MR DEHAL ADDRESSES: Originally his evidence was contained within the Human Rights Violations Health Sector Hearings, and at the pre-trial hearings, Mr Malan who chaired the hearings, indicated in my view correctly that the evidence contained within those hearings were not sufficiently categorised into pigeonhole applications, thus making it necessary for us to have formulated what has now been handed to us all and which I presume is Exhibit A.

Mr Chairperson, that would be the evidence as contained in Annexure A and may the applicant then be sworn in so we can proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we carry on, what's the application for, or about?

MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, it's about a host of incidents that occurred in South Africa and South West Africa and Namibia, Angola as well, in regard to the applicant's role-play as a member of the then SADF, as a Medic within the ambit of the SADF, his training within South Africa, the various crimes perpetrated as contained in Annexure A on page 2 ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Dehal, sorry for interrupting you, you're referring to an Annexure A, are you referring to Annexure A at the moment or are you referring to the supplementary statement?

MR DEHAL: Thank you. I'm referring to this document which we entitle "Supplementary Affidavit" which I've given to Mr Steenkamp ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No, we have that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Before you carry on with that, where has he made an application before the closing date? Or what has he made application for before the closing date?

MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, I can only take you through the bundle that we have, on pages 1 to 12, you will see that in the bundle 1 to 12, he's actually been far from detailed, he annexes to the application proper, pages 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 which deal in what he calls "A Statement of Shaun Mark Callaghan", with the incidents and the various counts.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dehal, you are his representative, that's why I'm asking you what is he applying for, amnesty in respect of what?

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Sir. He seeks amnesty for his involvement at Katlehong Hospital, in regard to human rights violations there where he treated a number of black patients, possibly incorrectly and caused their deaths as well, in the execution of his training.

CHAIRPERSON: Where in the application does he refer to that?

MR DEHAL: Sorry, may I just go through the papers, I'll trace that. Thank you Mr Chair, I'm indebted to you. On page 8 in the first paragraph of the annexure to his application for amnesty, he refers to his service under the SA Medical Services and his basic training in Potchefstroom and Operational Medical Orderlies training in Pretoria. He says this took nine months and he deals with that briefly there. It is more fully dealt with in the subsequent document that we've handed in. It is also dealt with in his evidence before the Health Sector Hearings, on page - I don't know if we have copies of that, sorry, I have a copy for myself, his evidence begins on page 18 of the transcript that I've loaded down from the Internet, and on the last paragraph thereof ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dehal, you've told me absolutely nothing thusfar, all I'm asking is what crimes did he commit for which he is applying for amnesty? Murder, attempted murder, fraud or whatever?

MR DEHAL: Thank you, thanks for clarifying, forgive me for that. In the first two incidents he deals with the murder and attempted murder ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr Dehal with respect, the first incident that you list has got nothing to do with murder or attempted murder, that's a reference to a training at Tembisa and Katlehong.

MR DEHAL: Yes except, with respect Mr Malan, if you hear the evidence you will hear that Mr Callaghan was not trained enough to treat these people, but asked to train on these blacks and that many of them had died.

MR MALAN: Your response was that in the first two incidents, Mr Callaghan is applying for murder and attempted murder, now where in the first incident which is now listed on page 2 of the supplementary affidavit, and incidentally it's simply a statement, it's not an affidavit, not according to the document before me, there is no reference whatsoever to any attempt even for murder, it simply lists training on black civilian patients.

The second incident refers to his treatment of an Angolan woman referred to him by the International Red Cross. So where do you find a reference to murder or attempted murder in any of these two incidents as put before us?

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Mr Malan. Sir, it was intended that this statement which you rightly point out is not an affidavit, forgive me, the word affidavit is incorrect, it's a statement, it was intended to be a précis, that when Mr Callaghan testifies he will deal more fully with the incidents and from my consultation with him, especially what Ms Mohamed tells me, is that on the first incident there were people who died, there were people who died at his hands and there were people who possibly died. Sorry, I see that Mr Callaghan wants to confer with me, could I?

MR MALAN: Mr Dehal, you were secondly asked, initially by the Chairperson, what incidents is he applying for that he dealt with in his original amnesty application. I do not see any reference in the original application to his practising on black civilian patients, let alone attempted murder or murder. Could you just list us what he really is applying for, as you have it.

MR CALLAGHAN: May I intervene at this point?

MR DEHAL: Sorry, I apologise for that. Could I confer with him, I think there's something he wants to tell me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dehal, I'm going to give you a chance to confer with him. All I'm pointing out to you is that you are his representative, I assume that you would know what he's applying for. That is the nature of this application, this hearing and I need to know when we start to hear the evidence, exactly what he says he committed and to place that within the context of the Act, in order to determine whether he should get amnesty or not. I can't do so if I don't know what he's applying for. Now without wanting to go into the ethical part of this, I'm going to adjourn. For how long do you need to ...

MR DEHAL: Five minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: I hope those who criticise us for wasting public funds will realise it's not our fault.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Dehal.

MR DEHAL: Thank you. Mr Chairperson and Honourable Members, I'm indebted to you for the time afforded me, in fact it has assisted substantially. The applicant seeks amnesty for most of the incidents, a few of them to be excluded and I'll take you through his statement that I've handed in, in regard to which paragraphs get excluded. The remaining paragraphs deal with crimes of attempted murder, murder, assault and GBH in the main.

In the statement on page 2 ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which statement?

MR DEHAL: Sorry, the statement that I handed in which Mr Steenkamp circularised. Do you have that, Judge?

CHAIRPERSON: Are we talking about a document referred to as a supplementary affidavit? Let's make that Exhibit A.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you say on page 2 thereof?

MR DEHAL: Yes, Judge. May I continue? On page 2, the paragraph, enumerated paragraph 10 is to be deleted. The reference to persons having died does not relate directly to this applicant and he therefore will cause that paragraph to be deleted. He doesn't seek amnesty on that score.

On paragraph 12 he persists in his application for amnesty on that aspect, enumerated (i), there the crime is attempted murder. He says however, that the lady in that matter, on that incident has possibly died and since he does not know he cannot talk about murder, but at level, at best it's attempted murder.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just stop there now. Did this incident occur in Angola? Now whatever he did there in Angola, would that have been done in the interests of the political aspirations of South Africa, no matter which side of the political spectrum one would fall?

MR DEHAL: He says yes.

MR MALAN: Sorry, Chairperson. Mr Dehal, before we go further, is that Angola or is it Namibia? Is Anjiva not in Namibia? Is that Angola?

MR DEHAL: ...(inaudible)

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: He says it was done in the interests of the South African interest on one of the sides of the political spectrum?

MR DEHAL: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, let's go on then. ...(inaudible)

MR DEHAL: Yes, indeed. Mr Chair, the paragraph 12 has (ii) beneath that, on page 3, that is to be deleted, he does not persist on any application for amnesty in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph 12(ii) appears on page 3, is that what you're saying?

MR DEHAL: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: And he's deleting that? Yes?

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Judge. And then if you go onto page 4 of Annexure A, those words from the top which start with:

right up to paragraph 14, is to be deleted. There is nothing there for which he seeks amnesty.

Then that takes us to what is enumerated as paragraph 15, and entitled:

There he seeks amnesty and the crime there is murder, assault and GBH.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dehal, lawyers tend to want to shorten their work, but there is a public that is interested in this matter, GBH means absolutely nothing to them, would you kindly tell us exactly what he's applying for there.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Judge, my apologies for that. He says that the person in this matter was interrogated and tortured and that electric shocks were used, and that level, grievous bodily harm, as a crime, was perpetrated and it was therefore not just common assault but assault with grievous bodily harm. That person died and therefore, murder.

CHAIRPERSON: Now here again I ask the question, the assault and murder on this person, was the deceased a member of SWAPO? It sounds like it, I'm just confirming it.

MR DEHAL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Would the assault on that member have been in the interest of one of the political parties of South Africa?

MR DEHAL: So I'm told, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on, we'll see if that is the case.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Judge.

That takes us to paragraph 16, the paragraph entitled:

Here the crime is murder.

And then we go to paragraph 17, at the bottom of page 4, which is entitled:

Here the offence is attempted murder, assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm. I am told that it may possibly be murder. Mr Callaghan tells me he does not know whether the person on this count had actually died or not, but he was seriously burnt as a result of boiling water having been thrown on his person.

Judge, we go to paragraph 18 and 19, if I may deal with them together because they are both to be deleted. These are the two paragraphs on page 5, paragraph 18, entitled:

and paragraph 19, entitled:

That leaves me with two incidents only. At the bottom of page 5, on paragraph 20, entitled:

The crime here is murder and attempted murder and assault.

If I may then proceed to page 6, on the paragraph enumerated 21 and entitled:

Here the crime is murder, attempted murder, assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm.

Those are all the incidents for which he seeks amnesty. Thank you, Judge.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Callaghan, what language would you prefer to use?

MR CALLAGHAN: English.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you any objection to taking the oath?

SHAUN MARK CALLAGHAN: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR DEHAL: Thank you, Judge.

Mr Callaghan, is it correct that the application for amnesty on pages 1 to 7 in the bundle, is an application that was formulated by yourself, signed by you on page 6 thereof, and is your application for amnesty, correct?

MR CALLAGHAN: It is correct.

MR DEHAL: And is it correct that as ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Who completed this form?

MR CALLAGHAN: It's completed in my own writing.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you assisted?

MR CALLAGHAN: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Now if you look at paragraph 9 on page 2, (i), you were asked there to list or to say what acts or omissions or offences you apply for amnesty. The response thereto, you indicate that the reader of your application should refer to the attached statement. Now the attached statement ought to make a reference to each of the offences for which you apply.

MR CALLAGHAN: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: As you proceed, will you indicate on this attached statement, a reference to each of those offences for which you apply for amnesty? Yes?

MR DEHAL: May I proceed, Judge? Thank you.

Mr Callaghan, do you confirm the correctness of the statement which serves as an annexure to the application which the Chairperson has just dealt with, pages 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the bundle, and do you confirm that you had signed same as per page 12? As per the signature on page 12?

MR CALLAGHAN: I do.

MR DEHAL: And save for the deletions, Annexure A is a supplementary statement that you have formulated, categorising the various incidents for which you seek amnesty, do you confirm that as correct, as I said, save for those deletions?

MR CALLAGHAN: I do.

MR DEHAL: And you were present here and heard my submissions to this Panel in regard to each of those remaining incidents and the crimes related to each of them, do you confirm that those crimes read correctly with those incidents?

MR CALLAGHAN: I do.

MR DEHAL: Now may I take you to your statement, Annexure A. Before I begin, you were conscripted and trained as a South African Medica with the South African Medical Services within the ambit of the South African Defence Force, is that correct?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, it is.

MR DEHAL: You began ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Were you trained as a doctor?

MR CALLAGHAN: No, as a Paramedic equivalent in the Military. I had no medical experience prior to my conscription.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Sir.

MR CALLAGHAN: I was in Potchefstroom from January through March of 1982, in which time I received basic training, not medical, and from April through October of '83, of '82, I was in Pretoria where I received lectures, training at Voortrekkerhoogte, practical nursing training at 1 Military Hospital and trauma training at Katlehong and Tembisa Hospitals.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Sir.

You were seventeen years old when you conscripted, when you joined the SADF, correct?

MR CALLAGHAN: That's correct.

MR DEHAL: And you began your training at Potchefstroom, your training there was restricted to basics in military discipline.

MR CALLAGHAN: In Potchefstroom.

MR DEHAL: Yes. And thereafter you received six months training in Pretoria and this training consisted of lectures component dealing with, amongst other things, Pharmacology and Anatomy.

MR CALLAGHAN: That's correct.

MR DEHAL: This period also included practical nursing training at Military Hospital and practical trauma training at Tembisa and Katlehong Hospitals.

MR CALLAGHAN: That's correct.

MR DEHAL: The first incident that you have cited as an incident for which you seek amnesty, which is dealt with in Annexure A, on page 3, on the paragraph enumerated 12, is one associated with the crime of attempted murder and possibly murder as you say.

MR CALLAGHAN: That's correct.

MR DEHAL: Now before we begin to deal with this, is it correct that this incident marries in with your statement on page 8 of the bundle, in paragraph 7 thereof?

MR CALLAGHAN: That's correct.

MR DEHAL: Okay, can you tell this Committee please what happened on this incident.

MR CALLAGHAN:

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The Red Cross knew you were there and yet the officialdom of the Military refused to acknowledge it?

MR CALLAGHAN: That's correct. I can remember a television broadcast around that time, of Pik Botha saying that we were not in Angola. The reason that I seek amnesty is that I failed to disobey that order. I failed to do something that I should have done. I feel as I sit here today, that I should have done something. I'm not sure what I should have done, but I should have done something to help this woman who obviously would have died from her condition because she unable to receive ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What crime did you commit?

MR CALLAGHAN: The crime that I committed ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm talking about a crime, I'm not talking about moral crime.

MR CALLAGHAN: The crime that I committed was in failing to take the incident or the request further, I in a sense agreed with the base Commander and therefore it resulted in her death.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you agree with that?

MR CALLAGHAN: In my inaction I showed my agreement.

CHAIRPERSON: Now assuming that you did commit a crime by not taking the matter further and disobeying your authority, how did your inactiveness contribute in one way or the other to advancing the political agenda of anybody in South Africa?

MR CALLAGHAN: The Anjiva base was a forward staging Air Force facility for 32 Battalion activities in Southern Angola. The acknowledgement, I would guess, of those activities was being held as an open secret, I would guess is the best description, by the South African Government and by agreeing not to communicate this further was to enable that situation to continue.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Sir.

MR MALAN: Sorry, may I just ask on this point. You never saw this woman, according to your application, it was simply an enquiry by the Red Cross whether you could arrange for a woman diagnosed with breast cancer to be transported, I guess somewhere in South Africa, to attend to her?

MR CALLAGHAN: We're talking about 20 years ago, I seem to recall being approached by - while at the clinic outside the base, which is where the clinic was operating, I seem to recall being approached by an International Red Cross person with what would seem to have been the patient and requested whether arrangements could be made in the next couple of days for the transport of this person.

MR MALAN: Did they tell you that woman was the patient, or is it just a deduction that you're making?

MR CALLAGHAN: It's a deduction that I'm making through the veil of time.

MR MALAN: And the International Red Cross asked you - I just want to make sure about your evidence, asked you, you were approached personally, not the doctor that you worked with?

MR CALLAGHAN: We were approached as the two of us, as the two medical personnel at the base.

MR MALAN: And the International Red Cross asked you to transport an Angolan woman, diagnosed with breast cancer, somewhere to South Africa for treatment?

MR CALLAGHAN: Somewhere for treatment, yes, and it would seem that the obvious places to take that person would either have been to Namibia or to Angola, I mean or to South Africa.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.

Mr Callaghan, we then go to page 4 of Annexure A, this is the incident entitled:

and in regard to which the crime of murder, assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm is dealt with. Is it correct that this is an incident which is dealt with in Annexure A, sorry, in your annexure to the application for amnesty on page 10 of the bundle, in paragraph 3 of that page?

MR CALLAGHAN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Sorry, have you moved on now to the next incident, Mr Dehal?

MR DEHAL: Yes, indeed.

MR MALAN: Well may I just ask, or maybe we should leave that for argument, I'm not so sure that the evidence given in any way relates to an attempted murder, but I'll leave that to you for argument.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.

ADV SIGODI: Can I ask, does he know if this woman eventually died?

MR CALLAGHAN: I do not know whether this woman eventually died, however the request from International Red Cross to us would imply that she was serious and that they were unable to transport her for treatment and therefore failure to offer treatment or transport, would have resulted in her death, I am convinced.

ADV SIGODI: Did you intend for her to die? Was it your intention?

MR CALLAGHAN: It was not my intention for her to die, however in my inaction and in my passive agreement with my base Commander, I colluded towards that end.

CHAIRPERSON: At the time did you agree with your Commander, or did you just follow instructions?

MR CALLAGHAN: At the time I followed instruction.

CHAIRPERSON: So had it been within your power you would have assisted?

MR CALLAGHAN: I would have assisted had it been in my power.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Dehal?

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Sir.

Mr Callaghan, we move onto the next incident, if you go to page 4 on Annexure A, do you see that this is an incident that deals with the two SWAPO members, these are the two SWAPO insurgents that were captured, tortured, and prisoners were then murdered by members of the Koevoet team?

CHAIRPERSON: When did you join Koevoet?

MR CALLAGHAN: I was a South African Defence Force Medic at the Oshakati base and out of the Oshakati base I was sent to Anjiva for a couple of months and then came back to the Oshakati base. At the end of my first six months term at Oshakati, I was then seconded to Koevoet to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: When would that have been?

MR CALLAGHAN: That would have been in March/April of '83, and I remained there for a further six and a half months, until November '83.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR DEHAL: Thank you.

Mr Callaghan, just to recap, this incident is dealt with in the annexure to your application on page 10 of the bundle, in paragraph 3 from the top, is that correct?

MR CALLAGHAN: That's correct.

MR DEHAL: Would you please tell this Panel about this incident.

MR CALLAGHAN:

...(intervention)

MR DEHAL: Slowly please.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MR CALLAGHAN:

CHAIRPERSON: That was going to eventuate in any case, 'cause you couldn't, or your Commander couldn't then go back and say, "No, well these people weren't killed in action."

MR CALLAGHAN: Exactly, that was the ultimate end-game of the report of the beginning of the week.

CHAIRPERSON: So the report was just premature?

MR CALLAGHAN: Exactly. The report was made with the full intention of murdering those two.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you feel about that?

MR CALLAGHAN: At the time I was caught in the middle of a conflict in which I was participating, in which my death was weighed up against the death of others, and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean by that?

MR CALLAGHAN: In other words, going into battle the chances of me dying and the chances of the enemy dying were, somebody was going to die.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did the threat on your life come from?

MR CALLAGHAN: In this incident?

CHAIRPERSON: No, well, ja.

MR CALLAGHAN: Generally, the threat in my life came that I was on patrol with Koevoet and in fire-fights on a weekly basis.

CHAIRPERSON: So the threat on your life came from what you considered the enemy at the time?

MR CALLAGHAN: Exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: SWAPO insurgents.

MR CALLAGHAN: SWAPO insurgents, yes.

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Did you intend that these people be killed?

MR CALLAGHAN: No, I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you associate yourself with the intention to kill them?

MR CALLAGHAN: I associated myself with the team that did kill them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may have associated yourself with the team, but did you associate yourself with the team's intention to kill them eventually?

MR CALLAGHAN: I'm unclear how to answer, simply for this reason that I'm unclear on my own state at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't know whether you agreed with their intention to kill them or not?

MR CALLAGHAN: That's exactly what I'm saying, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well let me perhaps make it easier for you, did it matter to you, did you care at the time as to whether they died or not?

MR CALLAGHAN: Probably not, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Your moral attitude towards that is something that developed after their death?

MR CALLAGHAN: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Dehal?

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Sir.

MR MALAN: Just before you proceed, Mr Dehal. Chairperson, please.

In your statement, Annexure A, paragraph 15 you say that these people were tortured and then in line 4, paragraph 15, you say:

There's a different chronology.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, the correct sequence of events is they were captured, reported as killed, tortured and then killed.

MR MALAN: You see, why I find this difficult to understand is, who did they report killed in action? They simply said - they could at best have said "We killed two SWAPO members."

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, that's exactly what they said.

MR MALAN: So there was no need for them to kill these two people because they weren't identified? They could torture them and they could still turn them and they could have become askaris or anything.

MR CALLAGHAN: They could have, except that at the beginning of the week, I don't understand why, but at the beginning of the week they were reported as dead ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well I can tell you why, because the intention was to eventually kill them.

MR CALLAGHAN: That is the only reason. I understand Mr Malan's question in that I was housed while seconded to Koevoet, in the askari prisoner of war camp and so it would have been common practice to have brought them back to that camp and having turned them. I don't know why in this incident that did not happen, save to say that it didn't happen.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if they did it, how would they explain to the Commander that here we have two live insurgents who were killed in action?

MR CALLAGHAN: Exactly, I think the point is that they didn't need to be reported as dead, they could have been reported as captured, tortured and then turned. That would have been an option.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless those who made the decision wanted them dead by the end of the escapade.

MR CALLAGHAN: That is the only logical answer to the situation, yes.

MR MALAN: Do you know who these prisoners were? Were they high profile? Were they known?

MR CALLAGHAN: I have no idea who they were.

MR MALAN: I find it very strange that there, you know where it's common practice to capture people, as you've said, and hundreds of them, if not more ...

MR CALLAGHAN: This is the only incident in the six month period in which I served mostly with Zulu India and a few times with another Koevoet team, that this kind of incident happened, however other Medics who served with me in Koevoet, reported that this was common practice in some of the other teams as well. I could only guess that part of the rationale was why feed and pay askaris when they could quite simply be killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Now an important question as far as your perceptions are concerned. It is now admitted, it's always been common knowledge that South Africa had a military presence in that area, some of them, some of those units acted in the interest of the then South West Africa political parties. It has been argued also in some occasions that some units acted in the interests of some unidentified South African interest. The same can be said of Angola. You say you agreed with the decision that these people would be killed eventually or you didn't care whether they were killed or not at the time, can you perhaps tell us in whose interest that particular unit was acting on that occasion?

MR CALLAGHAN: I think two specific interests were at play within the scenario and in both cases the murder doesn't necessarily make sense. The capture and torture of these two prisoners led to the discovery of weapons caches and of other insurgents which was in the interests of both the South African Government and Military machinery of the day, in that those discoveries, that information led to the discovery of weapons which would have been used against South African Defence Force Units and led to the death of other SWAPO members which would have perpetrated incidents in the ongoing conflict with Defence Force units. However, Koevoet bounty policy obviously also came into play, in that those who captured or killed SWAPO members, got paid, equipment and weapons that were discovered had a price and so the more that a team as a unit within Koevoet could, the more people that they could kill, the more weaponry that they could capture, the more that they individually would get paid on a commission basis and so I have no doubt that both of those entities would have been at play in this scenario.

CHAIRPERSON: I want to put it to you this way, I put it to you, not to dispute what you say, I put it to you because of evidence that I've heard previously in respect of foreign countries, in particular Namibia, the then South West Africa and Angola. You have half confirmed this already. The South African Government denied their presence in those areas ...(intervention)

MR CALLAGHAN: Particularly within Angola, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ... yet it was an open secret that they were there. The South African units there, it seems to me, were not acting there in the interest of the South African Government, but really in South West Africa in the interest of, I think they call it Turnehalle Party, as against SWAPO and in Angola one would be hard pressed to deny that South Africa's interest sided with Savimbi and acted in the interests of Savimbi as opposed to South Africa's own interests then. Would you agree with that or not? And I'm putting it to you, not as a challenge, I'm putting it to you in order to obtain your perception of issues at the time.

MR CALLAGHAN: In terms of South West Africa, I have never heard of that political party, even to date. In terms of Angola I would now with my political analysis be able to agree with you and I think one would be hard pressed not to agree with you on the Namibian issue as well. However, in 1982 and 1983 when I was a seventeen year old white conscript who had no political education at all, I was there on the guise that I was protecting a country in the terms of South West Africa and South Africa, from a foreign threat. The fact that in 1989 those illusions were blown away by the Namibian elections, is something which I then began to grapple with and try to understand as I went on a political educational process in my own life.

CHAIRPERSON: So you thought at the time you were acting in the political interests of South Africa?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Now I want you to cast your mind back to that time as a seventeen year old white conscripted person, why did you think it was essential to fight for the rights of the South African position as it was then? I can probably guess the answer, but I need you to tell me that for the record.

MR CALLAGHAN: The propaganda machine of the day had so convinced white young conscripts that the communist threat was something that we needed to deal with. I had never heard of SWAPO, I'd never heard of the ANC before I went to the Army, I had heard of the communist threat as it were and so ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: "Die swart gevaar"?

MR CALLAGHAN: "Die swart gevaar", ja.

CHAIRPERSON: What was your home environment at the time, was it conducive to that belief?

MR CALLAGHAN: My home environment? I'm not sure my father would like me to describe him as this, but I describe him as a "securocrat". I'd describe him as someone who voted for security, not for political policy.

CHAIRPERSON: No, you don't have to be shy about that, many of our parents did that.

MR CALLAGHAN: And I went to a private school, I went to a school which was integrated racially, I was - my mother particularly, and myself were involved in trying to help people who were being dislocated and moved as a result of the Group Areas Act. I was involved in an organisation called Youth for Christ, which was a very integrated organisation and yet the church, the politics, the society in which I lived said that the "swart gevaar" and the communists was a major problem and I needed to become a man and sign up and go and fight for my country.

CHAIRPERSON: It's difficult to understand that today, but I accept that it did happen. There must be given credit for the success rate ...(indistinct)

MR CALLAGHAN: That's - the success of apartheid is that it kept us apart.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed, Mr Dehal.

MR MALAN: Sorry again, Chairperson.

Just before we step away from this incident, you said that, explaining why these people were announced killed immediately, could be ascribed to the bounty policy if I understood you correctly, so that people could collect the money.

MR CALLAGHAN: No, the bounty policy was dead or alive. I do not understand why they were pronounced dead, other than there was intent to kill them eventually. There would have been no monetary difference in pronouncing them dead or alive, the only place where monetary difference would have come in is whether they were tortured or not tortured and therefore subsequently gave up information which would have resulted in the capture of ...

MR MALAN: So the bounty would have been the same whether they were captured or killed?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

MR MALAN: Do you know who collected the bounty? You were in a unit?

MR CALLAGHAN: As I understood it in speaking with John Deegan many, many years later, who was the Deputy Unit Commander at the time, I specifically said to him "Well I don't know who got the bounty, I certainly didn't get any of it", and he said to me "Who do you think paid for those braais that we had?" And I guess at the end of the day that it was divided amongst the team in a way that 'let us enjoy this and let us enjoy that.'

MR MALAN: Did you ever get bounty?

MR CALLAGHAN: I never got cash, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Well even if it was by meat, did you know it was part of the bounty then?

MR CALLAGHAN: I did not know until 1997.

MR MALAN: And on how many of these excursions did you go out with the teams? Approximately.

MR CALLAGHAN: I was in Koevoet for six months, which would have resulted in probably twelve excursions, in other words two a month, one every - one week in base, one week on patrol.

MR MALAN: And your duties on patrol?

MR CALLAGHAN: My duties on patrol, my primary duty was as a Medic and so I took all of the medical equipment with me, but as Medics within the South African Defence Force and Medics within the SAP/Koevoet scenario, one carried a weapon and one was part of the fighting force and in fact one of the incidents for which I withdrew on refers to me actually participating actively in conflict in terms of firing my weapon and so on.

MR MALAN: So if I understand you correctly for all practical purposes you were a regular member of a patrol, but you had the equipment available when needed?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

MR MALAN: Did you often have to use it?

MR CALLAGHAN: The medial equipment? No, surprisingly not, but then maybe that wasn't surprising, certainly not within the Koevoet context, no.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Sir.

Mr Callaghan, may I take you to the next incident which is dealt with on the same page, page 4 of Annexure A, dealt with in paragraph 16. Will you deal with the Medical Sector Hearings, your testimony before them and the execution of one of your patients by Mr John Deegan. Do you see that?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

MR DEHAL: Here the crime is murder and this is dealt with on page 10 of your annexure to your application for amnesty in the bundle and on page 10 it is contained within paragraph 5, is that correct?

MR CALLAGHAN: That's correct.

MR DEHAL: Now just before we get on with this, may I just ask you, is it not correct that your instructions to me, to us ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What page did you say it was referred to in the bundle?

MR DEHAL: Page 10, paragraph 5, Sir. It's that lengthy paragraph at the bottom.

MR MALAN: Paragraph 6 it is.

MR DEHAL: Sorry, it's the paragraph 5 that starts with the words:

MR MALAN: My apology.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes go ahead.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.

Mr Callaghan, is it not correct that your instructions to us is that in most of these incidents, in fact in all of them for which you seek amnesty, you at the time fell within the purview of this conscripted force, made common purpose with those people that perpetrated the crimes inasmuch as you personally did not perpetrate them and in retrospect now, see that you acted wrongly and you want to distance yourself from it, and also believe that you ought at the time to have done something to have prevented it? Am I correct?

MR CALLAGHAN: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: Now dealing with this particular incident, John Deegan is a man that you've already referred to, correct?

MR CALLAGHAN: That's correct.

MR DEHAL: He is the man whom the Evidence Leader said is in custody, but we've endeavoured to trace him in vain?

MR CALLAGHAN: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: You've recently established I understand, in discussions indirectly with his wife, that's Mrs Deegan, that he's in fact no longer in custody, but you still cannot trace him, correct?

MR CALLAGHAN: That would seem to be correct, yes.

MR DEHAL: Okay. Now can you tell this Committee about this incident, but before you proceed - sorry Mr Chairperson, may I hand over to my assistant, I just want to answer nature's call, it will take me two seconds, so we don't have to adjourn. Thanks.

MR CALLAGHAN: Do I need to unpack the incident for this Committee?

CHAIRPERSON: First tell me, you people discovered a SWAPO Commissar, was he injured already when you discovered him or not?

MR CALLAGHAN: We picked up the spoor of a SWAPO insurgent ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: As a unit?

MR CALLAGHAN: As a unit. ... probably two days before this incident that I'm specifically speaking about.

CHAIRPERSON: When would this have happened, during the same period?

MR CALLAGHAN: During the same period, ja, not necessarily on the same week, but during the same period working with Zulu India. There was - in fact near the end of that period, so it would have been probably October of '83.

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: A doctor?

MR CALLAGHAN: No, he's not a doctor, he was a Koevoet/SAP Special Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja but he wasn't a doctor though?

MR CALLAGHAN: No, he was a Special Branch policeman.

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, do you know whether Eugene de Kock was with you at the time?

MR CALLAGHAN: My understanding is that Eugene de Kock left Koevoet a month after I arrived and was with a different team, he was not with Zulu India.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I seem to remember somebody testifying before me on this very incident, while the medical people were treating an injured insurgent, this person was just shot, I think in the head.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, John Deegan did testify before the Human Rights Violations Committee, I think the Conscript Hearings. I'm actually not sure which hearing, but he did testify and I in fact have testified to this incident before the Medical Sector Hearings as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay.

Again my application for amnesty goes to the act of omission in that I did not stop John from interfering with my patient, I did not prevent the execution and I failed to report this incident to anybody when I got back to base.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you report it?

MR CALLAGHAN: Because the only person I would have had to report it to was Hans Dreyer, and that would have been pointless.

CHAIRPERSON: So there's no political reason for you not reporting it?

MR CALLAGHAN: There is no political reason other than it seemed futile at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MALAN: Sorry, may I just ask here, just to understand this again. Did you not approve of the shooting? Did you tell him he was doing a thing that was wrong?

MR CALLAGHAN: At the time I did nothing other than try and make the fastest plan to get back to South Africa, and in fact got on an aeroplane two or three weeks later and faked sickness, so as not to go on patrol during the weeks that followed.

MR MALAN: Was that towards the end of your period of service?

MR CALLAGHAN: That was towards the end of my period, yes.

MR MALAN: Yes, but the question really relates to your understanding of that incident there, you've seen a lot of killings by then, here Deegan shot this person, did you not accept that in the course of what your experience was? Or did you suffer, did you want to report it and agonise and said, 'but there's no-one I can report it to'? What was your state of mind?

MR CALLAGHAN: My state of mind was, 'this is just another day on the job.'

MR MALAN: Yes, and you accepted what happened? You had no intention or need to report it? I accept that it might have been or would have been pointless, but I'm not sure ...(intervention)

MR CALLAGHAN: Ja, at the time I felt, I - let me put it in this context, in the months that followed when I came home, this was the thing that was the nightmare for me, this was the recurring dream, this was the face that I saw day after day in my dreams. In speaking with John Deegan in 1997, this is the incident that has haunted him for fifteen years, and for me ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you believe him?

MR CALLAGHAN: I do believe him, because I spent a good few days with him in '97, at the request of his sister because of her knowledge of my dealing with post-traumatic stress and her knowledge of his very obvious post-traumatic stress.

CHAIRPERSON: You see I think you must try to understand the question, we need to find out what your state of mind was then, this is a very subjective inquiry and I put you into the category of a seventeen year old white influenced by the "swart gevaar" theory etcetera. I think all of us appreciate the trauma and the moral situation you find yourself in subsequently, but it's important for us to examine your position as at the time of these offences.

MR CALLAGHAN: I think at the time I was disturbed by the incident, but saw in the light of my answer to Mr Malan, that is was purely another day on the job.

CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't care really whether he died or not, it was part of the scenario?

MR CALLAGHAN: I did care for a day or two, because it was my patient that had died. Not I didn't care - my caring was because he was my patient, not because he was a human being.

CHAIRPERSON: In fact he was still the enemy?

MR CALLAGHAN: Exactly.

ADV SIGODI: Tell me, did you know that John Deegan was going to shoot this person?

MR CALLAGHAN: No, I did not know that.

ADV SIGODI: So what in your mind, what do you think you could have done to prevent him from shooting the person, because you - what could you have done to prevent him from shooting this person?

MR CALLAGHAN: As a Medic who is very often out-ranked by Commanding Officers, one is able to still have influence over what happens, purely because as a Medic you can say 'no, this is a patient, no,' you know. One can in a sense challenge authority on the basis of 'because of medical reasons you can't', and I have been known to do that in the SADF prior to this incident. The direct result of his interrogation was his murder. The fact that I did not challenge John on his interrogation of a very obviously injured person, for me constitutes a violation in the sense that I did nothing. What I could have done that would have been effective, is debateable, but ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Did you see him bringing the gun?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, I did, I saw him. He had a pistol in his hand, a 9mm, and was interrogating the patient while wielding that weapon and beating the patient etcetera, pointing it against his head, screaming and shouting at him. All this time I was bandaging and putting in drips and trying desperately to keep this person alive.

ADV SIGODI: But did you think he was going to shoot?

MR CALLAGHAN: I was shocked by him shooting.

ADV SIGODI: He didn't expect him to shoot?

MR CALLAGHAN: I didn't expect him to shoot him, no.

MR MALAN: May I just ask you a few more questions on this incident. In your statement on page 10, which is the annexure to your application, you there say that:

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

MR MALAN: So you knew that was the purpose of the interrogation, at the time?

MR CALLAGHAN: At the time I knew that the purpose of the interrogation was to find the handgun.

MR MALAN: And that he wanted it for his private collection?

MR CALLAGHAN: Subsequently I came to understand that that was why it was so important to him.

MR MALAN: Now why would that have been so important and why did you only learn of it subsequently? You see you didn't say that to us in the beginning when you made this statement.

MR CALLAGHAN: I did actually in this statement here mention that the interrogation was to find the handgun.

MR MALAN: Yes, you said in this statement too that it was for John's private collection.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes. People like Koevoet Commanders go home from war with prizes and collections and I don't think that John was any different to those people.

MR MALAN: Did you take any handguns for your private collection?

MR CALLAGHAN: No, I did not.

MR MALAN: So why would John have not been different, but you were?

MR CALLAGHAN: Because I was not a true blood-bred Koevoet member, I was a Medic who was on secondment to the unit. John had been a Security policeman in South Africa and South West Africa and in Koevoet for a number of years by the time I got to meet him.

MR MALAN: Now also in the bundle on page 27, it's preceded really, page 25, 26, 27, but specifically on page 27 Deegan relates this incident.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

MR MALAN: And he says nothing about a private collection, but he wanted to find the gun and he also wanted to know where the rendezvous point was and he also states that he brought a guy named Congo, who was captured, and Congo was present during the interrogation. Can you remember Congo being present?

MR CALLAGHAN: I haven't read John's statement, but my assumption would be that Congo was an askari.

MR MALAN: I'm not asking you your assumptions, I'm saying to you that he says:

MR CALLAGHAN: Okay, no then I've ...

MR MALAN:

but this is his companion, they'd been travelling together when they were captured. Sorry, I said now the captured guy was Congo, the deceased guy was Congo, but his companion was present, according to Deegan’s relating this incident, when he shot him.

MR CALLAGHAN: I do not specifically remember the scenario in which - if I can paint the picture, over here is - we are in the middle of a kraal, over here is a hut that has been completely driven over by a Casspir, a Casspir parked on top of it, behind me and around me are Koevoet members, over there are other Casspirs, I'm kneeling on the floor next to a SWAPO patient and John is standing around me interrogating him. That's what I remember.

MR MALAN: Okay. Now he says nothing about needing this pistol for any private collection.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, he doesn't say anything, that is my perception or my understanding should I say, at the time of making this statement, which was made in December '96, which was fourteen years after this incident took place.

MR MALAN: Yes, but you just told us that you had long discussions with Deegan, I mean you were both - or was that ...

MR CALLAGHAN: I had long discussions with ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: With his sister?

MR CALLAGHAN: I had long discussions with Deegan in 1997 when I was called the Medical Sector Hearings, which was prior to him making this statement.

MR MALAN: Okay. And I also see that the TRC report, the Research guys who wrote and quoted from your application on page 74, just show three dots and they leave out the reference to "(for his private collection)". Now that's really important, it goes to the heart of it, whether you assist, stand by where a man was doing a killing which was not politically related, or whether it was indeed to do with politics, and according to your statement as it reads, the interrogation was not whatsoever related to any political objective, it was simply to have a memento.

MR CALLAGHAN: I would hesitate to agree with you, but tend to agree with you at the same time in the sense that the heart of the interrogation around which John seemed to become most angered was the issue of the handgun.

MR MALAN: Which he wanted for his private collection.

MR CALLAGHAN: As I understand it, which he wanted for his private collection. As he testifies, there was no private collection. I have never seen a private collection, I am only aware of a perception of mine which I hold in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the important thing is, when did you become aware of the possibility of the existence of this private collection?

MR CALLAGHAN: Certainly not at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: So your impression at the time was that he was trying to find out where this handgun was because as you perceived it, it formed a threat the security of South Africa?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, and it also meant money from the bounty policy.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.

Mr Callaghan, you talked at some length about your post-traumatic stress syndrome and Mr Deegan’s suffering in the same light ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Are you still on the third ...?

MR DEHAL: Yes. Thank you, Sir.

Is it correct that this incident, the shooting of this person by Mr John Deegan ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, unless you really enjoying this you can come back at 2 o'clock.

MR VISSER: Thank you. May we accept that we're excused until 2 o'clock then?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) we take a rain check for 2 o'clock, I don't know when this is going to end.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR DEHAL: May I proceed, Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.

Is it correct that one of the incidents that really contributed to your post-traumatic stress syndrome for which you were treated, is this incident of John Deegan having shot this person in front of you?

MR CALLAGHAN: That is correct.

MR DEHAL: And do I take it that you have knowledge that John Deegan, in suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, had actually suffered so as a result of this incident as well?

MR CALLAGHAN: He refers to such in his statement as far as I read his statement.

MR DEHAL: Thank you. May I take you to the next incident which begins at the bottom of page 4 and continues onto page 5 of Annexure A. This is the incident which deals with boiling water having been thrown over a person who was interrogated, a patient of yours, causing him burns to his chest and genitals. You recall that incident?

CHAIRPERSON: What incident is this, what page?

MR DEHAL: Sorry, Judge, it's on page 4, right at the bottom of Annexure A, paragraph 17, going onto page 5.

MR CALLAGHAN: This incident I refer to in my original statement and application for amnesty on page 10, paragraph 6.

MR DEHAL: Yes, and this is an incident in regard to which the crime is attempted murder, assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and you say possibly murder because this person may well have died thereafter, but you don't know that, correct?

MR CALLAGHAN: That's correct.

MR DEHAL: Can you please tell this Panel about your role-play in this matter.

MR CALLAGHAN:

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He was not a member of ...(intervention)

MR CALLAGHAN: He was not a member of SWAPO, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He was an ordinary civilian?

MR CALLAGHAN: An ordinary civilian, yes, who at the time had been suspected of being a collaborator and which at the end of interrogation it was deemed by Koevoet members that he had no connections at all.

MR DEHAL: And you say in page 10 of your annexure to the application that is was later discovered that he had no SWAPO connects at all, is that correct?

MR CALLAGHAN: That's correct, yes.

MR DEHAL: Thank you. Carry on.

MR CALLAGHAN:

CHAIRPERSON: What kind of people would do that?

MR CALLAGHAN: I don't know, but I think as I understood it, and this is my analysis of the scenario, Koevoet Commanders were Special Branch policemen who had messed up so badly in South Africa that they had to be removed from this society to where they could do anything that they wouldn't have to give an account for.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why I ask this question, it may be an awkward question, but the frequency of such evidence troubles me. Even when I used to practice in these so-called security cases, the genitals were always a target of the police, was there any medical reason for it, or is it because it's sensitive, most likely to hurt or what?

MR CALLAGHAN: My medical knowledge is purely how to save somebody from being shot, so that you can keep them alive for a few hours until a doctor can get to them.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but there hasn't been a single doctor who's answered that question satisfactorily.

MR CALLAGHAN: The only guess that I could make is that not only does it go to the issue of sensitivity, but it also goes to the issue of humanisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, or perversion.

MR CALLAGHAN: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

MR CALLAGHAN:

"I was told to attend to this patient without telling anyone. I didn't know what to do, I was not qualified to attend to thispatient. I went to the Oshakati ..."

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR CALLAGHAN: I do not recall how I knew that information.

CHAIRPERSON: You say he was blistered on his chest and in his pelvic area?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes. I mean the details are very sketchy, but I seem to remember not only blistering, but raw flesh and broken blisters and so on. I think particularly on a black body, when that kind of blistering happens you can see the pink flesh coming through underneath and that's the recollection that I have.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you report it?

MR CALLAGHAN: Again it's for the very same reason that I answered earlier, it would have been futile to report it, to report this incident to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, but had you been able to report, would you have? You see what I must investigate is, was there any political reason why you did not report it? Did you do it for any political reason, or did you do it just because of sound reasoning that it would be futile to make the report because the person or persons to whom such a report would be made, would not do anything about it and possibly get you into trouble?

MR CALLAGHAN: At the time I did not consider reporting it and so as I look back on these incidents, the fact that I didn't do that constitutes an omission, that I actually should have done something.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you report it then?

MR CALLAGHAN: I didn't report it then because it was half of the ...(indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know that if - you protected that information in the interests of the political agenda of those who committed it.

MR CALLAGHAN: I don't think that I had the political suss to have put it in that many words back then, but yes, in essence that's what I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja.

MR MALAN: Mr Callaghan let me just get a picture in my mind, you were at base, at that stage you were one week out on patrol, one week back.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

MR MALAN: So while at base, I take it it's the week that you're off.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

MR MALAN: You're being approached by members of another patrol, not your own I assume, which was with the request to attend to this patient or this detainee who was being detained in one of the cells at base camp.

MR CALLAGHAN: That's correct, yes.

MR MALAN: It's not a hospital facility, you're simply brought to the cells, shown the patient and they say "Please attend to him, he's got these wounds. Don't tell anyone about it."

MR CALLAGHAN: That's correct, yes.

MR MALAN: Then you go to the hospital which is not part of the cells or that base there, you go to the Oshakati Hospital, you get a Military doctor, I assume you bring him out to the cells to have a look at this patient, is that how it happened?

MR CALLAGHAN: That is how it happened, except when I approached the Military doctor ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: You asked him too, "Please don't tell anyone, this is a secret."

MR CALLAGHAN: Ja.

MR MALAN: I understand that. Now how did you get him into the cells if this was to be secret and no-one else was to know about it? Did you have access to the cells, did you have a key to the cell?

MR CALLAGHAN: I had said to the people who had brought me into the cells, "I cannot deal with this, I will go and get somebody who can."

MR MALAN: So this wasn't so secretly done, it was openly done then. Then you did not ask the doctor to keep it a secret, then you must have told the people who asked you, "I'm bringing the doctor in, this is no secret anymore."

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, I did ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: It's an open secret. You had their permission to bring in the doctor.

MR CALLAGHAN: That's correct, yes.

MR MALAN: You told them, "I can't attend to this."

MR CALLAGHAN: I told them that I can't attend to it, not because ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: "I don't have the training and the skills."

MR CALLAGHAN: That's why I told them I can't attend to it, not because I was opposed to attending to it.

MR MALAN: Yes, yes. Now why did you in both your statement and your evidence here, tell us this was very secretly done? Why did you not tell us?

MR CALLAGHAN: It was secretly done in the sense that I never went to the hospital and filled in a 'please can you attend to this patient', I went there and said to a doctor who - I went to one of the Medics and said, "I need to see a doctor who is going to be friendly to me, who is going to talk to me." Doctors rotated in and out on a three months basis, Medics were there for twelve months, and said, "I need to get somebody to help me on something, a friendly doctor who was prepared to talk to me off the record and say, 'Okay I will try and do something for you.'"

MR MALAN: I just want to make sure, I understood you to be saying that you brought this doctor to the cell to attend to this patient.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, I did, yes.

MR MALAN: The patient wasn't taken to hospital?

MR CALLAGHAN: No.

MR MALAN: Is that what you mean by "secretly treating him"? Not to register him as a patient in hospital?

MR CALLAGHAN: Not to register him as a patient because if we had registered him as a patient, we would have to declare how he got into the state that he was.

MR MALAN: Now did you go to this doctor without consulting with those who asked you to attend to this patient?

MR CALLAGHAN: I cannot recall, but my personality probably would have gone, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: To tell them that you're going to get somebody else?

MR CALLAGHAN: No, my personality probably would have gone to the doctor first and then told them that I was dealing with the problem, and here was the solution.

MR MALAN: And you never heard about this patient again?

MR CALLAGHAN: Never did.

MR MALAN: You never asked the doctor?

MR CALLAGHAN: No, I didn't know the doctor personally, it was pure ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: As a Medic, did you have no interest in getting to learn how to treat such wounds?

MR CALLAGHAN: As a Medic I had previously treated much more severely burnt people in the hospital and besides the fact that I had had many nightmares about, while I was there, about that treatment and about those people, I had very little interest. In a sense I wanted the problem to go away.

MR MALAN: Well I'm not so sure that I understand this now, did you not treat him - you see, in your supplementary statement you say you did not treat him because you were not qualified enough medically to do anything.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

MR MALAN: Now you're telling us previously you've treated more severe burns.

MR CALLAGHAN: Let me put the context. While working in the Oshakati Hospital, a casualty evacuation situation happened where ten South African troops had been in a landmine explosion and had been poured with - the explosion had blown diesel onto them and they'd all been burnt. These injured were flown in, the dead were flown in the following day, those burnt to a crisp were flown in the following day, those that were injured were flown in and the four or five doctors plus the six or ten Medics that were at the hospital, were then dealing with these patients. I was working with one patient specifically and a doctor was floating amongst a couple of those patients. The treatment which I gave him on that night as he few in, was to put up a drip to give him morphine and valium injections on instructions from the doctor and to dress his wounds for subsequent treatment, both at Oshakati and then that night those guys were flown back to South Africa and were treated. All of them subsequently died.

The treatment which I gave in those scenarios was purely a dealing with the problem right now to keep this guy alive for the next hour or two while a doctor can attend to him. Certainly I was not at all qualified to deal with the healing of a patient, I was trained in dealing with the trauma of an incident, not in the healing of a patient.

MR MALAN: Then just finally on this, to understand the full picture, Mr Dehal when he summarised it, my note is saying that on this incident you're applying for attempted murder.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, I ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Now you have no involvement in the assault whatsoever, if I understand you correctly, I just want to make sure, and if you committed any crime, it was simply the

non-reporting of the assault, because you went to all decent lengths to get a doctor out to attend to this person, is that correct?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, the specifics for which I would like to apply for amnesty is for not taking responsibility to report the incident.

MR MALAN: Yes.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

MR MALAN: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr Dehal.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Sir.

Mr Callaghan, I now take you to Annexure A, paragraph 20, which is at the bottom of page 5. This is an incident where you deal generally with:

You say that these - sorry:

You say that you seek amnesty for your role, both passive and active in this case, as an SANDF conscript in implementing and defending the policy of apartheid and for the role you played, both in maintaining the illegal occupation of Namibia and waging war against the sovereign State of Angola.

Here of course you've identified the crime as murder and attempted murder and assault, is that correct?

MR CALLAGHAN: Can I give you a long answer?

CHAIRPERSON: You can answer the way feel it appropriate.

MR DEHAL: Yes.

MR CALLAGHAN: Can I speak to 20 and 21 collectively?

MR MALAN: May I just enquire from Mr Dehal, why did you skip 18 and 19?

MR DEHAL: Sorry Sir, we had deleted them earlier.

MR MALAN: Oh, you deleted them. Are they deleted?

MR DEHAL: Yes.

MR MALAN: Is there - alright, I'll ask that question later, but maybe I should ask them now, I think they're appropriate because they are in the application. Why do you withdraw that?

MR CALLAGHAN: I withdraw 18, 19 ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No, I'm just asking about 18 and 19, because as I read them ...(intervention)

MR CALLAGHAN: ... and others, purely because I, following your questions at the beginning of this session, was unable to pin a specific crime for which one could be prosecuted to the issue and these were more speaking to issues of intimidation and so on, which are not necessarily prosecutable crimes. I would love to apply for amnesty for them, but I have been led to believe that this Committee would not hear those applications.

CHAIRPERSON: Who told you that?

MR CALLAGHAN: That was the impression that I got at the beginning of the process, from the challenge from the Panel.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I must certainly say that whatever impression you got, that is certainly not the message we wanted to convey. I would not discourage any application. From the short explanation here, it does not look like that incident is without merit consideration. I'm willing to reinstate it if you want to.

MR CALLAGHAN: I would like to reinstate both 18 and 19.

CHAIRPERSON: You can deal with it and we can decide on it as we need to.

MR MALAN: You're very extensively with, or much more extensively with both these in your original application and in your statement.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, I ...

MR MALAN: In fact, these were the most direct involvement cases of yourself, according to your application. All the others relate to your omissions, where other people committed crimes, here you were directly involved of your own volition, on both of them, according to the information and this is withdrawn. I'm happy that the Chair has ruled for this then to be reinstated, because personally I think this is important in your application.

MR CALLAGHAN: I am also happy. Shall we deal with point 18?

MR DEHAL: Yes, perhaps you can begin by dealing with 18 and we will come back to paragraphs 20 and 21.

MR CALLAGHAN:

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I thought it was only in Port Elizabeth where the kids could throw a petrol bomb ...

MR CALLAGHAN:

CHAIRPERSON: How would that have helped the political situation? Did you just not do that out of anger?

MR CALLAGHAN: I just did that out of anger, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't intended to be a political act?

MR CALLAGHAN: It wasn't a political statement, no.

CHAIRPERSON: But you see prior to that, you say you tried to shoot people but your firearm jammed.

MR CALLAGHAN: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Those I assume were directed at people who were running away, alive?

MR CALLAGHAN: In essence, yes, however in most skirmish situations very little of actual aiming took place and generally one would just fire at whatever.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I accept that, but inasmuch as it may miss, because you didn't take aim, there's a good chance it could hit the target as well.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: All I'm saying, in that skirmish which is undoubtedly a political activity, you committed this crime of attempting to kill somebody.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, I did, except that as I read the Act, if those people were active combatants of an enemy force, that does not constitute something for which I can apply for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not? How do you understand the Act?

MR CALLAGHAN: The way I understand the Act is, if one is on the battlefield and two Armies are shooting at each other, then those shots are not counted, but civilians that are - in other words, normal military campaigning is not included. That's the way I understood it, if I'm wrong ...

CHAIRPERSON: Well and good.

MR CALLAGHAN: Well and good.

CHAIRPERSON: I'll certainly look at that interpretation. I have reservations about the interpretation, but I'll look at it. I haven't come across that interpretation before.

MR CALLAGHAN: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: But I'll make a note and for your sake I hope you're wrong.

MR MALAN: Mr Callaghan, just again for the record here, in your original statement it's clear that you were attacked and this was a real conflict situation.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, it ...

MR MALAN: Mutual confrontation.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, it was a mutual confrontation, yes.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR DEHAL: Thank you. And just for the record Mr Callaghan, I omitted to deal with this, on this aspect alone, on this incident for which you seek amnesty you've actually dealt with it in your original statement annexed to the application for amnesty on page 9, the last paragraph and page 10 it continues onto the first paragraph, is that correct?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

MR DEHAL: Okay, that takes me to the next incident which has been reinstated, paragraph 19 on Annexure A. This is the incident where it deals with SWAPO corpses attached, tied up to bumpers and mudguards of Casspirs and driven around as an intimidatory tactic. Is it correct that this incident is dealt with on page 10 of Annexure A to your application, in paragraph 4 thereof?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Dehal, ...(indistinct)

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Judge. Sorry, we're dealing with - well firstly, we've set out that the incident that he was seeking amnesty for, relating to having shot the dead body is dealt with in the Annexure to the application for amnesty on ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I can tell you now you needn't even argue it, I'm not going to grant him, or we're not going to grant him amnesty for shooting a dead body, because he shot that dead body out of anger. We're prepared to consider amnesty perhaps with the incident of shooting towards other people, which may or may not end up in amnesty, but at least we can consider that.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Sir. Judge, we then got onto the next incident which deals with the incident where bodies were attached to bumpers and mudguards of Casspirs and driven around as an intimidatory tactic. This was withdrawn and now reinstated. Just for the record, this is dealt with on page 10 in paragraph 4 of that page, of the annexure to the original application in the original bundle, page 10.

Now Mr Callaghan, here again you say that the attachment of these bodies was firstly on the premise that they were all dead and secondly, purely as an intimidatory tactic, is that correct?

MR CALLAGHAN: All of the bodies were dead, they were lashed to the bumpers and mudguards for three primary reasons: (1) was intimidation, (2) was to collect on the bounty and (3) was in order to compile a picture of where they fitted into the SWAPO operation. In other words, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What is the attaching of dead bodies to bumpers got to do with compiling a picture?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes. Let me put it this way, these bodies needed to be transported back to base in order for identification by askaris to be made and to build up a composite of 'this is where they fitted into the mix'. Certainly that's information which I came to understand in discussions with John Deegan much later, I certainly did know that they needed to be taken back to base because that was the way that the process worked.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, now I just want to clear up something. When you testify here before us we need to know why you did something, not why things were done.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You mention here also:

Now earlier you said the question of bounty only got to your knowledge sometime later after you left the area, and that's why I say we need to know why you did certain things as opposed to why they were done at the time they were done.

MR CALLAGHAN: I was aware of the bounty policy while I was there, I was not aware of my enjoyment of the proceeds of that policy while I was there.

CHAIRPERSON: Now we want to know why you participated.

MR CALLAGHAN: I participated in this practice simply because I was a member of that team and that's what we did.

CHAIRPERSON: To intimidate people and to compile this picture?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, to transport bodies back to camp, to ... The area in which one operated was one of, at times, quite thick bush and thorn trees, the tying of a body which would in 40+ degrees, heat-bloat in the sun and be ripped at by thorns, was a very intimidating factor on the local population, to have something like drive up to your house and say 'Tell me where somebody is otherwise this is going to happen to you.' The fact that I never used it as an intimidation factor, in that I never went to somebody's house to say "Tell me", but I was there, I was part of it and I was helping to do that, for me constitutes something for which I need to be forgiven.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dehal, do you agree that if at all amnesty would be granted in this issue, it could only be in respect of mutilation of dead bodies?

MR DEHAL: Absolutely, no further. Thank you.

MR MALAN: May I just follow up on this? How often did this happen, was this regular on every patrol?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

MR MALAN: So you brought back numerous bodies?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

MR MALAN: How many people do you assess or estimate were killed whilst you were on such patrols, in total over the period that you were there, the six months period?

MR CALLAGHAN: During the six months period as I said, I spent one week in camp, one week in the bush and so that would have translated into twelve such excursions, of which at least once a week there would have been a contact which would have resulted in death and at least two or three people would have died in each one of those cases. So let's round the numbers at twenty-five to thirty people.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you do now?

MR CALLAGHAN: I do two things, I work for Accord, which is The Centre for Conflict Resolution in Durban, and I pastor a church.

CHAIRPERSON: I see you were born in Port Elizabeth.

MR CALLAGHAN: I was, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you leave Port Elizabeth?

MR CALLAGHAN: I studied there after this, at university and I left after university.

CHAIRPERSON: University of?

MR CALLAGHAN: Of Port Elizabeth, ja.

CHAIRPERSON: When was that? Were you born and then you left Port Elizabeth after your studies?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes. I was born, I lived there until I went to the Army, came back there, studied for a further four years and then left in 1988.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got family there?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, I do.

ADV SIGODI: Tell me, when you were doing this thing, driving around with these dead bodies, would you do this in broad daylight?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, those bodies would very often stay attached to the Casspir for three or four days.

ADV SIGODI: And would you drive into the towns and which town particularly?

MR CALLAGHAN: We would continue on patrol in Northern Namibia, from house to house, area to area ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: In the rural area?

MR CALLAGHAN: In the rural areas. ... until we got back to a base either an SADF base, where these bodies could be unloaded and transported back to Oshakati or back to Oshakati itself and there we would have driven into the town in that case.

ADV SIGODI: So you wouldn't drive into Oshakati, the town itself, with the bodies, you'd drive only into the rural areas?

MR CALLAGHAN: No, at times we would drive to Oshakati town itself as well, yes. Well, Oshakati town was essentially divided into two areas, for want of a better description, the township area and the military base which had the white town encamped within it. Ultimately these bodies were destined for the Koevoet base which was within the white town. So that's where they would end up, either we would transport them there or they would be transported there by others if we had dropped them at another base in the rural area.

MR MALAN: And just a last question. In response to my question I heard you say that there were the twelve excursions week on, week off over the six months period, you had at least one contact or skirmish per excursion, at least two or three people per skirmish killed and therefore you get to the minimum number of twenty-five to thirty people.

MR CALLAGHAN: Ja.

MR MALAN: But it could have been many more, if you had more skirmishes?

MR CALLAGHAN: It could have been many more. I think that I was never involved in one of the bigger skirmishes that Koevoet were involved in, certainly a friend of mine who had come as a Medic with me to Koevoet, and within the first week that he was on patrol, he was involved in an ambush where thirty/forty people were killed and many of his men as well and he left the operational area that very same week, on an aeroplane destined for Pretoria for treatment, not because he was injured but because psychologically he could not continue.

MR MALAN: And again if I understood you correctly, you were part of these units, patrols going out?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, I was.

MR MALAN: You were a Medic in addition to being an ordinary member. So you participated in the skirmishes?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes and no. The way that Koevoet teams operated was that usually four Casspirs would go on patrol, which constituted in the order of fifty men, those fifty men, most of them were Namibian askari operatives who were very good trackers and would run on a spoor and the four Casspirs would drive around them. I'm not a very good runner, I sat in the Casspir most of the time.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR CALLAGHAN: A skirmish would usually take place when those runners, those trackers would encounter fire and they would open fire and the Casspirs would fan out and fire into the context. Mostly with the cannons that were mounted on the front and on the top, because that was obviously the easiest way to ... And so the Casspirs became the fortress into which one would escape and so very often I was not involved in the actual fire-fight itself, I was hiding behind steel hoping that it will all end soon.

MR MALAN: So the bounty was usually collected by the askaris, the trackers?

MR CALLAGHAN: The bounty was collected by the team, it was a team effort, not a personal effort.

MR MALAN: Never personal payment?

MR CALLAGHAN: Not as far as I know.

MR MALAN: That's contrary to all the evidence that we've had.

MR CALLAGHAN: Not as far as I knew, but then again I was never given payment because I was never the one to ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No but if you didn't kill anyone you would not have, as an individual been entitled.

MR CALLAGHAN: Exactly.

MR MALAN: But if you say bounty was paid to the team, then why did you not get some of that? Or did you think that's all going into the braai?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, I mean I've - my specific conversation with John in 1997, was "Well I certainly didn't benefit from the bounty" and his answer was ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: "Who paid for the braais?"

MR CALLAGHAN: Who paid for the braais?" That's the only evidence I have. Certainly the braai couldn't have cost R30 000, which is how many people we're talking about ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: What was the bounty per head?

MR CALLAGHAN: My understanding of per head was R1 000 per head, whereas mortars were more expensive, landmines were slightly less expensive, etcetera.

MR MALAN: You say on page 10 that the bounty ... (intervention)

MR CALLAGHAN: R2 000?

MR MALAN: R2 000.

MR CALLAGHAN: It was along time ago and I never received any. In my conversations with John subsequently - certainly if we're trying to put a price on somebody's head, they were worth a small amount of money, they certainly weren't worth tens of thousands of rands.

MR MALAN: Let me just get clarity on this, I mean you now said R1 000, here you say R2 000, how much of this is a construction and how much of it relates really to fact? Is it coming out of the memory which you tried to relate to us flowing from your discussions with John?

MR CALLAGHAN: No.

MR MALAN: You see, how are we to assess and judge this, as factual detail evidence, or as you getting to grips with your past?

MR CALLAGHAN: For the incidents for which I specifically give you information, factual evidence for which I was involved, for the information that you ask me around those facts, only what I can remember about this.

CHAIRPERSON: In any case whatever the case may be, whether it was R1 000 or R2 000, you say you never personally benefited at the time?

MR CALLAGHAN: No, I didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: And you now found out in 1997 that the only possibility that you did benefit unknowingly or unwittingly at the time, was through braais.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ... braaivleis went hand in hand with that type of operation, Security Branch operations.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What kind of beer did you people drink?

MR MALAN: Just again to do a little sum here, if we take the thirty people, which is the sort of minimum, twenty-five to thirty and if it indeed was R2 000 per body, then that would have been R60 000 going to braais over a period of six months - as the bottom line.

MR CALLAGHAN: Obviously that is not an option, obviously people got paid, yes.

MR MALAN: Yes.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

MR MALAN: So it didn't go to the unit, it went to individuals.

MR CALLAGHAN: That would seem to be - I was, in a sense I was not part of the unit, in a sense I was not an SAPS member, because in a sense I was an SADF person on secondment and so I got paid from the SADF, I wore a beret that said I was part of the SADF and yet ... So I was there with them, but not part of them, I didn't sleep in a Koevoet base, I slept in the barracks next door which was the prisoner of war base, etcetera, etcetera.

MR MALAN: You just mentioned in the beginning and in passing that you were seconded to Koevoet, how did that come about, did you ask for a transfer? You visited them earlier, you testified.

MR CALLAGHAN: The way that it transpired is that while on patrol with SADF units, wearing and living under SADF structure and rules, driving next to what looks like a perfectly useful road, strapped into a Buffel all day, wearing a metal helmet etcetera, etcetera, one would be passed by by Casspirs full of jovial people sitting on top of roofs drinking Castle lager. That was a very aspirational image in a sense. I had no knowledge of what Koevoet was about at the time. When at the end of my first six months I was asked to volunteer to go across to Koevoet with four other Medics, in a sense I was - the question was, "Would you like to continue living under this regime of military strictness or would you like to go and live there, grow your hair, do whatever you like, free?" What was one seventeen/eighteen year old boy going to do other than to say, "Man, I want to get out of here as fast as possible and that looks like a good deal." So I went there, then I realised what I'd gone to.

MR MALAN: And you stayed there till the end of your conscription period?

MR CALLAGHAN: It wasn't an option, there was no "Well you can go home and you can go back." That wasn't an option.

MR MALAN: You could have gone back to your old unit.

MR CALLAGHAN: Certainly that wasn't an option which was presented in any form that seemed accessible.

MR MALAN: Did you ever consider it? Or did it not even come to your mind?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, we did consider it a number of times. One specific time when two of the four who were with me were mainlining drugs, one of the other was an alcoholic and representation was made to the psychiatrist base Commander in the Medics, "Please get us out of this, we can't anymore", it was told "Grow up and be a man and carry on." In telephone conversations with my mother I told her, "I don't know if we're going to make it through the day because quite frankly I think we might all commit suicide by the end of this."

In the last weeks after the John Deegan incident we made repeated application to leave because our time was supposedly up and we were told "You may leave as soon as you find replacements for yourselves." I went to the airport where the replacements were flying in for the general replacements, and happened to recognise somebody who had been at school with me a year or two earlier, behind me at school, and I said to him "Get four of your friends and come with me." We loaded them into the back of a Casspir, we drove to the base, we said "Here are your four new Medics", we got in the Casspir, we drove straight to the airport and we got out of there.

We went on unpaid - we went on Awol for ten days, because in theory we were still in the operational area and reported with everybody else to Pretoria when everybody else in theory, arrived.

MS MOHAMED: Mr Callaghan, I understand that you have spoken about the last two incidents that you seek amnesty for. It was pointed out at the beginning that for the ninth incident, sorry, the incident mentioned in paragraph 20 of this Exhibit A, the reference in your statement in the bundle is page 2, paragraph 9(a).

MR CALLAGHAN: Could I summarise 20 and 21, simply to say this: That as a conscript I feel responsibility for having not taken the option that some of my friends eventually took of going to jail, of doing community service, of not participating, of not taking up a weapon. And for me it's sad that only a handful of the 150 000-odd conscripts that served in the operational area, actually came to this Commission and said "We were involved in something that was wrong."

For me the Committee found that the occupation of Namibia, the establishment of Koevoet and the war in Angola were violations of human rights and for me, I participated in that. And I have found healing in this process. I have found healing in making a submission, I have found healing in going before the Medical Sector Hearings and today constitutes the last few words in the paragraph and a fullstop for me. And for me, I want to when I'm 65 years old, look back and say "I closed that chapter in 2000 and I got on with the rest of my life."

And so I really ask for forgiveness for the role that I played, and it sounds grand in a sense, but the role that I played in defending the policies of apartheid in occupying Namibia, in waging war against Angola, in participating in a Koevoet unit, because those things were wrong and those things were violations of the basic human rights of many of those people. And today I find myself working in ACCORD having to, at times, deal with the consequences of those actions many years later, in the conflicts that persist within those communities, in the economic status of those communities and for that I'm sorry.

MR DEHAL: And you say, Mr Callaghan, on that last page of your statement, that you further seek forgiveness for the suffering inflicted on the people of those nations, that's Angola and Namibia, both then and subsequently, which resulted directly from acts of aggression that you were involved in.

MR CALLAGHAN: That's correct, yes.

MR DEHAL: And in paragraph 21 you talk about your passive and active roles which caused such harm in your participation and collaboration with the Koevoet unit, correct?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

MR DEHAL: You then have a conclusion in your statement and I think you've basically dealt with that in your summary now, or would you like to add anything further?

MR CALLAGHAN: I'd like to add just one thing. I went to Klapperkop on Friday, the monument in Pretoria, I had a couple of weeks ago been to the Washington/Vietnam Vets Memorial and I stood against the wall, and I went there never knowing that Klapperkop even existed and I went and looked at 1982/1983 and I read the names on the wall and I counted the names on the wall, 375-odd national servicemen who had died in those two years. Some of them would have been my patients, some of them would have been those guys that I couldn't help, some of them were my colleagues. I think I recognised a name and I got down a phone number and tried to get some information on that person. None of them were any of the black allied forces that fought alongside us, none of them were any of the SWAPO people who died. And for them, both those names on the wall and for those allied forces who in a sense are just not remembered, and for those people that suffered as a result of what we did, for me this process has been very important.

MR DEHAL: And finally, Mr Callaghan, inasmuch as we haven't dealt with this, do you confirm the evidence you gave before the Health Sector Hearings as correct?

MR MALAN: He's already done that, that's the annexure to his application, you put that to him right in the beginning.

MR DEHAL: Yes, sorry. Is the evidence annexed to the application? I didn't mean the statement, Mr Malan, but the hearing, the evidence given there.

MR MALAN: I'll read it to you.

MR DEHAL: I stand corrected.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if you didn't do it, do you confirm that evidence, Mr Callaghan?

MR CALLAGHAN: I confirm it, yes.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Judge and sorry Honourable Members. That concludes the application. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Callaghan, I don't know to what extent we're going to grant you amnesty in respect of all the incidents you referred to, that is something we're going to have to examine. However, it's heartening to know that you are one of very few people in this country who are prepared to face your past and to say you're sorry and it is to be hoped that there are more people, whether they appear before the Committee or not, who are willing to at least come to terms with their past, on both sides of the spectrum, not only to serve their guilt, if you want to call it, but to assist in establishing the nation that we seek and it's a pity that many of the people who were victims in those territories have not been here to hear what you have to say. I think it would have been, as much as it has helped you, it may have helped them.

It remains for me to say that we will take our time to consider your applications and to wish you well in the future. I know it's not going to be easy to forget what you did and it's easier said than done to close a chapter in one's life, but at least you came here to bare your soul, and important, to say you're sorry. On behalf of the Committee, we wish you well in future.

MR CALLAGHAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR CALLAGHAN: That's very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dehal, we're going to take time to consider this, we'll deliver the decision in due course.

MR DEHAL: I'm indebted to you, Judge.

CHAIRPERSON: We adjourn to 2 o'clock.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: For the record I just want the new representatives to announce themselves, for purposes of the record please.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair. Wim Cornelius, I'm acting on behalf of John Louis McPherson.

MR COETZER: W A Coetzer, z-e-r, Advocate, on behalf of Manual Antonio Olifant.

MR VISSER: My name is Louis Visser, I'm instructed by Wagener Muller, to act on behalf of eight applicants before you. If you have regard to volume 1, the cover sheet, on that list I appear for Lodewyk de Jager, Johannes Christoffel Meyer, Anton Pretorius, Willem Helm Johannes Coetzee, Philip Rudolph Crause, and skipping one, Christopher Johannes Du Preez Smit, Wikus Johannes Loots and Johannes Albertus Steyn.

May I just explain, Chairperson, that you might recall that we dealt Petrus Johannes Coetzee on the last occasion and we explained to you that he is not an amnesty applicant for this incident. The reason for the confusion came about because he was asked certain questions to field at a Human Rights Violations Committee hearing and he was asked inter alia to deal with this incident and he dealt with it, and you will recall that he said that he regarded it as a State action, State operation which was formally approved and authorised by the State Security Council and therefore he's not asking for amnesty.

And then Stanley Harold Schutte, Chairperson, halfway down that list, you will also recall that his amnesty application was incorrectly bound into this bundle and it was then considered during the application of Serache, so you can ignore Stanley Harold Schutte's documents in this bundle.

MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson and Honourable Members, thank you very much, my name is Dehal, Roshan Dehal, I represent some of the victims in this matter. Ms Mohamed who assists me, will be sharing the victims and she will represent the others. I would like to make some submissions before we begin, which deal with the preliminary aspects of this hearing ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well let me just ask a question first, are the cases of the victims so complex that we need two representatives?

MR DEHAL: No, it is simply because of the volume of victims, to facilitate easy consultation and given their geographical spread over the country, that we decided Ms Mohamed would deal with some of them in the Gauteng area and I dealt with some of them in KwaZulu Natal area, and also since we consulted with those perspective lots, we felt ourselves respectively more au fait with those that we consulted with. There's nothing more complex about it, it's simply a procedural administrative fairness. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say you wanted to make certain submissions?

MR DEHAL: Yes, Judge. Perhaps Ms Mohamed should just go on record.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you, Judge. My name is Ms Mohamed from the firm Dehal Incorporated. I confirm my appearance for some of the victims in this matter. Thank you.

MR DEHAL ADDRESSES: Thank you. Judge, the problem - sorry, perhaps before I state what the problem is and lest the incorrect impression be created, I want to make it clear that insofar as Ms Mohamed and I are concerned, we are ready, able, available to proceed and have in fact come to these hearings on the understanding that it is set down for this week, beginning today, and we have come with the intention to avail ourselves to continue with these hearings until Friday. Having said that, we have since Friday morning, come up with a host of problems which I think we are duty-bound as lawyers to bring to your attention. And in the interest of fairness and justice, we bring these to your attention and ask you to have regard to them within the framework of the Act.

Judge these problems deal with basically four aspects, one of which I don't think I ought to bring to your attention, but since the victims are here and I've been asked to bring that to your attention, I will do so, please do not admonish me if it's outside the ambit of these hearings.

Firstly, the place of hearing the victims is regarded as being a problem. The victims say that most of them are in the central Johannesburg area, or closer thereto. They cannot understand why these hearings are taking place in Pretoria. It is very costly for them to travel from their respective areas outside Johannesburg, to Pretoria, indeed it would have been less costly to travel to Johannesburg.

The second problem, Judge, is these victims do not - sorry, all of the victims in the main are not possessed substantially of cash, they find it very difficult to come by those minimal means to travel. It so happened that Ms Mohamed consulted with a few at the TRC offices in Johannesburg, on Thursday, members of my office telephoned these victims and caused them to avail themselves at the TRC offices.

The problem there however is this, that their return from the TRC offices to their respective homes and their forward journey was not paid for and they had taken loans to travel to the TRC offices, to consult with Ms Mohamed and they've not managed to raise those funds and the TRC offices have apparently told them that they will not be paid for that. Now that's the second problem which I said I don't think falls within the ambit of the Act for me to bring in as an issue, but it's an emotive issue and the victims are here and they've asked me to raise it.

The fourth issue I wish to raise is one that relates ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm on problem number two only, the payment for travelling. The first one being the venue. Which would have been the third one?

MR DEHAL: I'm coming to the third issue.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR DEHAL: Oh sorry, my apologies if I said that incorrectly.

Judge, the third issue relates to notices that were sent out to a very few victims. The issue there is that these notices were incorrect, these notices dealt with certain dates for the hearing and recorded the dates as being the 24th of July to the 4th of August. I understand from some of the victims, in fact Ms Mohamed will fill you more on this, she's got the details on who the victims are that have these problems in particular, had availed themselves, some were here in Pretoria, apparently here at the Methodist Church on the 24th and found the hearings in the Botswana Raid matter as this matter is commonly called, had not been proceeding and they returned. Now some of those persons have not made contact with us and given the fact that this notice had those dates, I've been asked to raise that as a problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Are they not your clients?

MR DEHAL: No, not those. In that regard perhaps I should just say that there are two persons who received notices, whom we have consulted with, whom Ms Mohamed represents. These two persons also received notices dated the 24th, had telephoned the TRC offices and were told that the matters will not proceed on the 24th, or words to that effect, I think Ms Mohamed will fill you in, but who are presently here and we've managed to get them here and explained the error to them. But as a matter of ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That's not an error. You were party to a pre-hearing conference, is that not so?

MR DEHAL: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Where the specific dates of the hearings were agreed upon to everybody convenience and I assume, as near as possible to their convenience. There may have been some people who were inconvenienced by those agreements, but be that as it may, those were agreements. I would assume that clients would then informed accordingly. Am I wrong?

MR DEHAL: Judge, within the context of your understanding of the minutes, you will not be wrong, certainly not. With respect however, those minutes do not explain correctly the position as it was on that day, nor are they exhaustively correct. Three points. Firstly, what the minutes do not record is that when both Ms Mohamed and I availed ourselves at the pre-trial meeting, we were not possessed of any bundles in this matter. That is common cause and I don't think Mr Malan who chaired the meeting ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What has that got to do with the price of eggs? The matter is at this particular hearing in respect of the Botswana Raid on the 14th of June 1985, it was agreed upon and I assume it carried your approval for today. Not So?

MR DEHAL: Agreed. The only reason I make the submission about the absence of the volumes, is that pursuant to those volumes being absent, and I must say in all fairness to Mr Steenkamp, the Evidence Leader, he had actually by then posted a bundle to us, but it had not arrived. He in all fairness again, gave me a copy of his bundle at the end of those hearings and I took them back home to study them. The reason I mention this is twofold. Firstly that, we did not have a list of the victims by then, we did not know whom we were representing. We were appointed to represent victims, we had not made contact with a single victim by then. Acceding to the dates was purely acceding to our availability, both Ms Mohamed's and my being available to these dates, and it is at that level that we agreed to these dates, and indeed that is why we are here today and ready and available to proceed till Friday. But it is not as though - sorry, one must not however read too much into the agreement on the dates and therein read the fact that all the victims therefore agreed to be here and therefore the dates on the notice must be read as being amended accordingly or otherwise.

I only mention this because there are a number of victims who apparently received notices from the TRC, who are not here today, who have not made contact with us. Our repeated endeavours desperately to raise them, have been in vain and I thought I'd mention that and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Where are you getting to, Mr Dehal?

MR DEHAL: It is only the dates on the notice, the third point that I raised, and I'm getting to that only. And I take that point no further.

The fourth point, Judge, is the weighty point insofar as I am concerned, and this relates to a lack of notices to a host of people who are victims in this matter, and this is a matter of grave concern to me.

Judge, within the purview of Section 19(4)(a) and (b) of this Act of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34/95, it is pre-emptory for notices indeed to be served on a group of persons ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: On whose behalf are you arguing this point?

MR DEHAL: On behalf of the persons who are not here and in regard to whom we've been told by ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got instructions to do so?

MR DEHAL: Yes, Judge.

CHAIRPERSON: Where would these instructions have come from?

MR DEHAL: From some family members who are present here at this hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Who were not given notices?

MR DEHAL: No, in - yes, who were not given notices, but my argument homes in on those persons who are not here today, who have not been given notices and there are people present here today who have brought this to my attention.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't follow your argument, I must be quite honest. Please persuade me or let me understand how you are able to rely on this point for whatever reason you are raising it.

MR DEHAL: I apologise if it sounds ambiguous Judge, or meaningless ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: This is how I understand it, that the TRC is compelled insofar as the Act requires, to do its best to find out who the victims are in respect of a certain incident, correct? Once it has done all it can in the circumstances and issued notices to those whom they were able to identify, then the TRC offices has complied with their obligations. In order to avail all opportunities to victims to be represented, legally trained people are appointed to do so.

I assume that that would be in the case of those victims who were identified and insofar as they have been identified and represented, the legal representative carries with him or her, the instructions of those whom they represent. I fail to understand how any representative can go outside the ambit of that. Unless I've got it wrong, then you must tell me how I've got it wrong.

MR DEHAL: Judge, the problem relates to the following. There are for example, and I deal with this purely by example, eight survivors in this raid who have not been placed on notice. I know I've been called upon to represent the victims, but I can't be blamed if I cannot make contact with those eight victims ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly ...(indistinct - no microphone) all victims known to the TRC when they appointed you. Is that not the accurate way to describe it?

MR DEHAL: Yes, correct. Except that if you look at that instruction now and look at the difficulty I face in sitting here before you, it is threefold. The first is, I have not managed to avail myself to make contact with, to obtain instructions from the respective victims, albeit on that list from the TRC. And especially victims, I'm talking about eight survivors from this raid. And the second problem is, I've managed to establish both from the TRC and from certain of the victims' families who are present here, with whom we've consulted, that noticed have not been issued to these eight in particular.

And the third problem I have is that one of those survivors is in the United States of America, he has communicated today to some members who are seated here in this Panel, sorry in this hearing, at this forum and who indicated he, this gentleman from the United States of America who is a survivor from the Botswana raids, insists on being present here. He takes issue with the fact that he was not told about these hearings. He takes umbrage of the fact that notice was not given to him.

Now I think Ms Mohamed ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is he in America?

MR DEHAL: ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: And he takes umbrage that he didn't get a notice?

MR DEHAL: Yes, Judge, I don't think it's as unreasonable as that, Judge. If you look at bundle 2, in bundle 2, the second bundle - Ms Mohamed will probably take you through this, I think it will be wise for her to address you at this stage ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You're arguing the point, let's see what you've got to say, I'll give you ...(inaudible)

MR DEHAL: Judge, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You're referring to bundle 2.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Judge. Sorry Judge, if you'll just bear with me, I'll find the appropriate page.

MR MALAN: You're paging through bundle 1 there, Mr Dehal.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Judge. Judge, the second - sorry, firstly, the appropriate excerpt that I'm looking for is contained within these so-called pre-finding hearings and is also contained in the second bundle that I earlier referred to. I'll shortly refer to the page in the second bundle, but I don't know whether the Panel has these pre-finding hearings, the one particular one entitled Hilda Pahle. Now in the sixth page from the end, she records in a document handed to the TRC, that Livingstone Pahle is a witness, that his contact address and telephone numbers are in New York and that this person was inside - sorry, was under the bed on the spot at the time of the Botswana raid. No endeavours have been made to contact him.

In her evidence before the Human Rights Violation Committee, in bundle 2 on page 22, in the last five lines she deals with this aspect as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dehal, when did you become aware of that?

MR DEHAL: On Friday.

CHAIRPERSON: ... necessary to draw the attention of the TRC to it?

MR DEHAL: No, sorry, with respect, I did, I drew their attention to it, I had a telephonic discussion with Adv Paddy Prior, I told him of the difficulties we're having. In fact he appeared to be alive to the difficulties I was having. And it is pursuant to that discussion that a notice was sent to the Botswana Embassy, addressing some of the victims who are believe to be in Botswana, who were not given notice.

Judge, may I with your permission hand over to, Ms Mohamed will give you the facts and the names of ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone) escape. I've got a couple of questions to you. Could you suggest, upon instruction or otherwise, how the TRC would conduct itself in obtaining the names and addresses of victims in foreign countries? I'm alive and sympathetic to the position of victims, but please apply your mind to the difficulties of the officials of the TRC.

MR DEHAL: Judge, this is not criticism of the officials of the TRC.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone) You raise this issue for certain reason, I'm not too sure what the reasons are, the fact of the matter is that there's a complain that certain people were not notified. For the purpose of my argument I'll accept that. There's a complaint that people in Botswana or wherever were not notified, how is it suggested that that process of notification should take place?

MR DEHAL: Thank you. Judge, I think it would take place in the normal way that the TRC has done, namely by notice to the respective Embassies. Here we have a lady who is a Dutch woman, who is the survivor from the raid, the wife of ...(indistinct), she had suffered injuries at the raid, the Dutch Embassy had in fact intervened at the inception of the matter, these are aspects evidence from bundle 2, and no endeavours, with respect to the TRC, were made to contact her or to serve notice on the Dutch Embassy.

We have a further survivor Jean who is in England, the second bundle indicates that she's in England, and no notices were served on the English Embassy, on the UK Embassy. The solitary example of the USA person, of course there I suspect notice - I don't expect notice to be served on the Embassy of the United States of America, there the notice should have been sent to him directly. He's a survivor and his details are contained within the bundles.

Now Judge, for the second time you've mentioned that you do not know the reason why I'm raising these, I'm raising it firstly as a matter or completeness, so that - these victims who are present here are very concerned about this, and secondly because three of the families that Ms Mohamed has dealt with have instructed her that this matter should not proceed until all of these victims are here, and they would like to avail themselves, especially because they are survivors from the raid, to hear these applicants testify and perhaps at the end they may embrace these applicants and not oppose their application, but they want to be here to hear the applicants. This was a very important matter at the time, it was one of the political highlights of the day, it has affected their lives substantially. In fact the man in the United States of America was so affected as a survivor that he left South Africa, not animus non revertendi, but just to be away from here.

CHAIRPERSON: What's that in English.

MR DEHAL: Sorry, not without the intention - with the intention of returning.

MR MALAN: May I just ask you, Mr Dehal, this Limton Pahle, how is he related to Hilda?

MR DEHAL: Ms Mohamed represents that client, perhaps she can address on that, sorry.

MR MALAN: You're arguing the case, surely you know.

MR DEHAL: He's the son.

MR MALAN: Is it the son of Mrs Hilda Pahle?

MR DEHAL: ...(inaudible)

MR MALAN: And Mrs Hilda Pahle was duly given notice?

MR DEHAL: Hilda Pahle is late. She had given evidence before the HRV yes, but she died thereafter, so at the time the notice was sent out ...

MR MALAN: So the notice was sent out to her at her address?

MR DEHAL: Yes, arising from which other persons in the family got to know about this notice and availed themselves here.

CHAIRPERSON: They did not inform the person whom you were saying?

MR DEHAL: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ms Mohamed?

MS MOHAMED ADDRESSES: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, must to clarify the position, Hilda Pahle, correctly stated, did give evidence before the Human Rights Violations Committee. She subsequently passed on. TRC did serve notice on her and in an effort to arrange a consultation, our offices contacted her on the telephone number furnished by the TRC. It was then that we were unable to speak to any family member as such, we had to leave a message with our contact details with one of the youngsters and later on a Ms Gaberone Pahle returned our telephone call. She advised that her grandmother, Hilda Pahle is now deceased and on that basis we were obviously not in a position to consult with her.

So after perusing the copies of these documents, I attempted to raise a consultation with Ms Gaberone Pahle on Thursday last week, but given to time constraints it was not possible. I only constructively consulted with her earlier this morning, which is when she placed us with instructions about her uncle Livingstone who is presently in America and she advised that her uncle would be extremely desirous to be present here for the purposes of this hearing, as he is very emotional and was extremely distraught after the incident.

CHAIRPERSON: And when does he plan to be here?

MS MOHAMED: Mr Chairman, I haven't canvassed that obviously with the family, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Why not, Ms Mohamed? Why can't you tell me, why didn't you canvass on when he's going to be here then?

MS MOHAMED: With respect, Mr Chairman, the family advised that if a new date is arranged, then that can be ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What if we were prepared to adjourn for a day or two to accommodate the presence of this person? Are we in a position to decide that?

MS MOHAMED: Sorry Mr Chairman, the family members have indicated that a week would be sufficient.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it not possible that his family members would listen to the crux of the application, he could then be informed of what the crux of the application is and then he can decide whether he wants to be here or not? I'm not even suggesting it, I'm just asking.

MS MOHAMED: Mr Chairman, I have canvassed this with the family, my instructions are that the time of the incident, there seems to be a case of mistaken identity and it's possible that their other relative, a Mr Joseph Malaza, who was in the house at the time, was mistaken for being Livingstone Pahle and was killed. So given the nature of that incident and the possible misunderstanding that could have been present in the minds of those who raided the home on that night, that Livingstone would in fact want to be here to hear the testimony himself.

MR MALAN: May I just enquire here, do I understand you correctly to say that he was a survivor of the raid simply because of the fact that he wasn't there?

MS MOHAMED: Sorry Honourable Member of the Committee, if I may just clarify the position. In the particular house on that night there were four people and what had happened is, there usually were only three people, that is two males and one female, but on the fateful night in question one of the cousins had come across to the home, so that increased the male count to three and the female count to one and when the attack commenced, the attackers found two males who were then killed and the female obviously was also killed, and they didn't bother searching the rest of the home. This is based on the scant instructions at this stage from family members who were not there and are simply trying to relate what Livingstone had said to them at the time.

So Livingstone who was actually asleep in the other bedroom was in hiding and these people never came in looking for him, because they had assumed that because they found two males, that covered the count for that day. And in fact, from the testimony from Ms Hilda Pahle before the Human Rights Violations Committee, she herself makes that assertion in one of the relevant paragraphs.

MR MALAN: Well that's my next question. Can you refer me to the relevant paragraph?

MS MOHAMED: Certainly. It's on page 22, Mr Malan, of the second bundle, the last paragraph. If I may, the penultimate sentence which reads:

MR MALAN: So the name Levi refers to Livingstone here?

MS MOHAMED: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Was the TRC Investigators aware of the fact that Levi is Livingstone and that the reference to hiding was indeed hiding in the room there?

MS MOHAMED: With respect, Mr Commissioner, I think it would, because in the pre-findings report she does mention, in the relevant paragraph here - I'm sorry I'm not too familiar with the layout of these documents, but in the relevant part here of the pre-findings report, there is a section which says:

and in the compilation for Hilda Pahle it says:

and in the hand-written Human Rights Violations statement which was filled in, she does make mention of his name, as saying:

She responded:

CHAIRPERSON: ... read out the full address as it was given there. "Contact address: New York."

I think New York is slightly bigger than Johannesburg.

MS MOHAMED: Yes, Mr Commissioner, it says:

below that.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it impossible that he could attend this hearing with a day's notice? I understand that he has more than a day's notice, but I'm just asking. If he could be here tomorrow or Wednesday.

MS MOHAMED: I see that the family members are indicating, not. Well he may have to make the flight arrangements and alternate arrangements. I'm not too familiar with that, but if the Committee requires me I can stand the matter down for a short while and take instruction in that.

MR MALAN: May I just before we proceed on this, enquire again, do you have any record as to when the notice addressed to Hilda Pahle was served on members of the family?

MS MOHAMED: Mr Commissioner, I am aware that the notice was served, I'll just have to check very quickly in my files.

MR MALAN: The question really relates to how long has the family been in a position, for how long have they known of the hearing and secondly, what did they do about it?

Mr Steenkamp, do you have any information?

ADV STEENKAMP ADDRESSES: Mr Chairman, maybe just before I answer the date, on the 17th of July we were contacted by Mr George Pahle, he's a next-of-kin, he's the son of Mrs Hilda Pahle. Mr George Pahle is working in Pretoria at the Vista University. He gave us ...(indistinct) contact telephone numbers, he actually gave us three contact telephone numbers for where he can be contacted as the son of Mrs Hilda Pahle. Just to get the full picture before you.

Now at the pre-trial, with all due respect to my learned colleague, I specifically asked him, "Are you appearing for all victims?" He said yes, he's appearing for all victims. On that basis he was appointed as a legal representative for all victims. I've confirmed that with the Legal Head of the Amnesty Committee, Adv Prior, today. Furthermore, as was - what happened Mr Chairman, as the information got to our offices, we informed Mr Dehal's office, we informed a person called Brabashne Marie, we informed Mr Dehal personally, we faxed a letter to him giving him the full details ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Of?

ADV STEENKAMP: Of the Pahle family and the next-of-kin. This morning I raised with Mr Dehal, "Where is Mr George Pahle?" He said to me, "Mr Pahle is available, but because of personal circumstances, other circumstances, not related to the hearing, he's not available to attend the hearing today or during this whole week for that matter." So Mr George Pahle, his name is actually Rose-Innes Pahle, Mr Dehal was informed about that already on the 17th. Because on the pretence - on the understanding and the agreement, Mr Chairman, that the Dehal Incorporated firm of Attorneys will be representing all victims.

Regarding the notices to the Pahle family, Mr Chairman, it's correct what my learned colleague says, that the family was informed. The earliest date I got was, I think it's the 2nd of July, I can confirm it. I'm waiting for a certificate to come back to me, but it was the beginning of July. In any event it was the first notice, I think there were two batches of notices, the first notice was sent out actually before the pre-trial which was on the 29th. So just to deal with Ms Hilda Pahle's, the incident there, I think my learned colleague just maybe forgot to inform the Committee that the one son, the next-of-kin, Mr George Pahle, his name is now Rose-Innes Pahle. He's actually staying in Pretoria, he's working at the Vista University. And that information was relayed to Mr Dehal on the 17th, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The question still remains, when did the victims receive notice?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, the notices were sent out, the specific date, it was the 28th of June, 28/6/2000 all notices were sent out, the whole batch of notices were sent out.

CHAIRPERSON: That indicated that these hearings, including this one, would occur between the 24th - sorry, what dates were on that ...?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, my colleague is correct, it was actually stated the 24th till the 11th of August, because there was initial scheduling, then it was re-scheduled again.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Now there was a second notice that went out?

ADV STEENKAMP: Yes, Mr Chairman, not only that but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

ADV STEENKAMP: The second batch, Mr Chairman, was sent out just to indicate the new dates which was also communicated to Mr Dehal, Mr Chairman, I think that was the one that was sent out on the 28th - sorry, I mean the 3rd of July already. That's on confirmation, but it must be the day or the day just close to the 3rd. I don't ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Indicating what?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, that the hearing will be, or is then scheduled for the 31st till the 4th of July. I can only just add, Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Now did such a notice go out to the Dutch?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, nowhere in the bundle, nowhere, and my colleague can help me, nowhere is there any reference that these people who were staying at the time in Botswana, were Dutch nationals at all, they were just Dutch people. Similar to the Somalian person. We've cleared this with the Legal Head of the Amnesty Committee and he said to me, and I've checked the whole record, including - although there is a reference by the Dutch Embassy in one of the newspaper clippings about a Dutch woman, there's no reference that the people at the time who were staying in Botswana were Dutch nationals, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that the TRC officials did not know that these people are presently in Holland?

ADV STEENKAMP: That's correct, Mr Chairman. As we speak though, I've instructed people to send out notices to the Somalian and the Dutch Embassy, but at the time there was no indication that these people were Dutch nationals, Mr Chairman, they were in Botswana. Similar to the other Botswana people staying there, we don't know if those people were Botswana nationals, but we did send out a notice to the Botswana Embassy. But also on that ...(indistinct) I can maybe just add, Mr Chairman, that over and above that I've been informed by the Legal Head of the Amnesty Committee that Mr Dehal was in contact with all the Embassies, as well as Amnesty International themselves, about further particulars and information about this specific incident.

Furthermore, we were also involved in getting information from the ANC Co-ordinating Desk in Johannesburg, asking them specifically for more details about victims. A specific letter was then also drafted and sent to Mr Brain Koopedi, who is normally, out of course and practice, the person to deal with, just again to do that. They couldn't supply us with any information of the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: And the person in the USA?

ADV STEENKAMP: No, Mr Chairman, a notice was not sent out to the person in the USA, he's part and parcel of the Pahle family and we take it as Mr Dehal is appearing for the Pahle family and to the best of our abilities we have sent him all the information in our possession, as well as to the family and even the contact numbers. And as we understood, he was the legal representative, we would rather send it to his offices, as was the practice previously, Mr Chairman.

We were only notified, just for your record, on Friday apparently, I haven't seen the list, I'm waiting for the list, but on Friday Mr Dehal forwarded a further list of victims, an additional list of victims to Adv Prior. On Friday. I've discussed that list with Mr Prior, Mr Prior indicated to me that some of those victims are family members of the same victims, I mean more victims of the same family member group. That was only done on Friday.

I was also brought under the understanding that by Friday, because of legal protocols, Adv Prior informed me that this matter will proceed. I can just for the record and in all fairness to Mr Wagener, he asked me at least three times on Thursday and Friday, whether or not this matter will proceed. I informed him, I think on Friday, saying that to the best of my ability and to the best of my knowledge this matter will proceed, although there may be a position where there will be a postponement granted, but because of the information I got, this matter will proceed.

Furthermore, Mr Chairman, just for the record, we discussed this matter, whether or not notices would be published in newspapers, but there are difficulties there, in which newspaper and when and for what time period? We've gone, after the first bundle was prepared, we've gone and searched for more information regarding this incident, that's why the second bundle was prepared. And I must actually say that after I discussed it with Mr Wagener and ...(indistinct) referring me to the State Security Council, I've checked the documentation again. I can just say that is when we discovered further submissions by Mr Pik Botha, so the second bundle was prepared again after our further research in this matter.

All the implicated people, just for the record, Mr Chairman, I've got Return of Service. I've got a further note by Mr Pik Botha in my possession. Gen Viljoen's personal Secretary, Mr Peter Daniel Uys was informed about this hearing. Mr Craig Williamson, his lawyers Allan Levin were informed, they're not appearing, as well as the attorney for Mr Malan, Ernest Magnus Malan, as well as Mr PW Botha. Mr Ernest JV Penzhorn came back to us saying that none of his clients would be appearing at this hearing. Those were the implicated people.

I received an additional statement this, not this morning, about half an hour ago from a person called Mr Karel Sebastian Steyn who is an implicated person, which I haven't had time to communicate to you. Thanks. I'm sorry for the long story, Mr Chairman, but that's what was done.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you give me the names of the people you represent.

MR DEHAL: Mr Chairman, there are 32 names.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the sooner you comply with my request, the quicker we're going to get done with it.

MR DEHAL: I was just hoping to hand over copies, 'cause ...(indistinct) don't have copies, than reading them out.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone) some of them may be legitimately upset, so I want to get to the bottom of this.

MR DEHAL: I agree, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you spell that.

MR DEHAL: Strike, S-t-r-i-k-e M-a-c-h-o-b-a-n-e, Machobane.

CHAIRPERSON: The Olympics is taking place in Australia, not here.

MR DEHAL: I apologise. Sorry I was at Gideon Mtsweni.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DEHAL:

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR DEHAL: Sorry, Judge.

CHAIRPERSON: What is her name?

MR DEHAL: We don't have that. We've elicited this from the bundle, as a person who is implicated. If you look at ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dehal, I want to know who you're representing, not names that you just found in the bundle.

MR DEHAL: Oh sorry, I apologise, Judge, I thought you meant persons - if you mean persons whom we've consulted with directly, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I would assume you can't represent somebody with whom you've not consulted.

MR DEHAL: I agree Judge, but there's been so much thrown around here about the TRC having appointed me to represent all the victims and all of that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Who are you representing at the moment?

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Judge. There would be the name I've given you already:

and just one other name:

Judge, may I just say that on this last name, Gregory Coombes, Mr Coombes is present here, he's the gentleman seated behind me. He is the white gentleman who was a very good friend of the deceased in this matter, Mr Frank Hamlyn.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell that?

MR DEHAL: Hamlyn, H-a-m-l-y-n.

MR MALAN: Mr Dehal, sorry, if he's a friend, in which way is he a victim?

MR DEHAL: Well that's the problem and that's what I was about to address. Sorry.

MR MALAN: You were asked to give us the name of the victims that you represent, but please tell us.

MR DEHAL: You see if you look at bundle 1, in bundle 1 you've got a list of victims and if I take you to the list of victims you'll see Victim number 2 is cited as Michael Frank Hamlyn, the deceased, his next-of-kin is cited as Gregory Coombes, the man I deal with, as a friend and the father's name is also beneath that with an address and the brother of the deceased.

Now the problem here is that the direct family of the deceased have not been given notice, they would be desirous of being here. Mr Coombes who is present, unfortunately does not know where the family is, but Mr Coombes says that the family would very much like to be here. And it's a white family that take issue with the fact that their son who was regarded incorrectly as a ANC activist, was killed at this place and they would like to be here to hear the evidence in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: How does Mr Coombes know that if he's unable to tell us where to find the family?

MR DEHAL: You see this matter, Judge, has a long history unfortunately. There was evidence before the HRV, at that stage the family were in touch with Mr Coombes. If you look at the second bundle you'll find that the Hamlyn family had gone to the press and made press statements about how they take issue at the level that I've just addressed. And this family had also written to the TRC on numerous occasions expressing their views and also wanting the TRC to keep them abreast of what's happening. We then wrote to the TRC and indicated that there was communication with this family and the TRC, Mr Steenkamp indicated to me that he's looked and he could not trace any such communication. And again this is one of those families that would like to be here, but has not had notice.

CHAIRPERSON: Where do you get that information from then, Mr Dehal?

MR DEHAL: From Mr Coombes who is behind me, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we carry on with that, while we're talking I'll think about this issue, Mr Strike Machobane and Rose Machobane, what's their relationship?

MR DEHAL: Sorry Judge, I'm not side-stepping the issue, it's just that Fatima dealt with this, sorry, Ms Mohamed.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'll just place you in perspective. Rose Machobane was the wife of one of the deceased in this matter, Themba Duke Machobane and Rose was in the house at the time of the raid and Strike Machobane is the brother of the deceased, Duke Machobane.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you agree, both can't be victims in terms of the definition of "victim" in the Act? At the end of the matter, if we are satisfied that certain requirements have been complied with, we must declare victims to be dealt with by the Reparations Committee, it cannot be both of them. Are you aware of that?

MR DEHAL: I agree with you, Judge, I just wanted to give a full picture of people we consulted with. In giving those names. Judge, Ms Mohamed wants to deal with the more burning issue of a six-year old boy who was involved in this and also had no notice.

CHAIRPERSON: She will get a chance, I'm dealing with you. Your clients are the two Machobanes, Mnyele, Mokoena, three Mtswenis, Pahle, Coombes, Mthembu. Now is it correct that Strike Machobane was a brother of the deceased and Rose was the wife of the deceased and also a victim in the sense that she was inside the house during the incident?

MR DEHAL: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Sarah Mnyele, how does she ...

MR DEHAL: She's the mother of the deceased, Thami Mnyele, who is cited as the first deceased in your list of victims, number on, right on the top. And if you see alongside that you've got the name, Sarah Mnyele, beneath that "mother".

CHAIRPERSON: Mokoena?

MR DEHAL: Judge, Mokoena is dealt with as victim 12 on those lists of victims.

MR MALAN: Mr Dehal, that's the grandchild of one of the Mtsweni deceased.

MR DEHAL: Yes, but she was injured in the incident and shot at.

CHAIRPERSON: Emma?

MR DEHAL: I didn't get that name, Judge.

CHAIRPERSON: Emma.

MR DEHAL: Emma is the name alongside victim number 11, you'll see she's the wife of Dick Mtsweni.

CHAIRPERSON: Tandi?

MR DEHAL: Judge, she is the daughter of Dick Mtsweni. Again number 11.

CHAIRPERSON: Gideon?

MR DEHAL: Judge, Gideon is the grandchild of this deceased, Dick Mtsweni, enumerated 11 on the list.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the only basis upon which you are saying that Gideon is a victim?

MR DEHAL: In addition, he was in Botswana at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he attacked? Look, Busisiwe is a victim of that attack in her own right aside from being the grandchild of the Dick, right? Is Gideon in a similar position, or are you saying he's a victim merely because he's the grandchild and lost the love and affection of his grandfather?

MR DEHAL: Judge, he was not attacked in the raid, he lived in the same area and he says however that he was constantly harassed by Security Force members.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dehal, you know in what context we're talking, is he a victim of this incident? That's all I'm asking.

MR DEHAL: No, not at the level you put it, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Gaberone?

MR DEHAL: Judge her father was killed, Cecil John Pahle, number 3 on your list of victims. The name Hilda Pahle alongside that is the mother who is now deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: You've already explained Mr Coombes. Esther?

MR DEHAL: Judge, she relates to victim number 5, Joseph Malaza. She's the mother of Joseph Malaza who was killed.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) Are you saying Esther Mthembu was the mother of the deceased, Joseph Malaza?

MR DEHAL: Yes, Judge, the instructions we have is that Esther is the mother of Joseph Malaza and that the name you have there, Momoketi Lydia Malaza is in fact the mother of Lindiwe Pahle, the one above that, number 4.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Lydia here?

MR DEHAL: No, Judge. And Lydia has not been given notice either.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mohamed, have you got a list of the people you represent?

MR DEHAL: Judge, that's the lot between Ms Mohamed and I. But I think Ms Mohamed wants to address you on a few other persons of note who have not received notice.

MS MOHAMED ADDRESSES: Thank you, Mr Chairman. In keeping with the fact that we obviously cannot represent a family who hasn't given us the mandate to represent them, as an aside I want to address you on the family of Peter Mofoka who was a six-year old boy that was in the Machobane house at the time of the incident. Peter is actually the nephew of Rose Machobane, who is presently one of the victims that we are representing, on record.

Peter was, as you recall, a six-year old boy who was killed in this incident. I am instructed that his family is in Lesotho and notice has not been furnished to his family. The reason that I'm bringing this up now at this late stage is, Rose Machobane has only recently contacted us in the sense, with proper instructions on this aspect, and this was earlier this morning. I understand, given the detailed discussions that we've had since this hearing has resumed, that we haven't per se been instructed by the Mofoka family, but just as an aside for notices that ought to have gone out.

CHAIRPERSON: To whom was notice supposed to go out in that case?

MS MOHAMED: With respect, Mr Chairman, to the family of Peter Mofoka. I understand his mother's name is Cecilia Mofoka and she's presently living in Lesotho.

CHAIRPERSON: You've got no other details?

MS MOHAMED: Mr Chairman, I do have a contact phone number which Rose has given me, it relates to one of the relatives that they usually contact in order to contact this particular family, but apart from that I can't take it any further.

CHAIRPERSON: So what are you asking now?

MR DEHAL: Judge, given that difficulty I am, on instructions from victims and family who are present here before this forum, to inform this Panel that they would like all the interested parties to be collectively present before the matter proceeds.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you in a position to explain to us why they did not inform those who they could inform to be here? In other words, why are they calling on the letter of the law?

MR DEHAL: Judge, I'm not in a position fully to advise you on that or to answer to that, I must say in their favour though, when we contacted one of the persons who received notice, we advised that person to call on as many people as they could who were involved in this raid, to talk with us. We managed to talk to eight people and only two of those had received notices. So they have in fact endeavoured to raise as many people as they could. And as originally submitted, these are not people of much means and I don't think they really have the means to make long distance phone calls and to be travelling about.

MR MALAN: Can you just for the record, tell us which of the two people that you represent, received notices?

MR DEHAL: Yes, there were two, Adelaide Morare and Emma Mtsweni.

MR MALAN: Well are you representing Adelaide Morare? You didn't give that name to us so I didn't write it down.

MR DEHAL: Sorry Judge, Fatima Mohamed just tells me now the reason she didn't give that name is, or we didn't give the name is that she's a sister in the family, in the Machobane family and these others who are identified as victims. So she's just one of the parties who received notice that we talked to.

MR MALAN: Did the mother not get notice? Rose.

MR DEHAL: Yes, sorry, certainly she did not get notice.

MR MALAN: Or the wife?

MR DEHAL: She did not.

MR MALAN: Yes.

MR DEHAL: In fact, it would be correct to say that as Ms Mohamed and I sit here with all these parties present, only two of them have received notices.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you aware of the notice that went out on the 3rd of July?

MR DEHAL: Judge, no I've really been looking at my file very quickly as Mr Steenkamp was addressing and I found a notice that's dated the 20th of July and that's the only notice that I have a copy of. I can't see how that would have been sent before the 3rd of July.

CHAIRPERSON: What's it dated?

MR DEHAL: Forgive me, my apologies. It's dated 20th of June 2000. That's the only notice that I have.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not get a notice indicating that this specific hearing was set down for today?

MR DEHAL: Yes, certainly and Judge, as I earlier said, against myself, I was present at the pre-trial hearing and made myself available for this hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: ... any of your clients get notice, that particular notice?

MR DEHAL: No, certainly not.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, my learned colleague is actually correct, it's the 20th of June, that was the second notice that was sent out. I don't want to stress the point, but we were ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: The first.

CHAIRPERSON: The first, ja. No, the first one I've got here I see was signed - well the response was to be before the 8th of July.

Mr Chairman, the difficulty we're sitting here - it's maybe not the right place to bring it up, but I was also informed that there was another reason why this matter - there will be, initially, be an application for postponement ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm asking you a question about dates, I'm not asking you about other ...(intervention)

ADV STEENKAMP: Sorry Mr Chairman, I was looking at the documents. The documents I have before me, Mr Chairman, like I said, I could have been wrong, it was signed on the 20th of June, normally it goes out within five working days from that.

MR MALAN: Mr Steenkamp, you're supposed to get a Return of Service.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I don't have the Return of Service, I only have a memo from the Analyst saying that these documents were actually sent out. Not only were they sent out, but they were also sent out to the legal representatives.

MR MALAN: How were they sent out, Mr Steenkamp, by mail?

ADV STEENKAMP: They were sent out by mail, ja. Some of them I see were sent out to the Witness Protector, to assist us in notifying them and I've asked this morning whether or not, actually this weekend, whether or not I could get some Return of Services and they couldn't supply me yet with all the Return of Services from Cape Town.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Dehal, from the date of that pre-hearing conference till now, your office were only able to consult with these people that you mentioned today?

MR DEHAL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the ...(indistinct) victims, where there are addresses etcetera, furnished in this bundle?

MR DEHAL: Judge, we've not managed to raise them. That I do know. Ms Mohamed and the lady Mr Steenkamp referred to, Ms Marie, have been working day in and day out over those weeks since the pre-trial conference in our dire endeavours to try and raise them, but in vain.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) representatives, I'm terribly sorry, we're going to have to adjourn for about twenty minutes just to see how we're going to deal with it. I know it's not your fault this happened.

CHAIRPERSON: At the outset I want to apologise to the applicants and their respective representatives, for what amounts to having wasted your time today, but as you may have witnessed, this is beyond our control. I'm going to postpone this matter until tomorrow. I want to see evidence of what was done by the TRC to identify and inform victims that the matter is either starting or, the hearing is going to take place between the 24th and the 11th of August, or preferably starting today and ending on the 4th. In particular, I want to see that kind of evidence relating to all these known victims here, as set out in the bundle.

I want to address the people who feel aggrieved by the events of the 14th of June 1985, in whichever way. I want to point out to you that not all of you may be regarded as victims at the end of the hearing, but that is something we'll have to hear evidence on. We have in our possession, written applications by all of these applicants, setting out briefly the facts upon which they based their application. All of them make application for amnesty in respect of the events that took place on the 14th of June 1985 in Botswana that day.

They say in their written application, at that time they were not entitled to proceed across the borders of the country to perform any acts of aggression. That was by law, rightly or wrongly, the domain of the Military at the time. However, all of them were in possession of information about people and properties and addresses located in Botswana, which they passed on upon request of the Military, and upon which the Military seemed to have acted, resulting in this attack. So none of them, according to the applications that we received, were the actual perpetrators of what occurred that day. It is more likely that it was members of the Military, who to my knowledge have not made application for amnesty in respect of this matter.

I want you people to go away from here today and discuss amongst yourselves whether the applicants in the position that I've just described to you, are likely to give evidence with which you are able to disagree. It may that had the perpetrators made application, that you could have been in the position to dispute what they were telling us. In other words, I'm asking you to consider whether it's worth insisting on the letter of the law as far as being notified of this hearing is in the circumstances that I've just described to you.

You've heard me ask the representative of the TRC that I want to see the evidence relating to who was informed and who was identified as a victim and how those people were informed, or what attempts were made to inform them, and based on that we will decide tomorrow what to do. Hopefully that you would have thought about it given the information that I now tell you, and take a practical decision, whichever it may be. Let us do that, you instruct your attorney thereafter what to do and we'll decide tomorrow at 9 o'clock whether to proceed or not.

Mr Steenkamp, are the instructions understood?

ADV STEENKAMP: Understood, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll then adjourn till nine thirty tomorrow morning.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, just before you rise, may I just bring something to your attention? We have heard reference by my learned friend made to documents which we don't seem to have, pre-hearing ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which colleague are you talking about?

MR VISSER: Mr Dehal. ... pre-hearing findings and lists of victims which we haven't seen, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) what he's talking about. Are you wanting a list of that?

MR VISSER: We would like to see what documents are in possession of other parties that we haven't seen.

MR MALAN: Those are hard copies of database information. The HRV Committee's findings on whether people were victims or not, as they were - this is for the purposes of reparation.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson, but we'd like to see it anyway.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dehal, can you oblige on that?

MR DEHAL: Judge, I think it's fair, I think the request is fair, unfortunately I got these copies from the TRC offices, so I have my only copies. I think Mr Steenkamp could help us there.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it not possible to make copies of it?

MR DEHAL: I have no difficulties, my only problem is Ms Mohamed's copies has notes about it and mine as well, so if you want me to begin to obliterate those, I can do that tonight and make the copies tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON Is it all that problematic to disclose your notes?

MR DEHAL: I'm not too sure, Judge, I'm not making it a problem, I'm just saying we can go through them. I have no difficulty in making them available for them to be photocopied.

CHAIRPERSON: One would have thought in this type of inquiry, tactics would be the last thing to adopt.

MR DEHAL: It's not a tactic Judge, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: It is based on openness, so that ... you know.

MR DEHAL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps it would be a good idea for Mr Visser to see your notes, so that he'd know what your opposition is.

MR VISSER: My learned friend hasn't declared himself to oppose yet, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Steenkamp, could you help to facilitate this business?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I doubt before tomorrow morning 9 o'clock. I don't know what documents my colleague is talking about, I see he's got a huge bundle of documents. I'm not quite sure to which documents he's referring, but if we can get them - apparently they can be down-loaded, but we can discuss it. I doubt if I can get it before ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Look, before you discuss it amongst you guys, I've got experience about such discussions, I'm saying that I don't want to come here tomorrow half past nine and if we decide to proceed, that I'm told that Mr Visser hasn't had a chance to read those documents. Please, I'm becoming old hat at this business now. So let's see that he gets it tonight, so that he can have some bedtime reading.

We're adjourned.