even where innocent people had been attacked. This is what happened in our past.

CHAIRPERSON: Absolutely.

MR VISSER: That is what the amnesty process is here to take care of.

CHAIRPERSON: But I've got difficulty to understand that the question of the position of the victims is totally irrelevant, it doesn't matter whether that victim is on either side of the conflict or no side of the conflict so long as you have got a certain subjective belief, that's it ...(indistinct) you know, that's the submission that I'm addressing.

MR VISSER: I'm not saying only the subjective idea or the subjective belief, Chairperson, I'm saying that it's an objective test, it's got to be associated with the Act and it's an objective question. If a man goes out, let's put it bluntly, to kill a soldier, his opposite number on the other side and he kills something else, it's an objective question of fact whether he acted - whether there was a political objective associated with that act. The fact that an innocent person there gets killed may or may not be relevant. It may not be relevant in normal circumstances but it will clearly be relevant. For example, if subjectively the man knew it to be an innocent bystander, it could never be the intention in any war to kill innocent bystanders rather than kill the soldiers on the other side. So the purpose has to be associated with, as our Act says, a political objective. But certainly circumstances within the knowledge of the doer may change the view of that and in that regard you may say yes, well then the St James' massacre must be wrong. We could pull up many examples where no decisions had been given yet but a land mine for example, how could you then ever get amnesty for a land mine which blew up a careful of people who came back from church who had nothing to do with anything? No clear political objective emanates from that, one would think. But then you hear the ANC saying no, but hang on, we wanted to infiltrate over the borders to come and fight the liberation struggle in South Africa, the farmers were all armed, they all had farms, they all worked with the South African Defence Force, that's why they became our "legitimate" targets. So, Chairperson and really in that sense, the Act was very cleverly drawn, it says you don't have to go into all of that, you must just find whether or not, objectively speaking, the act was associated with a political objective and that is my submission to you, Chairperson, but again and I do repeat it, the subjective element can make a difference. The Act makes provision for it. For example, where ill will, spite and personal motive comes into it and one can take it further. When in terms of Section 20 sub 3, sub (a), the motive of the person is specified to be taken into account so it's a mix of objective and subjective standards but where the applicants tell you they went out to go and arrest or eliminate whichever they could do to two MK people, that is then an act associated with a political objective, clearly Chairperson, unless there is something that stands out and you cannot ignore to say well now objectively I say it couldn't have been an act associated with a political objective. So yes, Chairperson, the correct way to look at it is as Commissioner de Jager has put to me but my submission is you don't even reach that point on the evidence before you unless you're not prepared to accept the evidence but you have to have some reason surely in order to reject all of the evidence before you and the evidence before you, from all the witnesses is that they were MK people, they were supporters of the ANC, they were commanders of MK, they were going to bring in or George was going to bring in a group of people to cause havoc on the electric power lines.

Chairperson, that must be ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Are you submitting that's sufficient in this case in spite of whoever was in that car, it's sufficient that your clients believed that it was George and some other highly trained MK operative and I think whether it now turns out to be a woman or a child or whatever it might be in the car, it's neither here nor there?

MR VISSER: That's my submission.

CHAIRPERSON: We've got to give you amnesty?

MR VISSER: Yes that's my submission, Chairperson, yes that is my submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: And I may repeat ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: That could only be the case if their belief is a reasonable belief?

MR VISSER: Sorry, I was listening in two places, Chairperson?

ADV DE JAGER: If we would conclude that that is a reasonable belief that they thought it's MK people in the car?

MR VISSER: Again, Chairperson, and I must stress this, it's both an objective and a subjective test but what I'm saying is that on the evidence all of these people told you what they thought the target was going to be unless you can reject on good grounds that evidence, there is no subjective element that comes into it that points in the other direction because the subjective element would have to come from them, that is what cross-examination is for and that is those were the questions which the members of the Committee asked these people, they investigated all the aspects of the matter including this issue of what who they thought they were going to attack etc, that has been canvassed and what we say, Chairperson, is that on the evidence before you objectively, the acts must have been associated with a political objective.

To make it - and I don't want to dwell too long on it, to make it absolutely clear, if these applicants had gone in and when the task force members saw the car and it was broad daylight and they saw it was my wife and my children on their way to school, they would not have been able to come and appear before you today and say that their act was associated with a political objective? Clearly that's got to make a difference somewhere or other and perhaps your points are well taken, what about the St James' Church massacre? That may be in that category, that may be in that category.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the fact that say the chap who didn't see your wife and children, he was firing, he would be covered, he didn't see who was in the car? He thought that it was terrorists?

MR VISSER: He would be covered yes but the subjective element is if he knew and if there is evidence to show that he must have known or he should have known because the first three people that the car went by saw these people and he's got no explanation why he didn't look and see and just started firing. That may well be a situation where he will not be able to be granted amnesty, yes of course.

CHAIRPERSON: And in this case for example if your client had taken Mnisi with them to identify the car and Mnisi says to them, well that is it, that's the car and they shoot and it turns out to be other people?

MR VISSER: That's a typical ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't that be a stronger case?

MR VISSER: Well, I'm not going to say stronger, weaker but they would be covered, they could be covered because they would have believed subjectively that what they were hitting was the enemy and in terms of the plan and the orders which they had which they were executing it was something which was associated with a political objective. Yes they would be covered.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes, no I understand that situation.

MR VISSER: We had the situation, Chairperson, in another application, just while you mention it. I was just thinking, where a house was hit by some members of the security forces and it was an Indian gentleman and his wife who assisted ANC fugitives coming back into the country and in that attack a child was killed. A child was killed. Well we don't have - that application hasn't been brought yet but there is a typical example. Now what happens about the child? In fact it was an application and there is a decision. I just recalled Chairperson that they did not give amnesty for the child because they knew the child was going to be in the house and I think that's the point you're trying to put to me. Yes, one reaches a point where you say this act could not possibly have been associated with a political objective, I therefore refuse your amnesty but merely to say because we can't identify the people, therefore we must draw the inference that they might not have been, is not good enough.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I've got that submission.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson. Chairman, I have nothing further to add unless you want to hear me on anything, my attorney feels I should work some more, he's just passed me a note. Oh yes, he says the obvious thing that I think have already at the initial stages submitted this, it was the car that was identified and it did come back twice. I think I've made this submission, Chairperson, so in this case there is really little doubt that the persons that we acted against were on the other side and if all of the witnesses except one told you that they - no, except two, told you that they heard the cocking of a firearm and if at all newspaper reports can be believed, they also refer to a firearm in a car. So it wasn't my wife and my child driving on the way to church during broad daylight.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) could have been armed.

MR VISSER: ...(inaudible) Mr Chairperson, I ask you to grant amnesty as we'd prayed for and as I suggested to you in the argument for the applicants for who we appear. Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, I'm not going to repeat what Mr Visser has told you, the facts of the matter are that according to the evidence of Mr Gert Visser should not be denied. It is clear from his evidence that Mr Mnisi who was a detainee, his trustworthiness was tested. How did they do this? This is another aspect which has escaped me how did this happen. Some of them said that he promised that he would co-operate with them. He was arrested approximately two weeks before this incident. He was detained in terms of Section 29 and it would seem that it was the first incident where he co-operated with them. How was his trustworthiness tested, what was his evidence? Chairperson, he had a chart in his possession, this chart indicated the physical places and the places which he indicated was indeed what was on the map and besides that he mentioned which the particular parties were and by means of telephone calls to which they listened in to, not just one telephone call, several telephone calls that Mnisi made in Swaziland to George and where they confirmed that he was indeed speaking to George. There it was determined that George would be met in Swaziland and with respect, Chairperson, there is no evidence to the contrary and there is no suggestion from anybody else that it did not happen and this is the pattern which serves before this Honourable Committee that what had happened there, there is thus no doubt that Mnisi spoke to George. That there was indeed an action where discussion would take place with members of MK and besides that it is well known that Rashied was one of the operatives and Rashied, it is known to the Committee in applications in the Church Street bomb, was a commander and if any trouble was taken that Rashied would deny it. It would have been said that we have heard by means of an investigation which the TRC investigative team would have made and this application is in the possession of the Committee for a long time. There is no such suggestion.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you mean that the allegation of Mr Mnisi?

MR PRINSLOO: That is the allegation of Mnisi as it was conveyed to Mr Gert Visser and Mr Gert Visser as well as Mr Nel, both of them believed Mnisi in this instance.

CHAIRPERSON: But how did that happen, how is Mr Rashied involved in this?

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage, according to the information conveyed by Mr Mnisi, Mr Rashied was operational and involved in Swaziland where this operation would be launched from.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, I understand the factual background, I want to establish how Rashied would be involved in this application? Do you say that he can deny this or the fact that he does not deny it before us? Does this concur with the allegations made by Mnisi? I don't understand how Mnisi is involved here.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Mr Chairperson, the point I'm trying to make is that if there was doubt about the conviction of these procedures then Mr Rashied is not seen by me or by the Committee to be regarded as an involved party, he is not incriminated in the sense but his evidence is clear that Rashied was one of the operatives from the other side along with George and Brown. That is the point I'm making and I would just like to add that Rashied - I'm not adding that Rashied is involved here.

CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, are you saying that the fact that there is no contradiction, does this support the trustworthiness of Mr Mnisi? I don't know if I understand you.

MR PRINSLOO: What I'm saying, with respect Mr Chairperson, is the fact that the evidence from the applicants is not contradicted and there is no other evidence and then the Committee must accept their evidence. The evidence is concurred with during the whole procedure and Mr Nel's evidence or his initial evidence is that there is no argument as to his evidence and his evidence supports the evidence of Mr Visser. This has to be taken into consideration that Mr Mnisi was arrested for quite some time or two or three weeks and he is not the person who was arrested from the street and as we all know Section 29, in terms of Section 29 he is interrogated thoroughly and this person co-operated, that is the evidence of Mr Gert Visser. He never doubted, with respect Chairperson, the credibility of Mr Mnisi and the telephone calls supported this, Chairperson, that there was a telephone call to Mr George and was listened in by the other parties, Visser and Nel and with respect, Chairperson, that this was a real action which consisted of the struggle that there was. The MK ANC members on the one side and the security branch on the other side and their action is regulated and Brigadier Schalk Visser is also involved here, he was also was also tasked with the initial arrest of Mr Mnisi and that gives the Honourable Committee a clear picture where there is no doubt with regard to the circumstances. There should be no doubt, with respect Chairperson, that such an action was launched because of what Mnisi had submitted otherwise why would there be any action, this would be very stupid and the probabilities show that such an action was indeed launched for the reasons as supplied by the applicants and why some of the members were involved and with respect, as submitted by Mr Visser in his argument, here we deal with a matter where it was determined whom the particular persons were. It is determined where these persons would stand, what type of vehicle there would be and what their action would be at some remote area where there was a little gravel road and there were two lines there, the same vehicle comes there, goes away and comes back and it fits in with the facts of Mnisi and then the Committee has to take into consideration that Mr Mnisi is in detention. One cannot take him into Swaziland but then he is so credible, they believe in his credibility that he is co-operating so well with them.

CHAIRPERSON: Why can they not take him with them?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Chairperson, the Committee has to live themselves into that scene there. Here the members of the task force go in, they take Mnisi with them, does he have to get caught up in a crossfire, is he to be shot? If those people saw him what would happen if he got away? There could be many considerations. Why would it be necessary under the circumstances to continue while you can see with your eyes that there's Mnisi before me, there is a vehicle, there are two persons in the vehicle, they turn off the lights and with respect, there can be no doubt and it is not necessary, Chairperson, to run the risk to take a detainee into another country illegally and to expose him to several possibilities which might exist.

CHAIRPERSON: But they don't know who they killed? Why could Mnisi not be used? I've heard the term pointer, the police uses somebody as a pointer, somebody who could point out people so that they would know whom they were to kill?

We don't know who died in this car.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Chairperson, under these circumstances one has to have regard for what the specific circumstances were which dictated that evening. It is possible if someone who sits in a building and he says there's somebody walking down the street and he says that's an ANC member but with respect, we cannot expect that Mnisi could be taken in the dark there, that he has to go and see who is in the vehicle. How could he see that it was indeed those persons from some distance? But the facts that he gives and the discussions that he has and the facts that he gives to his handler which is conveyed to Mr Visser fits in perfectly and there could be no doubt, it could be the same, with respect Chairperson, that one has to deal with the matter where there's a murder case but there is nobody because the court finds in the appeal court, about three of that I can think of that the person who was murdered but the body is missing, there can be no doubt. Here the intelligence, after confirmation, confirmed that George and Brown were the two persons who were killed. George was never seen again, that is the evidence of Mr Visser but there is no reference to these persons to any of the ANC submissions that such high profile persons had existed. This is not strange, in how many cases did the ANC see an ambush where persons were led into an ambush, there are instances which are the exception where there could exist much propaganda in matters where there was man to man conflict then one could admit that that person died.

CHAIRPERSON: But why now after the time, we are after 1994, submissions have been made to the TRC. Why would they want to hide it now?

MR PRINSLOO: To cover up any loss.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the purpose thereof? If such high profile commanders of MK had died in that operation one would expect that their names would appear on the record of the ANC?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, at this stage this Committee does not know in what condition those bodies were who were in that car, were they burned completely? There's no evidence before this Committee on the other side which refers to some investigation which was done by the ANC to find out which people had disappeared and which had not disappeared, we do not know. The Swazis could have buried those people, with respect, and we know that in previous applications that the ANC operated underground in Swaziland, they did not operate openly, they were arrested by the Swazis and deported. It appears in many criminal matters, we don't know what investigation there was. With respect, it could only be speculation and this Honourable Committee must have certainty as to the matter that was discussed here and the actions point to the fact that there is no doubt that the people in that car was George and Brown. This is what the parties believed and objectively speaking, with respect Honourable Chairperson, if one has regard for the facts and you measure those facts to the circumstances of the evidence, it has to be them and nobody else because if George afterwards existed, then under the circumstances there would have been information with regard to him but there are no such circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know how it works but do they change their names? What is the combat name? I do not know what the - is it changed or do you keep that name forever?

MR PRINSLOO: As I in many cases where I acted for the State an MK name is given to a person and that MK name was the only name by which he was known.

CHAIRPERSON: So how would one know what is his proper name?

MR PRINSLOO: An MK name is the one with which he retains, you can see how far he goes back in the ANC's actions. As far as I can recall this was at least during the late '70s beginning '80s which went right through like a golden thread to his name, he only came and said this now, nobody in the security branch could find out who was Rashied except up till the moment when he came and exposed himself in his application.

Chairperson, to join up with the argument which was held before you an action is launched against a person and this is not what I admit but another person is killed under the circumstances in a specific matter where Honourable Judge Wilson sat on a panel and where Commissioner de Jager and Khampepe were also members of the panel, and in that case it regarded two members of the Boereweerstandbeweging who applied for amnesty and they planted a bomb on some instruction in a shop which belonged to the ANC community. They believed that all members who were members of the Moslem community were ANC supporters. This bomb was placed at a shop in Bronkhorstspruit. A policeman who investigated moved the container and this bomb would go off if the container was moved. This police officer was killed and no person in the Moslem community at that stage was in danger and amnesty was granted for those persons. It was Harmse and Vloorman in the application 03 ...(inaudible)

ADV DE JAGER: You mention that case but it is common cause that in the opinion of that Committee these persons had a political objective. If one has regard for the St James matter the evidence was that we wanted to render this country ungovernable, we want to force this government to change it's policy and the evidence was that if they were not successful with that explosion they would have continued, they would have even wanted to kill innocent people with the purpose to force the government to change it's policy. That was their motive. The method that they used to reach this goal has to be distinguished from what the real purpose or the real motive was but this is the political motive. The government must divorce itself from it's Apartheid policy and they used any manner, even if it was the killing of innocent people and I think these were the grounds where they were found that this was associated with a political objective?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, Honourable Chairperson, that in this instance here it was aimed against the opposite party who was the ANC.

ADV DE JAGER: Was that the police's policy?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Honourable Chairperson, excuse me, we don't have evidence with all respect that innocent persons were killed. We can speculate that it was innocent people but there is no evidence before us where we can come to the conclusion that the persons were innocent or that they did not belong to a political party. We can only say that we cannot say definitely but because there is no evidence because we don't know who these people are if this is our point of departure, if it was not Brown and George then we don't know who it was and therefore we do not know whether they were innocent or not.

ADV DE JAGER: But may I just put it to you that you can submit to us that the General would have gone to this Swaziland border to kill two persons or to arrest a person or kill the person who had nothing to do with politics?

CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me Mr Prinsloo, my colleague has jumped in while I was asking you, would you please return to my question?

MR PRINSLOO: Would you please repeat the question or may I just answer your question?

CHAIRPERSON: Is there a policy of the police to kill innocent people?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect there is no such policy to kill innocent persons but with respect we will split hairs and it would be unfair if we say that the police would kill innocent persons but we can look at Heidelberg Tavern. In that matter persons attacked the Heidelberg Tavern, they turned around, drove away and then they say in the judgment of that matter:

With respect Honourable Chairperson, here we are dealing with a struggle of the past, people saw it as a war. The ANC saw it as a war and the security branch were opposed to this. The Committee, with respect, has to establish itself with the facts and the facts of the matter is and these speak volumes, that they went there to arrest persons and if they were not successful, they had to eliminate these people and they believed that they were indeed members of MK and MK members operated in groups and there were two people in the vehicle, they sat there and with respect, there could be no suggestion that they went there to kill innocent people. So with regard to a policy, Chairperson, it is my argument that it is not applicable here that there was such a policy. If one goes to kill innocent people they would not be before you applying for amnesty and it would be ridiculous, Chairperson.

If I could return to the Honourable Committee Member, Mr de Jager's question and that is that the general and the men who came from different branches went to the border and then planned an operation and then executed such an operation and they did so because of malice and because of people they did not believe in with respect, the evidence of General Wandrach is clear what the reasons were, why they went. His evidence is supported, the evidence of the other members support his evidence, they went to the border and there can be no suggestion that they went for no other reason besides the fact that they went to arrest these persons and if any other situation was applicable they would be eliminated and they believed, with respect, Chairperson, during that time that it was members of MK who were in resistance of the government of the day. I don't think there can be any doubt.

Chairperson, I want to submit and as I've already indicated, I am not going to argue any aspects which my learned colleague Mr Visser has submitted to you and my argument is that amnesty must be granted to Mr Gert Visser who is my client and he admitted that he entered Swaziland illegally and not according to the control or the passport control that there, he went there with a purpose of abducting persons from there illegally and if he could not be successful in that abduction those persons would be eliminated. He identified with that and he identified himself with the fact that the person who represented the task force were heavily armed, that these persons could be killed and that their action was illegal.

I might just mention, Honourable Chairperson, an aspect which I just thought of now. Where one is involved in an illegal action, for an example an illegal arrest, one cannot rely on self-defence because your action is illegal where you arrest somebody illegally and that person resists then that person can resist himself and from your side you cannot argue that you acted in self-defence, not at all, but before you execute your illegal arrest and this person endangers your life, can you not defend yourself? The person goes there with the objective to illegally arrest that person and the person on the other side, he doesn't want to be arrested but he knows he is involved in a struggle here and he resists then it is justified that he can resist himself then one cannot rely on self-defence because you are arresting him illegally. That is the argument which I would like to submit although it is not applicable.

ADV DE JAGER: If you create a situation where it is a state of emergency and you act and you created this state of emergency it is applicable in a state of emergency when you act out of emergency, you are busy with an illegal action or act and you feel your life is threatened or that you are driving too fast and here is a traffic officer and I see the traffic officer points his gun at me can I shoot him?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, with respect, you cannot rely on this because in this instance it was aimed at the person on the other side whom he wanted to arrest illegally and that person is justified in resisting.

ADV DE JAGER: And then you cannot rely on self-defence?

MR PRINSLOO: Not at all because you say that you shot him because he wanted to shoot you, you knew he was armed, you go there to illegally arrest him and then he is justified in the same instance as illegal arrest if he is a police officer and he assaults you, you cannot say that is an assault on a police person because you cannot say that this is an illegal arrest.

ADV DE JAGER: I can understand that, I can see the sense in it but before you execute your arrest you did not open the man's vehicle door and he shoots you from the inside and then you say I'm going to shoot him now because I have to defend myself but before you do anything you are standing up, you approach the vehicle and they take out their guns and they want to shoot you, can you not defend yourself then?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, one has to remember here that this has to do with an illegal action, how can you defend yourself when you are the attacker? If the other person was the attacker then it would be justified but with respect, the persons who went there were the attackers and they believed by nature of the situation, this is war and this is the enemy, I'm going to take him out so in the circumstances as Hope explained to you and with respect I want to argue that he was questioned and he never diverted, he remained with his point of view, but this is not applicable to my client. He said that he saw that in this action people could be killed and he would be guilty of killing people illegally.

ADV DE JAGER: Your client is Gert Visser? Gert Visser did not shoot?

MR PRINSLOO: No he did not shoot, the two Vissers did not shoot. The other Visser was outside. I just mentioned it, it touches on the circumstances of my situation, it touches on the situation of Mr Visser's client. I would just like to mention this because I just recalled it that to the applicant. Mr Gert Visser be granted amnesty because in the republic there was a conspiracy to abduct persons and it was foresaw there that there could be any resistance, that persons could be killed and therefore it was a conspiracy to murder on the republic's side and in Swaziland persons were killed which with regard and this comes down to murder and as we have already submitted to you in the evidence there was damage to property by the persons who were involved there with regard to defeating the ends of justice there is no evidence that he made any false statement and held anything else because this is a man who murdered somebody, he didn't go and tell the police that he had murdered somebody so they could be no charge of defeating the ends of justice. These are police officers, they omitted to mention that they were guilty of any such act and that is my argument except if the Committee wants to address them on anything else.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT IN ARGUMENT: I will be brief Chairperson.

With regard to Mr Schalk Visser I would like to submit that he has satisfied the Committee, I use the word satisfy and as the Afrikaans text says convinced, I will say he has satisfied and not convinced them that he executed this act in the execution of his duties and he believed that he did so to oppose the political struggle at the time and to maintain and to keep the government of the day in power. There is an aspect which was asked from Mr Visser as to which offence does he request amnesty. It is clear from Mr Visser's evidence that he was not an outsider in this whole application, he was involved with the arrest of Mr Mnisi and he also had knowledge of the sketch plan, he knew that these were sabotage points which were indicated thereon. He was the head of Eastern Transvaal's security branch. The points which were pointed out and the other witnesses have given evidence are in the Eastern Transvaal and in Natal. He had much interest there. He was informed by Mr Viktor of the things that would take place in his area. He accompanies them to Oshoek, he was not part of the finer planning as he has given evidence but when he was informed by Mr Viktor and when he was involved with the arrest of Mr Mnsibi and his presence at Oshoek he decided to participate in this operation and with his decision he became part of this conspiracy because the conspiracy initially took place within South Africa to arrest these persons which would come down to an abduction and if the arrest was not successful, he knew that a possible shooting would ensue.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he not accompany them to establish for himself what was going on?

MS VAN DER WALT: It doesn't seem like he played an active role in this incident, definitely not but it is as Mr Viktor, he gave the instruction but he had no further role in this incident. He also was just present at the border post as well as Mr Wandrach. He could have stayed in Pretoria because he gave an instruction to Mr Strydom to execute the operation, it is exactly the same, he identifies with what would have happened there. He could have stayed away if he wanted to, he did not have an order, this is now Schalk Visser. If I understand Mr Viktor's evidence correctly and as Mr Visser believed, Mr Viktor involved him because the operation would take place in his area and I don't think he is dissociated from the whole operation. I cannot place my hands on it but according to Mr Viktor he informed him and I would like to argue that this is how he became involved.

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't an order, he was informed that an operation would be executed in his area or do I not understand you correctly?

MS VAN DER WALT: I would like to argue that was an order because he is a subordinate and the operation was to be executed in his region and that is why he was there otherwise it was not necessary for him to be there and you have to consider that his action was not dissociated, he was involved right from the start where this information came in and this information has regard to his jurisdiction area where this sabotage would take place and I would like to argue that he was part of this conspiracy which was conspired on the side of South Africa and he also identified as he said that there could be possible resist and the instruction is clear and this is the evidence of all the applicants that an arrest would be executed before the persons had to be eliminated and Mr Visser identified with this and he was also aware that he confirmed Mr Strydom's evidence that the task force members went in with heavy artillery, one does not go into another country with heavy artillery if you do not foresee the possibility that persons could be killed there and therefore he also applies for amnesty on the murder of these two persons.

CHAIRPERSON: You would have referred to that, what is the gist of his evidence? That he identifies himself with the fact that if the MK operatives had been killed but what would have happened if anybody else had been killed, what would be the particulars if he would identify with this fact if it was possible or it was people who had nothing to do with the struggle then I would not reconcile myself with this action, is that how I understand it, is that correct?

MS VAN DER WALT: That is exactly the argument which Mr Visser and Prinsloo submitted to you. I want to submit that Mr Visser's evidence with regard to what you have put to me now, he was certain with regard to the information which they had gathered that these were MK members and this is why ...(inaudible)

executed, he would not have reconciled himself with such an operation if he was not sure that it was MK members, that was his evidence and this is what I want to submit to you with the evidence of Mr Gert Visser that he had a certain credibility of Mr Mnisi and the fact that they had listened in, it is clear Mr Gert Visser said that somebody listened in, it is of course a person who spoke the language and they were certain it was the handler of Mnisi and in that light you must accept Mr Schalk Visser's evidence and furthermore the question that was put by Mr de Jager why would all those ranks, the generals if I could call them that, come from Pretoria, this is now Mr Wandrach, Mr Viktor, they come here to monitor this operation, they would not have done so if they were not certain if this information of Mr Mnisi was correct. Excuse me, Mr Mnisi, I confuse those two surnames, please excuse me.

I would like to submit furthermore that Mr Schalk Visser was definitely, when he became involved in this operation, he was certain and he was of the conviction that these were MK members.

CHAIRPERSON: But the question with regard to the identity of the persons who were killed, is this not of cardinal importance of Mr Schalk Visser's case because he says that if it was other people he does not automatically reconcile himself with what had happened there so he qualifies his reconciliation with this matter and he identifies with this matter if it was George and Brown that was killed in this instance, in other words these highly trained MK operatives, but if it was anybody else he is not automatically reconciled with this matter.

MS VAN DER WALT: I don't think you should focus on the names George and Brown, you must focus on the fact that he said that it was MK members George and Brown because if I understand Mr Gert Visser's evidence, they were certain that the one would be George but the other could have been any other trained MK member.

CHAIRPERSON: You are entirely correct, that is the evidence, the names are not important.

MS VAN DER WALT: But the fact that all the evidence and all information that the security police had indicated that and there is no other evidence to the contrary that these were definitely two MK members and I am not going to repeat Mr Prinsloo's argument and all the facts, the vehicle, the rendezvous point, there could be no other deduction made or inference made that it was definitely two MK trained members because there would have been nobody else, with respect, and I would like to submit that Mr Visser satisfies or that he has satisfied you that he satisfies the requirements of Section 22(b) and 22(f) as well as (g). That is my submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Ms Thabethe, can I just ask one question and I want to do this in relation to an example.

Two persons commit the murder of Mr X. They conspired to kill Mr A and one of them shoots and the other one associates himself with the act but when they reached the victim they saw it was not the person whom they wanted to shoot, they had shot another person. The person who was not shot, would he be able to say that "I associated myself with the murder on Mr X but I would I withdraw my situation because A was shot or my Y was shot."

MS VAN DER WALT: He would still be guilty, he cannot withdraw the fact that he said that he did not want to shoot that person because they went with the purpose and they conspired to kill a certain person. The name attached hereto, well the wrong person was indeed shot but the purpose was to kill a person and he would be guilty of murder.

ADV DE JAGER: But the fact that Mr Visser says that "I associate myself with the fact that they had shot George and I

agree with that" but after the incident, he says "I had the motive of shooting Mr George but it would seem that we had shot X." Is he then not guilty?

MS VAN DER WALT: The difference in the amnesty application is that what Mr Visser says is that he associated himself with the idea that it was an MK member and this is what I told the Chairman.

INTERPRETER: The speakers microphone is not on.

ADV DE JAGER: But my co-murderer shoots the wrong person but now I say I do not associate myself with this because an innocent person had been shot, am I not guilty of murder then?

MS VAN DER WALT: Definitely Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: You are still guilty of the offence, that is how I had said it.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, I don't have any submissions but I just want to add this and say that in my opinion there's no reason why the Committee Members should not accept the evidence of the applicants. More especially because Mr Johannes Mnisi was not notified, he was aware of the contents of the application of the applicants. Furthermore he had a legal representative who could advise him if he wanted to oppose or query anything that the applicants had raised. He opted not to query anything or oppose anything that the applicants have raised and for that reason I would give the opinion that I don't see why the Committee Members should not accept the evidence of the applicants and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You mean that's a factor that we can take into account?

MS THABETHE: Yes Mr Chair, that's what I mean.

CHAIRPERSON: In deciding what the factual framework of this application should be, the fact that Mnisi was notified and he didn't come and say anything?

MS THABETHE: Yes and also he was aware that there were allegations with regard to MK Brown and MK George and he did not challenge that or oppose that fact.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I mean that's a fact that we take into account but you have to test the evidence that he has placed before you as I understand it and if it's improbable or if it's clearly untruthful you can accept or reject it?

MS THABETHE: Sure.

CHAIRPERSON: But you're saying that's a factor that comes into the picture?

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: There is nothing in that gainsays what the applicants have told us from Mnisi at least?

MS THABETHE: Yes that's what I say.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, then I understand your submission. Have you got anything else?

MS THABETHE: Yes I just wanted to put it on record as well that we did make attempts to find out what the true identities of MK Brown and MK George were. We even approached or I myself approached Mr Eric van den Berg to find out from Mr Johannes Mnisi what the true identities of Brown or George are and it appears that he knew them, he just knew them as MK Brown and MK George, he doesn't know their true identities so I thought I should put that on record.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, is that all that he said? We don't know whether they're alive or deceased or not?

MS THABETHE: No Mr Chair and I think like I've said before he's aware of what has been alleged by the applicants with regard to them, that they are deceased, so maybe he could have raised the fact that they are still alive, if that's what he thought or if that's what he knows.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MS THABETHE: Yes I am speculating.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) Have you got anything else Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: No Mr Chair, I don't.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Visser, have you got any other submissions? Have you got any further submissions in the light of anything else that happened here?

MR VISSER: Not really Chairperson, I think the matter has been thrashed out sufficiently for me to enter the arena now. The only point which I want to raise is I'm not quite sure whether when I discussed the different acts or offences, the offences or delicts when dealing with the amnesty applicants that I mentioned malicious damage to property. I remember we did during the evidence but I'm not sure whether I did but you will not hold that against me if I didn't mention something there?

CHAIRPERSON: No Mr Prinsloo saved your case I think.

MR VISSER: But as I said before Chairperson, what we believe will be sufficient in all matters like this is for amnesty to be granted for attempted abduction for murder and any lessor offence that can be found on the evidence and all other acts, omissions or offences which can be brought in against the applicants, that would cover it. We know exactly which date, which place, everything, the incident is identified sufficiently, properly, so that none of the applicants can go wider than that if that would be your order. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. We will need some time to look at this matter and we will reserve the decision and we will notify the parties once the decision is available. We will have to conclude the proceedings today. Mr Visser and Mr Wagener have to appear at a session of colleagues in Pretoria and we in any event in view of the discretionary religious holiday tomorrow don't have use of this particular venue so we won't be able to sit in any event tomorrow. We have enough to do so we won't be losing any time. There's no sense in reconvening these proceedings on Friday morning just to pack up half way through the day so we're going to adjourn our proceedings until Monday morning, in this venue at 10 o'clock, when we will proceed with the remaining matters on our roll. Can I just on behalf of the panel thank Ms van der Walt and Mr Prinsloo who have concluded their business before us, for your assistance, thank you very much. You're excused.

We'll adjourn.