Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] the public who have been waiting here this morning for this hearing, the delay appears to have been caused by the aircraft in which one of my Committee Members came down, by it's electronic device which has been unable to distinguish whether a door was open or not, but we are all here now and I hope we can continue and carry on with no further interruptions. I'm sorry.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, Honourable Members. The first matter or the matter for today on the roll is that of the applicant of Mr de Ru. I can maybe just add that Mr de Ru is Afrikaans speaking but we're ready to proceed Mr Chairman.

MR MADASA: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair I appear on behalf of the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you give your name for the sake of the record please?

MR MADASA: I'm Advocate Z.L. Madasa from the Johannesburg Bar.

CHAIRPERSON: Instructed by?

MR DE KOCK: Thank you Mr Chair, I'm Francois van Zyl de Kock, I'm from Rooth and Wessels Attorneys.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps, I don't know if it's the practice here, it's certainly the practice we've been asked to do elsewhere in all the other - well to start with the Committee, the Committee consists of myself, Advocate Sogodi and Mr Wynand Malan. This is the application of Mr de Ru. We have had the identification of his legal advisors. Could the rest of you please put yourself on record?

MR COETZEE: I'm Advocate S.J. Coetzee. I'm appearing on behalf of the implicated party of Mr Chris Fouche. I'm instructed by the Attorneys firm Botha, Du Plessis and Kruger from Johannesburg.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I'm Advocate J. M. K. Joubert, I'm appearing on behalf of Isak van der Merwe an implicated person in this matter. Thank you.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I'm Andre Steenkamp, I'm appearing on behalf of the victims in this matter. I'm also the evidence leader in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR MADASA: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair with your permission, the applicant's application and the form is before the Commission and so I propose to go straight to the issues with the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: You propose to call the applicant now?

EXAMINATION BY MR MADASA: Thank you Mr Chair.

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: (sworn states)

I am an applicant, Jacobus Johannes de Ru and according to the bundle page 1, my application is in front of you. At present I am in prison in the Green Point in Vereeniging. I was a member of the South African Police and specifically the Detective Unit in Sasolburg where I was a Captain. I did twenty years of service and my force number was 00693260 and I'm asking you amnesty for three charges of murder.

I refer you to the second bundle, page 1, where you will find the charge sheet as it was put out by the High Supreme Court and you will see it there. I do not know whether you want me to read this out loud?

CHAIRPERSON: What is the second bundle?

MR DE RU: It's that one there.

CHAIRPERSON: That's an affidavit?

MR DE RU: That is correct, Chairperson. Would you like me to read it out loud or is it not necessary?

I confirm the contents on page 1. Your Honour, the date on which this took place was 1992, April 7th and it took place at Sentra Hypersave, that's a business complex in Vaalpark, Sasolburg in the Free state. Your Honour, what happened there, like I've said before, I was a commander of the Detective Branch at Sasolburg. Round about December 1991 and January 1992 an informant came to talk to me with regards to certain illegal diamond transactions. Because of the fact that we did not deal with these kind of matters I contacted the Gold and Diamond Branch in Randburg in order to be of assistance to us. She was helped by them and I accepted that she was happy with the course of events which happened afterwards.

It was round about two months later that she contacted me again and then told me that she was not happy with the way the specific unit handle things because she did not receive any reparation. She also gave me information with regards to illegal firearm transactions. I contacted the Gold and Diamond Branch in Welcome to help her.

MR MADASA: Sorry Mr de Ru, who is she? Who is the person you are referring to?

MR DE RU: Mrs Elsa de Lange.

MR MADASA: Did you know her before?

MR DE RU: I only met her that day, December when she arrived at my office.

MR MADASA: Did you know where she worked?

MR DE RU: As far as I know she was unemployed.

MR MADASA: Alright, Continue?

MR DE RU: Thank you. Your honour, she informed me that certain gang members as mentioned were involved in the illegal distribution and buying of firearms, amongst others, AK guns, hand grenades, explosives and I told her that I'd try to use the firearm units to help her. As far as I know she was also informed by the Gold and Diamond Branch to deal with the firearms unit in Eikenhof.

Round about the last week of March 1992 Mrs de Lange came to me again and asked me if I could not help her to infiltrate the so called gang. She also explained to me it was very dangerous for her as a woman to go and do this questioning because all of this happened in the Black areas. Detective Sergeant Chris Fouche, I introduced him to her and Fouche was a member of the Detective Branch in Sasolburg.

MR MADASA: Just before you come to that, did you question De Lange as to her association with these people, who those people were that she was telling you about?

MR DE RU: I'll get to the point. At that stage she did not tell me exactly who they were, she only mentioned the gang. Sergeant Fouche then started working together with her. The reason why I used Sergeant Fouche was because in September the previous year he only started working at the Detective Branch in Sasolburg and then he was unknown with the Black areas in the Vaal Triangle and nobody would have known that he was a police member. The rest of my unit was well known in the Vaal Triangle, specifically the Black areas that is.

All the information which I found afterwards was coming from Fouche and also from De Lange and on certain occasions a Black man with the name of Joseph who worked with Fouche. De Lange now acted as Fouche's informant and like I've already told you all the information afterwards was reported to me by the two of them. I trusted Fouche, he informed me that he was taken to the gang and he was introduced as her brother with the name of Brown. Sergeant Fouche reported back to me but most of these people were trained M.K. members and this issue was also confirmed by Elsa and once again I'd like to assure you that I trusted the information they gave me.

On a certain day Fouche brought me a 635 Baby Brown Pistol as well as a 12 cartridge shotgun and these were weapons which he bought from these members of the gang. Your honour these weapons, I tried to find the owners by asking questions at the National Weapon Register. The 635 mm was not stolen, it was licensed under the name of Mr Elderley and was the same with the shotgun, it was not registered but I would like to tell you that the series number on the shotgun was removed and another number was engraved on this - M992. It was known to me that it was similar to which the Municipal Component of the Police in Sebokeng marked their weapons.

Fouche assured me that the weapons were bought with his own money. They also told me that AK47 weapons were available and we had to try and refund him from state funds. Fouche a day or two later arrived at the office with a red coloured Toyota Corolla vehicle. This vehicle, allegedly he also got this from the so called gang members. He went and placed the vehicle on the computer. It was indicated that this vehicle was robbed on the 23rd March in Heidelberg, Transvaal.

Fouche also informed me that the gang did not only accept him as a member of the gang but he also believed that he was De Lange's brother but he did not take his appointment or weapon with him. I was very concerned about Fouche's safety. De Lange also then came out with a lot of other information regarding the smuggling of AK47 weapons. My district detective officer, Swanepoel, I kept him informed about all this information which was available to me. I also told him of the weapons which we already received by then and I was not going to go and look for the owners of the weapons because they were not reported as stolen and I thought that these people might be involved with the smuggling of the weapons.

I also told him about the red Corolla and I told him that the gang worked with this car everyday and that was there reason why we did not take possession of this car.

One morning Elsa de Lange contacted me when I was at office and asked me to come and speak to her at her home. Fouche accompanied me to her house. It was in Danie Theron Street in Sasolburg. There De Lange showed me a 765 Walter pistol and handed it over to me which she got for her own protection from one of the gang members. I determined that this weapon was taken in an armed robbery where the weapon was stolen in kwaGuqa. Fouche a day or two later came to me and asked me if he could take back the 765 pistol because the gang members were asking after it. I gave him the pistol. De Lange also gave me several other pieces of information with regards to this gang, mostly concerning weapon smuggling and armed robberies. They also informed me that they take these weapons to Lesotho where they exchange it for diamonds and then they buy more weapons with these diamonds thus it was quite clear to me, you honour, that there was no financial gain with regards to this but it was only concerned with the distribution of firearms. At a certain incident Fouche also told me that in the Black area of Zonkezizwe in Heidelberg they cannot just go in there but would have to give certain indications by using the lights of the vehicle or certain signs to show that there was a great amount of weapons, mainly AK47's, available within that specific Black area and that these weapons are used in order to cause political violence within the townships and also in order to arm the self defending units.

He and Elsa, at several occasions, they had to fire with these AK47's in the Black townships in order to stay in the favour of these people. The impression I got was that they basically just fired these weapons, they didn't fire at anybody, they just fired them.

On the 3rd April Fouche informed me that the people wanted to commit an armed robbery in Sebokeng. Members of my unit and also of murder and robbery in Vanderbijlpark and also of the security branch in Vereenging, all of these people I brought together at the old Golden Highway close to Everton where we wanted to stop these people and arrest them. This action continued right through the day and it was unsuccessful. Fouche came back and said that they might want to go and rob a certain place but this also did not happen. Nothing came of it. Fouche asked me, that he was looking for the 635 pistol because the gang wants this weapon back. He went to my office at Sasolburg where I agreed with him that if he arrived there he must contact me. I spoke to him and I was worried because if he's going to hand this weapon over because there was a planned robbery according to the information he gave me. He assured me that he would damage this weapon in order ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Why were you concerned Mr de Ru?

MR DE RU: Your honour, because I did not want people to be shot with a weapon that was in our possession.

CHAIRPERSON: But the way I understand is that they had various AK47 rifles with them, they were in the business to sell weapons.

MR DE RU: That is correct your honour.

CHAIRPERSON: And a small 635 pistol is not very important.

MR DE RU: Yes but the impression that I got was that they were looking for this weapon to use this as part of the robbery. He assured me that he will damage this weapon in order for it not to be able to be fired. Nothing came from this, this information.

MR MALAN: Can I just ask you - do you know how he damaged this rifle?

MR DE RU: No I do not know.

MR MALAN: Do you know if he knew how to do it? Did you ask him if he knows?

MR DE RU: No I did not.

MR MALAN: He was a sergeant and you did not know him for very long, you knew him only for six months?

MR DE RU: Yes but he worked at Sasolburg for the Police for a very long time. He worked from '85 when I arrived there so I knew about him a long time before.

MR MALAN: But did you not say that you decided to use Sergeant Fouche because he was not well known in Sasolburg?

MR DE RU: I would just like to rectify that. He was not well known as a Detective in the Black areas. He worked in the Police garages so he was not a person that appeared in the Black areas at all.

MR MALAN: So he was a technical officer at the Police?

MR DE RU: Yes that is correct. He repaired vehicles.

MR MALAN: He never went out on any investigations then?

MR DE RU: Not before he started working for me, no.

Your honour, on the 6th Fouche again came to me. It was approximately seven o'clock that night and he gave me information that the people would want to commit an armed robbery at the Hypersave Business Complex at Vaalpark and that he must accompany them. He also said that they will rob the place at 5 o'clock the morning of the 7th. I conveyed this information to my District Commander, Swanepoel. Fouche also told me that he will use a vehicle, that they would steal that evening. It would be a Honda Ballade. However, later that evening he would come back to me to tell me if a vehicle was found. At approximately nine o'clock I brought all the detectives together in my office who were on duty as well as Warrant Officer in charge of the dog unit, as well as members of the Internal Units who worked in Sasolburg at that stage and then I informed them regarding the information that we received. All of us then planned how to act. We were concerned about the safety of Fouche.

From my office we went to the scene where we looked at the scene. Because of the location it was very difficult to determine what would - it was in a neighbourhood which was known to me to be very dangerous or it would be dangerous for the people or that these people would be dangerous and that they have got various firearms and also access to a wide variety of firearms and I also knew at that stage that they were involved in attacks and murders of six policemen. According to the information that Fouche conveyed to me, the last of these policemen were shot the Friday evening the 3rd April. According to him one policeman was shot and killed and one was just injured. This information I checked up on and it was confirmed that there was such an incident but that one policeman was seriously injured and one not as seriously injured.

MR MADASA: Just before this planning were you satisfied at that stage as to which organisation these people belonged?

MR DE RU: Yes I knew that they were trained M.K. members. Fouche also told me that they were active in politics and that they talked about politics a lot.

MR MADASA: What did you make out of the fact that as much as they were political activists they were involved in criminal activities?

MR DE RU: As I've already said it was clear that these people were not trying to enrich themselves. It was merely about the collection of weapons and the distribution of it.

MR MADASA: And therefore what were you planning to do with it?

MR DE RU: Your honour, the whole planning was that these people had to be arrested. It was also the main purpose why I got Fouche to infiltrate them in order to get as much information about them as possible. I would also like to mention that before this incident of the evening of the 6th we asked the Security Branch in Sasolburg, asked them for money in order to buy weapons but they could not provide us and then we decided to go to Eikenhof to approach them in order to help us. They were contacted and came to my office to help us. In the office it was myself, Sergeant Fouche and Lieutenant Botha of the Security Branch in Vereeniging. Sergeant Fouche told me that during one evening in Heidelberg where they looked at weapons once again, a police official came and sold weapons to these people or wanted to buy from them and the impression that he got is that the Police and these members smuggle weapons together.

When the Eikenhof people stopped and got out of their vehicles, Fouche identified one of the people as one of them who on the previous evening was there at Heidelberg concerning these weapon transactions and he was very worried that he would now be identified. I realised that the situation now that Fouche's life is now in danger. I told him to get into a cupboard in my office in order for him to hide there and then I told Warrant Officer Swanepoel of Eikenhof that we cannot continue with these actions because the informant has not yet arrived. It was merely done because I was now aware that some of these members could possibly be involved in the smuggling of weapons. At that stage I also had knowledge that various shotguns were gone or were stolen from the Sebokeng Municipal Police which had similar markings or was engraved in a similar fashion as the one that I knew of. Botha confirmed that the suspect worked with them at that stage and was regularly seen with the people from Eikenhof.

MR MALAN: Could you just explain that please? Botha told you?

MR DE RU: That the suspect that we thought stole the weapons or sold to the Municipal Police was seen regularly with the Eikenhof people and that they worked with the tracking down unit.

MR MALAN: When did Botha say that to you?

MR DE RU: That same day when the Eikenhof people were identified.

MR MALAN: Did he name the person?

MR DE RU: Yes that is correct.

Your honour, I would just like to mention I did the 3 Million investigation or so called 3 Million investigation in Kroonstad. The reason why I'm saying this is that the political motive around which I saw these people, the 3 Millions were ANC Youth League people who acted alone with the ANC people in the townships. There was also talk or information in front of this Commission about Police involvement concerning these acts and you also already found that it was politically motivated and that there was Police involvement and you have already granted amnesty to various members of these 3 Million gang.

I also did an investigation after that at Tumahole neighbourhood in Parys where the so called Noxi gang was involved, that was already put to you at various other opportunities and various of those applicants were granted amnesty and it was also politically motivated and allegations were made that the Police was also involved in the provision of firearms to these people. What I would like to mention to you now is that the modus operandi of this specific gang was similar to that of the 3 Million and the Noxi gangs. There was also Police involvement, there was also talk of weapons that was given to Inkatha members or supplied to Inkatha members. That's exactly what happened at the 3 Million affair and it was never argued and I accept it that the leader of the 3 Million gang was a cardholder and he came to my office or they came to my office in order to get bail for some of the members. You will see that according to the modus operandi of these specific people it was similar to the 3 Million and Noxi gangs and I believed that these people were politically active through their acts and the arming of the groups to disrupt the government. To come back to the happenings of that evening ...[intervention]

MR MALAN: Sorry Mr de Ru, my knowledge about the 3 Million gang is not first hand knowledge it is only through documents that I received this information. Why are you saying that this gang is similar to this gang that you are concerning in your application. Were they not busy with murder and robberies, that they also got weapons and exchanged or got diamonds in order to get weapons? How was it similar?

MR DE RU: For the reason that they were also armed and that the Police were involved, that murder was committed, there was arson and the damaging of property and that there were robberies. It was similar - in this case there were diamonds involved but it was also involved in the collection of more firearms.

MR MALAN: Where did you give evidence of murder where these people were involved?

MR DE RU: Where I've mentioned that six policemen were killed.

MR MALAN: In your evidence that there was an incident where one person was seriously injured and another one lightly injured, that's the only one that we know of.

MR DE RU: That's the only one that I knew of that Friday evening, the others were just information that I got from Fouche that people were killed.

MR MALAN: But your first hand knowledge about the activities of these gangs is zero because you do not know about the activities, you do not even know if they were involved in this incident.

MR DE RU: I only said that the information or the knowledge I had was from Fouche and De Lange.

MR MALAN: So you're saying all the knowledge that you had about this gang you received from De Lange and Fouche and what you try to confirm was an allegation about the death of a policeman on the 3rd April and you found out that he was not killed but that there was an incident and you do not know if there was any connection?

MR DE RU: That is correct, yes. You honour, after we did the planning we went back to the office. We then decided that these people will be arrested. I would make an arrangement with Fourie that if the vehicle arrived at the scene, that in case there's a shooting that Fouche will not be injured or killed. I also told the people to be in my office the next morning at three o'clock.

MR MALAN: I'm sorry, I'm going to take you back now. You didn't say when you confirmed that incident that would have happened on the 3rd April.

MR DE RU: It was the 6th.

MR MALAN: On the 6th. You never said at any stage that you approached Fouche to tell him that the information that he gave you is wrong that a policeman was not killed. You thought it was good, it was alright that he said that this policeman was killed, you find out that there was an incident but you did not go back to Fouche?

MR DE RU: No, I did not say to him that a man was killed, I've got no reason for not saying it to him.

MR MALAN: You see, it is about what you understood how this gang worked, you're saying that this gang worked like the 3 Million gang and the one in Parys, that they had political motives and they killed people left right and centre. You now thought that this gang is acting in a similar way and the only way in which you can confirm it is that you then in the end found out that Fouche did not give you the right information. You do not confront him but you still accept that this gang acted as the 3 Million gang. Would you just like to bring that together please?

MR DE RU: I will, yes. I believed that the moment when we catch these people and the investigation that would follow will reveal the truth and I believed that the information that Fouche gave me is correct and is the truth. Today I know it is not true concerning the information that Fouche gave me and I believe that it will become clear to you when I continue with my evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: You've said before that - and I'm reading this in English

"I believed that every person who committed such acts on aged person belonged to a political organisation"

Can you remember that?

MR DE RU: Could you please read it again?

CHAIRPERSON: "I believed that every person who committed such acts, that is attacks of violence and robberies, belonged to a political organisation and that they were instructed to do so."

MR DE RU: Chairperson, I think you're referring to the previous application. Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You said that everybody who attacked old people did it for political reasons.

MR DE RU: That was with regard to the farm attacks and that is my previous application. I'm now only speaking about the Fouche incident.

MR MADASA: Sorry to interrupt you. Can you tell the Committee again what investigation did you do with relation to that red Corolla vehicle?

MR DE RU: As I've already said investigation was conducted on the Police computers, that was the investigation we led.

MR MADASA: And what were your findings?

MR DE RU: That it was stolen in Heidelberg.

MR MADASA: Okay, continue?

MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Madasa, is the logical question now not what did you do about it once you found out that it was stolen and it was reported?

MR DE RU: This was part of the actions against these people. Information was gathered against them and this vehicle was already in our possession and Fouche used this vehicle. Fouche and De Lange, they used this at several occasions and they used it as mode of transport and they used it to go to the townships to go and speak to these people.

MR MALAN: The question is why did you not immediately arrest because you had the Nexus, Fouche got the vehicle from the gang, this was stolen in Heidelberg, what more did you need in order to arrest them?

MR DE RU: As I've already told you the gang was infiltrated for quite a while and we were on our way of bringing a very strong case against them and at that stage when the vehicle was given there were only two weapons. We did not receive any AK47s or no AK47s appeared. That's why Fouche continued with this infiltration and the gathering of evidence against these people. I would also like to tell you that an AK47 was bought from this gang.

CHAIRPERSON: On which day did the vehicle arrive?

MR DE RU: The 1st April, your honour.

CHAIRPERSON: And you did not want to arrest them on that day but on the 7th, that's when you wanted to arrest the two of them?

MR DE RU: Chairperson, you must remember it was only Fouche who arrived there with a vehicle, there were no gang members with them. He arrived there on his own, there were no members accompanying him, he was on his own.

CHAIRPERSON: And he could drive it back, a bug or listening device, you could have used that not true?

MR DE RU: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You do have things like this?

MR DE RU: Yes it was used on the 3rd, we tried to attempt to arrest them with that robbery on the 3rd and you'll hear further from the evidence it was also used on the 7th, this listening device.

Chairperson to continue, Fouche arrived that evening or that night at my place and he gave me the information that these people robbed a yellow Toyota Cressida or stole one. He provided me with the registration number of this vehicle. I made an enquiry by phone with regards to this vehicle and then it came through as negative. I asked the police officer in the radio room to do it again later in order to determine whether this vehicle was in fact stolen. Fouche brought me under the impression that these gang members robbed the vehicle, he was not involved.

MR MALAN: I just want to get clarity on this please. Sometimes you use the idea of "Fouche told me" but then sometimes you also say "Fouche brought me under the impression" or "I got the impression". Do you want to make a distinction there?

MR DE RU: No.

MR MALAN: So every time you say "impression" we must interpret it as "Fouche told me"?

MR DE RU: Yes please.

MR MALAN: Because you're using it indiscriminately.

MR DE RU: I accompanied Fouche to the scene and that is Hypersave and like we'd planned the night before together with a group of people who were present with us there I told him where to park the car and that he must get out of the car on his own, by himself and that he must go round the left corner of the shop or rather the right hand corner of this shopping centre and that a back up group was placed at the flats where he had to go to and then we would act in order to arrest the occupants of the car.

In the second bundle you'll see a map from page 19 to 21 and I would just like to explain this to you. Page 19, it's a map of Sasolburg and Vaalpark. I do not know if the map is coloured or whether it is black and white.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Madasa what is it that we should be looking at here?

MR MADASA: This is a sketch plan where this incident should have happened.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry I didn't hear what you said?

MR MADASA: This is a sketch plan of the area where the incident happened.

MR MALAN: Mr Madasa I wonder whether you shouldn't try to lead or direct your client a little more to be more specific? Do you know what the relevance is of him showing this plan of the area to us in connection with the application, why he has to do this in oral evidence?

MR MADASA: So that the Committee has a full picture of the place from the photos and from the sketch, unless the Committee finds that unnecessary. We can leave that out.

MR MALAN: I fail to see the importance of the area on the sketch in terms of an application. I would be very pleased if you will ask your client or lead him to give us the evidence specific to what is necessary in terms of his application. We have a full affidavit here, he's been busy now for the best part of an hour, almost an hour. He's dealt with seven paragraphs of his affidavit. I'm really not sure that we're on the right course, if we're going to handle the matter on this basis.

MR MADASA: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr de Ru, just tell the Committee if you had other members who were part of the plan and why did you post them in regard to this area which was to be robbed?

MR DE RU: The arrest of these people was planned by myself and then it meant that an arrest group was set out and back up groups were placed around the shops. There were also back up groups of all the roads giving access to this shopping centre or away from them, back up groups were placed in these roads in order to stop them if they wanted to escape. There was a back up group with two members, was placed at the garage, about six hundred metres away from the shop and a listening device was placed in the jacket of Fouche because at previous occasions we had problems with listening device, the fact that it did not record or it did not work, I agreed with Fouche that he'd stop right opposite this garage where the two other members were placed and that there he would give us a specific sign, identifiable sign that is, by taking off his jacket and to put it in the boot of the car. That would have been the sign indicating that the robbery was going to take place and that the members were armed.

Fouche understood these instructions. He gave me the names of the people who would be present. He also told me that Mrs De Lange would come in the red Toyota and she'd wait at the Tygerbos Fountain and it would be used as a so called getaway car. Fouche arrived at the office quite late, about half past three.

MR MADASA: Sorry, did you have information as to the firearms they were going to use on that particular day?

MR DE RU: Chairperson, the fact that they would have been armed and the confirmation of the fact that they would be armed and the continuation of the robbery would only be confirmed once Fouche gave the sign and we already knew from the experiences from the Friday that they did not commit the robbery as it was alleged they would. That happened on the Friday so we needed the sign. The purpose was that in case the robbery was not to continue that they would be followed by a vehicle, police vehicle and we would have withdrawn.

MR MALAN: Sorry, did you say the Friday you've already seen that they did not adhere to their appointment?

MR DE RU: I told you that on Friday they also would have committed a robbery but nothing happened, nothing came of it, we sat there the whole day, that robbery never took place on the Friday the 3rd.

MR MALAN: Why do you use the idea of turning up for an appointment.

MR DE RU: Maybe I've put it wrong Chairperson, but the fact of the matter remains it did not take place.

At the office I once again gave the instructions very clearly to all the members who were involved, the back up groups as well as the arrest groups. Everybody was armed, everybody knew exactly what the instructions were. The purpose was to arrest these people because they were dangerous and because they could have been armed with dangerous weapons. Because of that I told the people that if they fired at us we would fire back but that none of them was to fire unless I gave the shot first or gave them the instructions to fire. I also would like to mention that when Fouche left us this listening device was functioning, it was tested about two, three hundred metres away from us we tested it and it was still functioning fine. Then we went to the shopping centre and the backup groups went to their different positions, posts. Me and another ten members took up positions on the roof of the shopping centre and I believe you have photos in front of you, your honour, you'd see that it's a roof. It's on page 51 in the second bundle page 51, 52, 53, 54.

Warrant Officer Harley contacted me and told me that the vehicle stopped right across from the garage and that Fouche gave the identifiable sign and that the vehicle is moving in the direction of the shop.

Once again I asked him to give the registration number of the vehicle to people in the radio room to confirm that this vehicle was indeed a stolen vehicle and the vehicle then was confirmed by the police as being stolen the previous night.

MR MALAN: When did you determine this? After you've heard that Fouche had already stopped?

MR DE RU: Yes I would just like to tell you that before this evening I gave this registration number through to the radio room and then they said it was negative, but about two o'clock in the morning they phoned me and told me that it was positive so at that stage I already knew it but I still confirmed it with Harley that it was indeed positive and reported back me that this vehicle was identified as being stolen.

MR MALAN: So at two o'clock in the morning it was confirmed to you that it was stolen?

MR DE RU: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Then Harley told you that Fouche gave the sign and then you'd tell him once again confirm whether this vehicle is stolen and he reports back to you that the vehicle is stolen? Why did you do that?

MR DE RU: The reason why I did it Chairperson is because the South African Police 280 is a prescribed form where they write in the enquiries. I did not know whether they exchanged the vehicle from the previous time Fouche came to me up to now, whether they might have taken the registration plates off or whatever the case might have been. I only did it in order to confirm that this vehicle was in fact stolen and I wanted to reconfirm it. It was also indicated on this and the SAP280 in the radio room as about ten to or five to five, it was identified that this vehicle was in fact stolen.

MR MALAN: I do not know if I understand that. You're in the middle of a very big operation and you're deploying a lot of people and the aim is to arrest people and you have Fouche as part of the group, he's driving the vehicle, so none the less you go and ask Harley if Fouche gave the sign or not and then to once again confirm if the vehicle was stolen or not? How does that fit into each other?

MR DE RU: I wanted to make sure there was no other specific reason for that.

MR MALAN: But why did you want confirm that? Fouche is in the car, he's driving it?

MR DE RU: That is correct.

MR MALAN: So why did you want to make sure about this? I'm sorry but I do not understand this, I'm trying to get into your head.

MR DE RU: No, I see what you're trying to ask me, I can see what you are asking me, I did it that way, I did ask Harley afterwards to confirm it once again.

The vehicle - Sergeant Raademan who was part of the back up groups at the top block of flats then contacted me by radio and told me that the vehicle was in front of the shop. He also told me that the vehicle was turning around and driving to the back of the shop. He also told me that we must lie flat on the roof because he can see some of our people on the roof. Then I asked that we should maintain silence on the radios and I told everybody on the roof to lie flat because the vehicle was coming towards us.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you saw this vehicle that evening?

MR DE RU: I saw it at night.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes the night?

MR DE RU: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say that Fouche said that it was stolen that night?

MR DE RU: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you also said that Fouche said that he was not present when this happened?

MR DE RU: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And that's a lie?

MR DE RU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That he lied?

MR DE RU: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But you the following morning saw the same vehicle?

MR DE RU: Yes I saw the same vehicle but the fact that I said there that he told a lie, I only found that out later but when he gave me the information that he was not present, it seems that it was not the truth, that he was present with the robbery of this vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: But you saw the vehicle, you established that it was stolen?

MR DE RU: The first time not, the second yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The second time you did establish that it was stolen and the next morning you see the same vehicle that you saw that evening at the scene?

MR DE RU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you ask again then, I don't understand it Mr de Ru.

MR DE RU: I understand the problem that you've got. I did not see the vehicle, I only saw it when it stopped at us.

CHAIRPERSON: You said that you saw it at approximately midnight?

MR DE RU: Yes I did see it at midnight.

CHAIRPERSON: Why would you then think it's a different vehicle?

MR DE RU: Fouche's information that they would come with a Honda, they did not come with a Honda, they came with a Cressida. You will see later in my statement that Colonel Swanepoel the next morning asked me it is not a Honda because I said they were coming with a Honda.

MR MALAN: Mr de Ru, what the Chairperson is saying to you is that you were aware of the fact that it was a yellow Cressida?

MR DE RU: Yes that is correct.

MR MALAN: You were aware of the fact that Fouche will stop with the yellow Cressida in front of the garage, would get out, take his jacket and put it in the boot?

MR DE RU: That is correct.

MR MALAN: You get the message from the guard that you put out that the sign was given?

MR DE RU: That is correct.

MR MALAN: You know from them that it is Fouche that stopped with the yellow Cressida so there's no reason for you to go and find out if it was stolen or not because already the information was given to you and it was confirmed that it was stolen. Why once again go and ask if it was stolen?

MR DE RU: The only reason I can give is with this 280 there was now official investigation and that this docket was opened. I think it was submitted and is part of the documents.

MR MALAN: Let me ask it this way, I'm sorry to interrupt you, what's the difference if it was stolen at all because here people come to commit a robbery, you want to arrest them while committing this act, what's the difference if it was stolen or not stolen? At that stage what has it got to do with the arrest?

MR DE RU: Yes it is probably true but for me it was important that it must be confirmed that it is the same vehicle.

MR MALAN: Okay.

MR DE RU: The vehicle stopped right underneath us. We agreed with the member who stood on the right hand side of the roof that if Fouche moves past him he must throw a shock grenade, that was a sign that Fouche was safely past him and that would - or my intention was then that the people in the vehicle would then hand themselves over. The member who was lying next to me had also a shock grenade and he would also throw it. The shock grenade on the right hand side was thrown as well as the one on the left hand side. Two explosions occurred shortly after each other. Directly after these explosions shots were fired. I realised that we are being attacked and the only place where these shots can come from is from the vehicle because there were no other people that could have fired. There were no other people in that direction from where the shots came from except the people who were in the vehicle from right underneath us.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR DE RU: It sounded as if it was directly underneath us.

I realised that we were being attacked.

MR MALAN: Can you explain this to me - you hear shots and then you realised that you are being attacked?

MR DE RU: I would like you to understand what happened.

MR MALAN: Yes I want to.

MR DE RU: We threw the shock grenades. After that my whole planning was that we would tell these people that they must hand themselves over. You must realise that we realised that they were dangerous people, that is why we also wanted Fouche to get out of the vehicle because we were scared that if we act with Fouche in the vehicle he could be killed. If they shoot him or we shoot him, if the attack starts we realise at that stage that these people were involved in attacks on Police and it was no problem for them to kill. When the shock grenades exploded, at that second I had no other idea but that we were being shot at.

MR MALAN: That who was being shot?

MR DE RU: We, on the roof. The vehicle was as far from us as from where Advocate Steenkamp is. There are ten people with me and their lives are in danger.

MR MALAN: You are on the roof so the vehicle is approximately 15 feet or more underneath you?

MR DE RU: No. If you look at the photograph, that is why I'm saying no, it was not that far from us.

MR MALAN: Look at page 48, photograph 2 from your bundle.

MR DE RU: Yes, I could possibly just say that you see the roof at the top there where it looks as if there's two figures on the roof? It is not that roof, please page to page 51, can you see the part that looks like a corrugated iron roof? We were there, then you will see that behind that there's another part of the roof so we were very close to this vehicle and there are colour photographs that were taken by the Police, I do not know if it's available.

MR MALAN: We will look at it yes, thank you.

MR DE RU: So the vehicle was very close to us. The people with me, their lives were in my hands, the situation was of such a nature that we had no other way but to act against these people. I then fired the shot with my shotgun. Immediately after that the people on the roof started to fire so with respect I believed that not just myself but the other people on the roof would have made the same conclusion that the shots came from the vehicle and that we were being shot at. There was very short series of shots, in seconds, it's difficult to say. I immediately said stop shooting. Just after I said that someone reported to me that the left back door opened and that this person was trying to get underneath the car. I was afraid that this person would throw a hand grenade on the roof. I said to the person right opposite him to fire again and to shoot this person, the left back side of the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: You said that this person was trying to get underneath the car. What did he do? How can you say that he tried to get underneath the car?

MR DE RU: The people who were on the other side of him or right at the top of him said that he was trying to get underneath the car.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was he found later?

MR DE RU: In a bent down position. If I can show you the photograph it seems as if he was wanting to get underneath the car.

CHAIRPERSON: So he was not busy shooting?

MR DE RU: I cannot say.

CHAIRPERSON: You can say. If he is trying to get underneath the car but you killed him.

MR DE RU: There's no way in which I can say that he shot or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you think that you would be firing if he was trying to get underneath the car?

MR DE RU: I believe or the way I saw it is that the reason why he was doing it was to get cover.

CHAIRPERSON: So he can shoot up? Just think a bit, Mr de Ru, it is not easy if he was underneath the car, he cannot shoot people on top of the roof?

MR DE RU: But he could have thrown a hand grenade on the roof.

CHAIRPERSON: If he is lying underneath the car he can throw a hand grenade? No Mr de Ru, it cannot be.

MR DE RU: No, you have to see my point. I received a report that the door opened and that this man was trying to get underneath the car.

CHAIRPERSON: There's ten policemen and you couldn't wait and you had to shoot him immediately?

MR DE RU: Yes that is correct. Yes we did shoot him.

CHAIRPERSON: But you wanted to arrest him to find out what was happening to get information from him, but you did not try and arrest him, did you? There were ten of you on the roof, there were other policemen round in the area and one man and ten of you shot him?

MR DE RU: Yes that is what happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MADASA: Yes continue?

MR DE RU: After I said that they must stop the shooting for the second time, I realised that they were shooting on the side of the shop, I enquired over the radio. Sergeant Raademan said to me that they shot at a person who came around the side of the building with Fouche and after the explosion of the grenade, shot at us and they killed this person. I asked two of the members on the roof to get down and to approach the vehicle to see if everything was safe but they did not want to climb down because of the danger. I then asked Raademan to move towards the vehicle and to see if everything was safe. We remained lying on the roof. Fouche and Van der Merwe came around the corner. I saw that Fouche was moving towards the right back side of the vehicle and he was moving in a crouched position. I saw that he looked into the back right window of the vehicle. I heard another shot being fired. I saw that it was Fouche who was shooting and I gave him the instruction to stop. We got down from the roof. We secured the scene and I found that the two people in the vehicle were dead. I also found that the person at the side of the shop was dead as well. There was a fire weapon at the body of the person on the side of the shop, was a pistol, approximately two metres from the body and the person who sat at the back of the vehicle, also a weapon sticking out of the belt of his pants. I contacted the service officer as well as Swanepoel who was the District Commander as well as the photographers, as well as the video unit. During that period while we waited for them Constable Hammond and Raademan and Fouche asked me if they cannot go and get De Lange, to go and arrest her. She was still waiting along the road at Taaibospruit. They left. Colonel Swanepoel, Captain Symington and the photographers arrived at the scene as well as the video unit. Colonel Swanepoel took over the scene, photographs were taken and a video was also taken.

MR MADASA: Sorry, who called the video unit and Swanepoel?

MR DE RU: Say again?

MR MADASA: Who called them to the scene?

MR DE RU: I cannot remember, I said that they must be called, I do not remember who specifically called them.

CHAIRPERSON: But you said that they must be called?

MR DE RU: Yes I said that. I cannot remember who specifically called them. It could have been the radio room but it was under my instruction that it was done.

MR MALAN: Your evidence was, and that is how I wrote it down: "I contacted the service officer and Swanepoel and the video unit." You cannot remember who you gave the instruction to?

MR DE RU: I believe it would have been the radio room, that they would contact the people.

MR MALAN: Why did you ask for the photographers and the video unit?

MR DE RU: It is how it is done, that is how we do it.

MR MALAN: Is that standard practice?

MR DE RU: Yes, I would say it is.

MR MALAN: At any crime investigation where there's problems you contact the photographers and the video unit?

MR DE RU: Yes this matter was serious enough for me that I wanted them at the scene as well. I was satisfied that they were coming. You will not get a video unit for an ordinary crime or to take a video of it, for example in an ordinary robbery at a house you would not get the video unit.

MR MALAN: But why the video unit because there's not action. This is after what happened, three people died, no one's still shooting at you, you got the weapons, why did you ask for the video unit?

MR DE RU: I think it was just in terms of the thoroughness of the whole event, it was just to be thorough.

MR MALAN: So you wanted to cover yourself?

MR DE RU: Yes, we wanted to complete this investigation as fully as possible.

MR MADASA: Sorry, did the arrest go as planned?

MR DE RU: No.

MR MADASA: Why do you say that?

MR DE RU: I wanted to arrest these people.

MR MADASA: What went wrong?

MR DE RU: The fact that shots were fired, that resulted in the fact that we thought we were being attacked and I would just like to mention that in the meantime it came to light that I believe Mr Steenkamp could help us more if that some of this tracking down unit applied for amnesty and I'm saying this with an open mind that if those people were not killed that morning we would have prevented various murders if they were caught and arrested and investigation could go the way or follow the way as any other investigation would and that this whole matter were given the chance to be investigated. You will also find in this bundle that where Eikenhof was implicated for the first time by a document that was sent by the security branch. I was reprimanded because I said that there's a suspicion that Eikenhof was involved in this to such an extent that I had to write a letter and apologise that they were not involved.

MR MALAN: Did you write this letter before or after the incident?

MR DE RU: This letter was in answer to my reprimand that I received in an explanation that they were not involved in anything and I wrote this after they acted. People were killed and this investigation could not be continued.

MR MALAN: Mr Madasa, I'm asking you please to lead your client. Really he's now referring now to matters after the event which really is not relevant either to motive or to the act. Please let us not deal with evidence from your client that is really not relevant to his own application.

May I just ask you Mr de Ru, you said that you only wanted to arrest the people and by a question by the Chairperson you said that things went wrong because when you heard the shots you thought you got attacked. Just please explain to me, your information is here are people who are very heavily armed and in your head you are thinking that they might have AK47s at least. Would you have expected that they would shoot? You expected that this is going to be a shootout in some way or another?

MR DE RU: Yes we expected it, that's why our people were armed, that's correct.

MR MALAN: Now what I would like to know from you is how did you think you were going to arrest them? Did you think if you threw two shock grenades they'll throw down their weapons, get up, put their hands in the air and say take me?

MR DE RU: That's what I believed, I believed they would give themselves up. It's not quite easily that when a shock grenade goes off that you are not frightened. I believe that they would give themselves up.

MR MALAN: Do you not think that if they heard a shot or explosion they would not fire?

MR DE RU: It's very difficult for me to say what their reaction would have been but I believed that they would give themselves up and the moment we made it clear to them that they were surrounded they'd give themselves up. This is not normal police procedure where you go to a person and say we're arresting this person. We wanted to create a shock effect on them and that's why we used the shock grenades so that they can realise that there's a very strong action taking place against them.

CHAIRPERSON: You're you talking about AK's but what weapons did you find in the car?

MR DE RU: A 765 pistol, two of them and a 38 revolver.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was it found?

MR DE RU: The one 765 pistol was found with the person at the side of the shop about a metre and a half away from him but he was not in the vehicle and the 38 was found on the right side stuck inside his belt.

CHAIRPERSON: Not in his hand?

MR DE RU: No and the other person's weapon was found after he was taken out of the vehicle. We found the weapon - he had an overall, a type of overall thing and the weapon was found in that.

CHAIRPERSON: But not in his hand?

MR DE RU: No not in his hand.

CHAIRPERSON: And they only had two 765's and a 38, no AK47's nothing like that?

MR DE RU: No, nothing like that.

CHAIRPERSON: And them came to do what, to rob this place?

MR DE RU: Yes to rob the shop.

CHAIRPERSON: And they only had these small firearms?

ADV SOGODI: Do you know when you threw these shock grenades what were these people doing? Had they started to go into the shop or was it even before they went into the shop?

MR DE RU: It was before they entered the shop.

MR MADASA: They were still sitting inside the car?

MR DE RU: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: The doors were not opened yet?

MR DE RU: No, they were still inside the vehicle.

ADV SOGODI: I mean as an experienced policeman did you - couldn't you even wait for them to start doing something before actually throwing the hand grenade and shocking them?

MR DE RU: The instruction from Colonel Swanepoel was to arrest them before they actually got physically involved with the robbery because they were scared that people might be held hostage whilst this robbery was taking place or that they might shoot someone. My instruction was specifically to arrest them before they commit the robbery.

CHAIRPERSON: Were there people there five o'clock in the morning?

MR DE RU: At that stage there no people around.

CHAIRPERSON: So there were no people?

MR DE RU: Yes, no people at all.

CHAIRPERSON: And you knew this?

MR DE RU: No usually shop opened at five o'clock but when they stopped there, there weren't any people around.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you got there first and you realised there were no people around?

MR DE RU: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So you could not have been scared that people might get injured if once they get outside the car because there weren't any people around?

MR DE RU: No Chairperson, there weren't any people there.

MR MADASA: Did you recover any ammunition from the vehicle of the suspects?

MR DE RU: Yes there was ammunition found inside the car and there was also ammunition on the people themselves, on their persons. 9 mm bullets, 3 AK47 bullets, 765 mm bullets and inside the weapons there were also bullets, it was loaded and the 38 there were two shells which had been fired and two live rounds. In the weapon of the person left at the back there was a bullet in the gun, it was cocked with a bullet in the barrel.

MR MADASA: Mr de Ru, the attempted arrest and the subsequent shooting on these people, how do you associate that with a political objective?

MR DE RU: Chairperson, it was quite evident to me that these people were activists who set out to disrupt the government of the day, to incite violence and I believe that an investigation would have led to this as well. I acted by arresting these people. Like I've explained before it then happened that these people were actually shot dead instead of being arrested. At that stage it was known that there were several attacks on policemen and that several policemen were killed. I would also like to refer you to instructions from head office which is attached to the documents about how one should act with regards to attacks on police force members and I believed that my actions were in line with the instructions I received. My motive was to suppress these people and it happened that they got killed. I saw them as the enemy of the state.

MR MADASA: At that stage before the shooting did you have information if the gang was involved in the killings of police?

MR DE RU: I did yes.

MR MADASA: What information did you have?

MR DE RU: It was what Fouche told me, that they had already shot or killed six policemen.

MR MADASA: Did you believe that information?

MR DE RU: Yes I believed it.

MR MADASA: Did you find it necessary to investigate or did you take it on his word?

MR DE RU: I took his word for it. I believed his word, your honour.

MR MADASA: You had some information that this gang could have been associated with the police, some police units, is that so?

MR DE RU: That is correct.

MR MADASA: What did you make of that, the fact that there were activists and probably associated with the police who were also employees of the state?

MR DE RU: It looked to me like third force activities.

MR MADASA: Is there anything that you benefitted as a result of the shooting of these gang members? Did you benefit anything personally?

MR DE RU: No I didn't benefit. I gained no personal benefit from it, no.

MR MADASA: Were you satisfied about the information that you received from De Lange as to the extent the involvement of these members or their training in guerilla activities at the time?

MR DE RU: Chairperson, I learnt from De Lange that they were MK members, I did not learn anything about their training. Now I know that De Lange was a trained MK but at that stage I did not know but I only heard afterwards that she herself was a trained MK member or probably still is, but at that stage I did not know that.

MR MADASA: And now how do you feel about the fact that you killed those people?

MR DE RU: Chairperson, if I think back today, I really, really do regret it. I'm very sorry about the fact that those people died that morning. I realise completely that it was my shot that led to all these people being killed, my first shot and today it's easy because you can think back about it and say it's easy to say you acted wrongly and I'm asking you to see it in the light of what happened that morning and that's also why I came to you and ask you for amnesty. I regret about those people who got killed and as I explained to Mr Malan, in my heart I believe that if those three people were not killed, if they were only arrested, I could have stopped a lot or murders.

I stopped the murders at Kroonstad once I started that investigation once I started that investigation and I arrested the people there. One hundred and two people died there for nothing and today, honestly, I would like to say to the family of the deceased that I regret it and the fact that I gave the opening shot. I also want to say to Elsa de Lange that I'm really sorry. The person who died was her friend and at that stage she was a very good friend to her. I would also like to tell her today that according to information I got from Fouche, she also had to be in the car that morning and then today she would also have been dead with regards to this.

MR MADASA: If you wanted to kill these members could you have done so before that day, if you wanted to kill them?

MR DE RU: That is correct, Chairperson. It was never my intention that these people had to die, everything happened that morning with the suspicion of an attack. I really have remorse in my heart about all of this.

MR MADASA: I have no further questions.

MR MALAN: I just want to ask you a follow up question. Mr Madasa you should maybe help us. Your client is asking us to grant him amnesty on four charges which he lists again in paragraph 2 on page 1 of the bundle that you made available to us. He applies specifically for amnesty on three charges of murder. In order to achieve, to get amnesty, he needs to acknowledge specifically murder. Are you happy that the evidence before us is a confession of murder? All the evidence as I understand it, he's saying "I did my job, I did my duty, I did it as best I could, I'm not guilty of murder There were certain mistakes made but I'm not accepting that I wilfully murdered three individuals"?

MR MADASA: Mr de Ru how do you involve yourself in the killing of these people?

MR DE RU: As I've already explained, the two people in the vehicle died definitely because of the first shot that I fired and they died because of this action and the action of the members on the roof who then fired on them.

CHAIRPERSON: But has your evidence, Mr de Ru, been that you fired in self defence, that they opened fire on you and you fired to save the lives of the ten policemen you were responsible for, is that not your case?

MR DE RU: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Are you saying to us that if you were the judge in your case, would you have convicted yourself on three cases of murder?

MR DE RU: It's very difficult to answer that, I gave a whole police dossier to you. I know today that amongst others, Fouche is making other allegations concerning this and what his version of what happened. I'm here to tell you exactly what happened there that morning, exactly what my instructions were. If you look at the circumstances as it now seemed from the police investigation or from Fouche's allegations concerning this, I believe that in a criminal court it would be difficult for me to say now how a judge would feel about this matter.

MR MALAN: Sorry, I may be unfair against your client but just to explain to him why I put the question.

Mr de Ru, if a person is in jail he has been convicted of robbery and he applies for amnesty and he says that he did not commit this robbery, he cannot get amnesty?

MR DE RU: Yes I do understand that.

MR MALAN: So you understand my question?

MR DE RU: I understand it.

MR MALAN: Maybe this is a question for argument on the evidence before us at some later stage.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MADASA

CHAIRPERSON: Right, cross-examination?

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman. Just a few questions to Mr de Ru.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to ask questions before counsel appearing for the implicated parties?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I'm here to represent the victims interests. I'm in the hands of the Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Before I go on to that could I ask whether any evidence has been led on count 4?

MR MALAN: Mr de Ru, what is your explanation on the possible charge of defeating the ends of justice that you spoke to colleagues with a view to hide what happened?

MR DE RU: That did not happen.

MR MALAN: The question is that you apply for amnesty for amongst others the defeating the ends of justice.

MR DE RU: Yes I do understand that and I also understand that and I also understand what you asked me concerning the three murders. Possibly it is a mistake to put all four charges here and it came from the state Attorney to me.

MR MALAN: But Mr de Ru, with respect, the Attorney general could have charged with ten of which you were guilty of four and you can apply for four of that. You could go to court and say that you are not guilty, so you have to decide and maybe you have to consult with your legal representative. If the fourth charge - if you do not confirm or admit that, then you must take that out, then we cannot consider that or we will not look at that because you say that you are not guilty.

MR DE RU: I understand.

MR MALAN: I understand the difficulty in your position but you have to trust us if you apply for amnesty.

MR DE RU: Yes I do understand that.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you like to talk to your counsel at this stage?

MR DE RU: Yes please.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a short adjournment. It seems unlikely that anything much can be done before one o'clock. It's now eight minutes to one, I propose to take the adjournment now till quarter to two. Does quarter to two suit people? I don't know what the arrangements are here?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I think certain arrangements were made, I think it will suit us all if we can start at quarter to two. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn till quarter to two.

HEARING ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: (s.u.o.)

MR MADASA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Yes, Mr Chair, I would like to make the following remarks. Firstly I'm indebted to the Committee for allowing the adjournment. We've taken note of the questions that were raised by the Committee with regards to whether the applicant has admitted to murder or not and that those would be addressed in argument and secondly, on the fourth charge that appears in his affidavit, the applicant does not apply for amnesty for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I don't know if it officially part of his application. If it is he withdraws it.

MR MADASA: It's not part of his application in any case but he's not applying for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for clarifying that for us. Right you can carry on.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr Madasa. You will argue later whether your client admits to murder or not?

MR MADASA: Yes we'll argue whether the evidence that he has given is sufficient to be the basis for an admission to murder or competent verdicts thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: Or any crimes for that matter.

MR MALAN: May I then just follow up with the applicant the issue of motive in order to see to what extent we can be of assistance and I accept your ....[inaudible] to argue on the ...[inaudible]. Who is taking up my microphone every time?

Mr de Ru I would like to ask you, would you then just explain in your own words what was the political motive for the committing of these murders? I am asking this and I think that the legal representatives would have said to you that you can apply for amnesty for any crime for which there is a political motive in committing this offence.

MR DE RU: As I've already explained to you I believed that these people were trained MK members, they were ANC political activists and that their main purpose or goal was to arm themselves and others with the smuggling and trading of firearms in order to make the black neighbourhoods ungovernable in such a way that the Government of the day would be brought or forced to it's knees; but the actions on that day did not have anything to do with that.

MR MALAN: On the day you wanted to arrest them for robbery?

MR DE RU: No, it would be in terms of the whole investigation and the information that we received at that stage as well as what would follow out of that.

MR MALAN: Can I then ask you, the Police had a lot of power in '93, why didn't you arrest them to investigate?

MR DE RU: I could have done that yes but I felt that if we caught them in the act where everybody was together, it would have been easier to then get to the heart of the matter if we ...[intervention]

MR MALAN: But in your own evidence to get everyone together it could have most been three because the driver of the vehicle would have been Fouche, your man?

MR DE RU: Yes. I would like to mention that there was also another person who was not mentioned and who was not in the vehicle who later appeared and was attacked earlier on that evening and that is why he was not there.

MR MALAN: Your motive was initially to arrest them, you gave evidence that you did not want to kill them?

MR DE RU: No.

MR MALAN: But the offence for which you are applying amnesty for is for murder?

MR DE RU: Yes.

MR MALAN: And the murder came, if I understand you, was in that you fired a shot and thus giving a command and you said that it was a mistake?

MR DE RU: Yes that is true, it was the fact that I gave that warning shot that led to the people who were killed in the vehicle.

MR MALAN: So at the stage when you fired that shot that lead to the death of the people there was no political motive to kill them?

MR DE RU: Yes that is correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you. Thank you Mr Madasa. Sorry if you have any re-examination you're welcome to Mr Madasa.

MR MADASA: Not at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Although the representative of the TRC, the evidence leader, normally asks questions last I understand that Mr Steenkamp wants to ask questions on behalf of the victims and it was for that reason that he proposed asking his questions now. Do either of you gentlemen have any objection to that?

MR COETZEE: I have no objection.

MR JOUBERT: I have no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, Honourable Members, thank you for your indulgence.

Mr de Ru can I just mention it to you that my instruction from the victims is in this case that they oppose the application in that there was no political motive for your action or in your application, do you understand that?

MR DE RU: Yes I do understand that.

MR STEENKAMP: Can I then just ask you, were you a member of any political organisation or party?

MR DE RU: No, I was an employee of the state.

MR STEENKAMP: Do I understand you correctly if you say that you had no political views?

MR DE RU: Except for the National Party and in the nature of my work we supported the Government of the day which was the National Party.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I'm referring to page 1 of the big thick bundle, paragraph 7. If you could look at paragraph 7, do you have it in front of you? Page 1, Mr Chairman.

I see that you say that it is not applicable. Are you saying now that you were a supporter of the National Party?

MR DE RU: I am saying for the government because I worked for them.

MR STEENKAMP: Then to go back to your evidence in chief. I would just like to ask you if you could just assist me if I'm wrong. You said that Fouche said at one stage that the deceased were trained MK members and that it was confirmed by Mrs de Lange, is that correct?

MR DE RU: Yes that is correct.

MR STEENKAMP: If you can just go back to the bundle, page 254. Have you got the page in front of you?

MR DE RU: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Is also correct, before I ask you this question, if I would ask you the way in which I understand your evidence that Elsa de Lange knew these deceased very well and had close contact with them, is that correct?

MR DE RU: Yes that is correct.

MR STEENKAMP: If you look at paragraph 4, taking consideration what you just said I would like to read it to you

"They never talked about politics to me. According to my knowledge they were also not involved in any political activities. At that stage I supported the ANC and I talked to them about it. Joseph, one of the deceased, said to me that he will not get involved in politics. It was also right throughout the attitude of the other two."

MR STEENKAMP: Can you see that?

MR DE RU: Yes I can.

MR STEENKAMP: Do you differ with what she says?

MR DE RU: Yes I do.

MR STEENKAMP: Because in your evidence in chief you said that she said that they were trained MK members. Can you explain it?

MR DE RU: No I cannot explain it.

MR STEENKAMP: If we look at page 253 Mr Chairman, it's page 253 of the bundle. I'm sorry Mr Chairman, maybe we can start at page 252, just the previous page.

Do you have the page?

MR DE RU: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: If I understand your evidence in chief you also said that Mr Fouche at various opportunities said to you that the deceased were trained MK members, is that correct?

MR DE RU: Yes that is correct.

MR STEENKAMP: If we look at his affidavit and if we look at paragraph 3, I would like to read it to you

"The deceased were ANC supporters but I cannot say if they committed any political crimes. They were crime orientated and that they wanted to get financial gain through these offences. I cannot say that they were political activists."

Do you have any comment on that?

MR DE RU: I do not agree with what he is saying here.

MR STEENKAMP: Can you explain why both Mr Fouche and Mrs de Lange would lie in their affidavits?

MR DE RU: No I cannot.

MR STEENKAMP: Then before I continue, can I ask you this? You were in control of this operation, is that correct?

MR DE RU: Yes that is correct.

MR STEENKAMP: Did you have a briefing with the members before the operation where you explained to them who the deceased were and what they were?

MR DE RU: Yes I told them.

MR STEENKAMP: Did you say to them that they were trained MK members?

MR DE RU: Some of the members I did tell them that and the others I just told they were very dangerous.

MR STEENKAMP: My question is did you say to them that these people were MK members? First say that to me - MK is the military wing of the ANC?

MR DE RU: That is correct.

MR STEENKAMP: Did you say to them that they were trained MK terrorists?

MR DE RU: Yes some of them knew that, yes I did tell them that.

MR STEENKAMP: During this briefing before the incident did you tell them that?

MR DE RU: Yes as far as I can remember I did say that.

MR STEENKAMP: You see there's also a statement of Mr Engelbrecht on page 55. This is a statement, Mr Chairman, of Joshua Engelbrecht and I'm specifically referring the Committee to page 57. Do you see paragraph 9.1? Mr Chairman, this is very badly photocopied, I do apologise for this. It's paragraph 9.1.

Can you see that?

MR DE RU: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Do you see the heading there - "During the briefing Captain de Ru gave the following information" can you see that?

MR DE RU: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: And what catches my attention here is that not one of the members, including Mr Engelbrecht, in any of their affidavits mention that you would have said to them that these people are trained MK members and terrorists who were armed. No one says that except yourself. Why do you think that is so?

MR DE RU: I cannot explain that.

MR STEENKAMP: If you could possibly just go and look, I do not want to waste your time, I would just like to refer you to the statements of the families involved in this incident and I would like to focus your attention on the statement of Mr P.J. Kabokoane. Mr Chairman, this is on page 248.

Have you got that in front of you?

MR DE RU: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, specifically paragraph 5. You see the person who is making the statement is one of the deceased's brother, Mr Pako Johannes Kabokoane. I would like to read paragraph 5 to you if you could just comment on that

"I state categorically that my brother had nothing to do with politics. He was not a member of any political organisation. I am not aware of him having had any friends who were political activists."

What is your comment on that?

MR DE RU: No, I cannot comment on that.

MR STEENKAMP: Can you give an explanation why this person under oath would say something like this if it's not correct?

MR DE RU: No I cannot.

MR STEENKAMP: Then I would like to refer you to page 244 Mr Chairman and specifically paragraph 8 on page 246, Mr Chairman. Have you got the paragraph Sir?

MR DE RU: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Can I just read it to you?

"My family and the deceased were not political activists. Neither I, my family or family members including the deceased belonged to any political party or organisation. To the best of my knowledge the deceased's friends were also not involved in politics."

This person, independent of the other family say the same thing. Can you give an explanation for that?

MR DE RU: No I cannot.

MR STEENKAMP: Can you give any reason why they would say this?

MR DE RU: No I cannot comment on that.

MR STEENKAMP: Then in conclusion, I would like to refer you to the statement ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you do, for the sake of the record perhaps we should record that that person was the deceased's uncle because it was his sister's son.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, I'm indebted to you. Mr Chairman, I would like to refer you to page 241 of the same record and specifically dealing with paragraph 3 and this is a statement by the mother, Mrs Mabosotho Johanna Makhanya.

Can you see paragraph 3, that is on page 241?

MR DE RU: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: I'm reading paragraph 3 for you in the record.

MR DE RU

"Neither the family nor the deceased or any of his friends were politically active. The deceased did not belong to any political organisation, he did not participate or attend political gatherings or meetings. I am quite sure about this."

Can you see that?

MR DE RU: Yes I can.

MR STEENKAMP: Have you got any comment on that?

MR DE RU: No.

MR STEENKAMP: Once again, can you give an explanation why an independent member of the deceased would say something like this under oath?

MR DE RU: No I cannot comment on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Once again, I think for the sake of the record, it should be recorded that all these three passages appear in affidavits taken in November 1997.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman then I would like to refer the Committee to page 229. Have you got it in front of you?

MR DE RU: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: This is a document that was drafted by the Attorney General of the Free state, dated 21 July 1994 and signed by him. This is now in response to certain submissions or representations that was made by Mr De Ru the applicant to the then Minister of Justice and I would like to refer you to paragraph 4.2. I would just like to read it to you. The relevance of this must be seen in the light of your own evidence in chief, I would like to read 4.2 to you for your comment

"That although the deceased were members of a gang involved in illegal activities, there is no evidence that they had previously committed armed robberies and especially no evidence that they were involved in the killing of policemen two weeks prior to the incident as alleged by the accused."

Is that correct?

MR DE RU: No, this is the state's information. I cannot comment on this.

MR STEENKAMP: Did you take any steps when you now found out that the deceased were MK members? Did you contact anyone in the head office of the Security Branch or any police officer? Did you inform anyone that these members of this group were trained MK terrorists. Did you inform anyone about this fact?

MR DE RU: Just for the Security Branch?

MR STEENKAMP: No, I'm talking specifically about the security branch, but I'm talking about any other police officer.

MR DE RU: Colonel Swanepoel who was the District Commander, Lieutenant Botha who was a member of the Security Branch in Vereeniging as well as - I think his rank was then Warrant Officer Coetzee of the Security Branch.

MR STEENKAMP: I would just like to get some clarity. The question turns about the single fact that when you knew that these members were MK terrorists, did you convey this specific fact to them?

MR DE RU: Yes I did mention it to them.

MR STEENKAMP: And what was their reaction?

MR DE RU: They never gave feedback that they confirmed that they were terrorists.

MR STEENKAMP: Do you not find it strange?

MR DE RU: No it is not strange.

MR STEENKAMP: You've got now three trained MK terrorists in your area, you contact your superiors and they do not come back to you and say we need more people or we have to sort this out with head office, this is out of our territory. They do not even report back to you?

MR DE RU: No it was not strange to me.

MR STEENKAMP: Did you ever do anything to confirm the fact or with the information that you had that these members were trained MK soldiers, did you do anything to confirm this?

MR DE RU: No, I believed what Fouche said to me and I did nothing about this. I could possibly give clarity about this - I did not have the full details, Fouche did not say, he just gave me their first names and one name I can remember is Tyson, so I think it's very difficult to just on a name or an alias get any further information on that.

MR STEENKAMP: Is there a reason why you never confirmed this or took steps to confirm it to make sure whether these people were really trained MK terrorists.

MR DE RU: No there's no specific reason.

MR STEENKAMP: You cannot explain it?

MR DE RU: Except like I've told you all that I knew was this was their call names, they way they were called, I had no other particulars of them. I didn't have their I.D. numbers, I did not have their full names, nothing.

MR STEENKAMP: Did you ever try to find out who these people were?

MR DE RU: Chairman, I tried to find out from Fouche who these people actually were, he himself didn't know. He didn't know their actual names.

MR STEENKAMP: Maybe I'm wrong and you must help me, but at least at two places in your evidence in chief you've said that the death of the deceased was in order - or the goal of these people were to undermine the Government.

MR DE RU: Yes that's how I saw it.

MR STEENKAMP: I do not really understand that, can you give us a bit more detail. Why do you say that? To what extent did they want to undermine the Government?

MR DE RU: It's because of the fact that they were gathering weapons, getting weapons together. At that stage we all knew what was going on in the townships, we all knew that. Political violence was committed in the townships and as I've already explained to you with regards to the investigation I held with the 3 million cases as well as the one in Parys, the modus operandi was similar. I believed that these people were busy with exactly the same kind of affairs in order the further their political goals.

STEENKAMP: And what were their political goals?

MR DE RU: According to the information they were ANC trained terrorists.

CHAIRPERSON: But surely, Mr de Ru, if you only had their code names or their operational names, this made it essential to get in touch with the Security Police who specialised in the investigation of political matters as to whether they could assist you, by given you more details about these people whom you wanted to investigate, you wanted to arrest. Why not do the normal procedure and ask the Security Branch for assistance?

MR DE RU: It's like you say but I still believed that the Security Branch would not have gotten anywhere with only the call names, the first names.

MR STEENKAMP: I'm sorry Mr Chairman.

Mr de Ru, as far as that question's concerned, wasn't it the main function of the Security Branch to gather information concerning terrorists or about terrorists for the purposes of preventing anarchy and detrimental activities towards the state? You know who these people were but you do not report back?

MR DE RU: I don't think it's a question of that I haven't reported it, I already told Botha and Coetzee about it and if I remember correctly, the name of Tyson was known to Botha but like I've said, there was no further information forthcoming with regards to their identity and it was not available to us at all.

MR STEENKAMP: Can I just put it to you this way, maybe to make it a bit easier for you. Did you have any information or any factual information which was of substance which would indicate that any of these deceased before, prior, was involved in any political acts or violence. Did you have any information before this incident that they were involved in these types of actions, that they were involved in political actions?

MR DE RU: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Political violence?

MR DE RU: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Can you tell us a bit more?

MR DE RU: I don't know if I'm going to answer you correctly now but at that time there wasn't something like political crimes and murder was a murder. I'ts now that murder became political. Arson was arson.

MR STEENKAMP: No, I think you misunderstand me. Let's look at political violence. You said the purpose of these people was to incite political violence, if I understand you correctly?

MR DE RU: Yes you do.

MR STEENKAMP: No, I'm asking you, did you have any information before this incident that these people were involved in political violence?

MR DE RU: The fact that I was told that policemen were killed by them.

MR STEENKAMP: Do you consider that political violence?

MR DE RU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell anybody you had reports and you had somebody who could identify the people who had killed those policemen, that they were trained MK soldiers and you had a witness who could identify them?

MR DE RU: Yes, my direct commander.

CHAIRPERSON: Who?

MR DE RU: Colonel Swanepoel.

CHAIRPERSON: So you told Colonel Swanepoel that you had information about these trained MK cadres who had murdered the policemen?

MR DE RU: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: When was that?

MR DE RU: Around about the end of March or the beginning of April. It's after I received the information about them. I also reported this to Murder and Robbery in Vanderbijlpark. After Fouche came and told me that on that Friday night they shot policemen and then they gave me feedback and told me that two policemen were in fact shot. Like I've told you, the one was seriously injured and the one was lightly injured.

CHAIRPERSON: And did none of them ask you to identify these people, to point them out? Murder and Robbery and Colonel Swanepoel, you told them you had information relating, which would identify the people who you thought had murdered policemen, in fact hadn't they merely tried or attempted to murder them, did none of them come back and say where are they, let's go and get them?

MR DE RU: No Chairperson because they knew we were busy in arresting these people and we would have arrested them and I believed they waited for this to happen.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Ru, you told us this was at the end of March?

MR DE RU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you go and arrest them for the charge of attempted murder of police officers?

MR DE RU: The attempted murder on the policemen happened on the 3rd March. I only received information after it happened and it was confirmed on the 6th and on the 7th we tried to arrest them. I'm talking about April, did I say March? I'm sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you said the end of March you were told when I asked you, you said that you told Colonel Swanepoel you had information about the trained MK cadres who had murdered the policemen, this was the end of March. I thought that's what you said a few minutes ago.

MR DE RU: Let me just correct that. I told Swanepoel what the information was, the fact that they shot someone and that's when Swanepoel said it, but the confirmed case, that of the two policemen, was only confirmed to me on the 6th. They were shot on the 3rd April and it was confirmed to me on the 6th and on the 7th we acted against them.

CHAIRPERSON: What I can't understand is, you now had confirmed that they had shot at two policemen, a most serious offence. Why don't you go and arrest them? You had information as to where they would be found, you could have gone when Fouche went to pick them up and arrested them? Why set up this massive thing with dozens of policemen in a public marketing centre when you could have the night before, when you ...[indistinct] the information, you could have gone and arrested them? Why didn't you?

MR DE RU: I believed that the best way was the way I did it.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you serious in that, that you thought the best way was to wait somewhere the next morning in the expectation that they might drive up there and that your policemen who would have been with them might get a chance to get away and that they would then after you threw stun grenades come out with their hands up? Is that what you believed was the best way, Mr de Ru?

MR DE RU: At that stage I did believe that Chairperson.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.

If you please turn to page 115? Do you have it?

MR DE RU: Yes I do.

MR STEENKAMP: Can you just tell us - what is this document?

MR DE RU: Your honour, this is a document which was drawn up by Warrant Officer Harley.

MR STEENKAMP: It's a Security Branch information piece, would you agree with me?

MR DE RU: Yes I do.

MR STEENKAMP: A Security Branch information memorandum. Can you see it's marked "Top Secret"?

MR DE RU: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: If you go to page 116, paragraph 15, do you see that?

MR DE RU: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that this is a report from the information as it was existing at that time, do you agree with me?

MR DE RU: Yes, information which was available to Harley.

MR STEENKAMP: And then in paragraph 15 it reads as follows, it's "Comment by Captain de Ru". Do you see that?

MR DE RU: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: You don't see anywhere there in no word whatsoever, no word indicates the fact that you had information which indicated to the fact that these people were trained MK terrorists and this is the Security Branches own report with comments by you.

MR DE RU: Here it was only with regard to the actions which took place, only to deal with the action itself which happened on Wednesday the 1st.

MR STEENKAMP: The point I'm trying to make is, if you told Security Branch, one would have expected it to appear in here?

MR DE RU: That was information which went from Fouche to them. That was information that went from Fouche to Harley. I'm talking specifically of Harley now. This information about the Chinese person who was involved, I do not know where that information came from. I also testified that around this report it was necessary for me to write this letter to Eikenhof with regards to the allegation in paragraph 14.

MR STEENKAMP: So you're saying this report is not correct?

MR DE RU: A lot of it is not correct.

MR STEENKAMP: Did you have an opportunity before today to read through this bundle and to read the statements of the people who I have quoted to you and to go through all these documents? Did you have the opportunity?

MR DE RU: Chairperson, I provided these documents, the statements in the back I do not carry any knowledge of them.

MR STEENKAMP: Did you read the statements of Fouche and De Lange in this bundle, did you read through this information before today?

MR DE RU: Are you referring to the two statements right in the back?

MR STEENKAMP: Yes, the ones I referred you to.

MR DE RU: No.

MR STEENKAMP: You didn't have an opportunity to read them?

MR DE RU: No I did not. The first time I became aware of this was when my advocate came to see me on Saturday, Saturday now past, two days ago.

MR STEENKAMP: And then in conclusion I would just like to summarise by asking you this question. You say that both De Lange and Fouche and the family members of the deceased - maybe I've just left something out, let me just give you the last quote. I beg your indulgence for the last question. Can we look at page 256, do you have it in front of you?

MR DE RU: I do.

MR STEENKAMP: And correct me if I'm wrong, this is a statement of Deon Arons Sevenster, is that correct?

MR DE RU: Yes I see that.

MR STEENKAMP: Is it correct if I say that Mr Sevenster at that stage was appointed to deal with certain cases in which you were involved, is that correct?

MR DE RU: Yes he had to investigate it.

MR STEENKAMP: He was part of the Special Investigation Team to investigate certain cases in which you were involved, is that correct?

MR DE RU: That is correct.

MR STEENKAMP: If you look at the last paragraph of this statement then he refers to this specific incident, this is on page 256, right at the bottom. There he refers specifically to this incident, can you see that?

MR DE RU: Yes I do.

MR STEENKAMP: Now if you turn the page, paragraph 6, then I'd like to read it for you.

"At the investigation where I was involved, I came to the conclusion that the crimes were not political of nature but they were criminal acts."

Paragraph 7:

"If all these incidents were politically inspired it would have been investigated by the security police, that would have been the normal procedure."

MR DE RU: With regards to paragraph 6 Mr Chairperson, that's his opinion. Here where I'm sitting here today, Mr Sevenster did not talk to me about the shooting at Vaalpark, nothing at all. With regards to paragraph 7 it's also not true. I did the investigations, I visited and did a lot of cases in the townships, I did the Noxi Gang cases in Parys and today realise it's political and it was not investigated by the security branch, it was investigated by the detective branch. The security branch investigations, I cannot tell you what they would have or would not have done. I cannot comment on that but with regards to paragraph 6 and 7, I do not agree with that.

MR STEENKAMP: Regarding the facts as I've put it to you, my last question to you is then - and once again please help me if I'm wrong, it would seem to me that all the people who are involved in this gang, Fouche, De Lange and the deceased families, at least five groups of people who knew the deceased very well, they all say that they were not politically active, you are the only person who says otherwise. Can you give us an explanation why all these people would say that?

MR DE RU: I cannot explain why they say that, Chairperson.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, if I can proceed on behalf of Mr Fouche?

Mr de Ru, in the bundle in front of you, you read the statements of Mr Christian Jacobus Andries Fouche as it is contained in the bundle on page 152. Further as well as page 252 and onwards, did you read the two statements of his? Have you read all these statements?

MR DE RU: Yes I have.

MR COETZEE: Now I want to put it to you and it's also my instruction on behalf of Mr Fouche, that the incidents as is put in the statements with regards to this specific incident and the run up to that incident, it's all described here, is not correct and what is contained there is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that it's not correct and I specifically refer to the statement on page 152.

Mr Chairman, I'm not going to waste the Commission's time with lengthy cross-examination, I'm going to leave it there. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to subsequently ask us to accept Mr Fouche's version?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman you will note that Mr Fouche is not here as an applicant and my submission is that his evidence, as I am instructed, is in fact the truth and that he has given his version as to the best of his ability in the papers which are before the Commission, Chairperson, and he's not here Mr Chairman, to come and prove or disprove anything.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm just asking you. You don't have to go and cross-examine, it's not a trial or anything but I feel that it should be put to Mr de Ru that it appears on Mr Fouche's evidence that: "This was a planned killing by you, what is your comment?"

CHAIRPERSON: It's right the way you said it, Chairperson. From his statement it would seem the case, but it's not true.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR COETZEE

MR JOUBERT: I haven't got any questions, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR MADASA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I don't know whether Mr Steenkamp has any other questions in his other capacity, till now they appear to have been on behalf of the victims.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, I don't have any other questions. Thank you, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Re-examination.

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

Mr de Ru, you have said in your evidence that your actions were with a view to help the state at that time. My question is if you are helping the state, why did the same state charge you? What went wrong and tell the Committee what went wrong between you and the Police? Why did they go after you instead of the gang?

MR DE RU: It's very difficult to answer that, Chairperson. I believe that the police in the investigation made the conclusion that murders were committed that morning specifically in the light of Fouche's statement.

MR MADASA: When you gave the sign at the scene of the shooting, when you gave the sign to the police, did you think the deceased were going to be killed?

MR DE RU: Can you please repeat the question?

MR MADASA: When you gave the sign at the scene of the shooting to your colleagues, did you think that the victims were going to be killed?

MR DE RU: Definitely.

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, with your permission, we're asking for a short adjournment of about five minutes. We want to discuss whether it would be necessary to call Ms de Lange in support of the applicant otherwise I have no further re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: You have also - you will recollect ...[indistinct] applied for other witnesses to be subpoenaed and brought here today because you, as I understand it, indicated you wish to call them?

MR MADASA: We'll consider all that Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: This has been a fairly considerable expense involved in that regard. Very well we will adjourn for a few minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR MADASA: Mr Chairman there's one point I want to put on record on view of Mr Chair's remarks before we adjourned. The witnesses who have been subpoenaed, have not been subpoenaed at our instance, were issued with a notice by the TRC in terms of which we were required to state the names of people whom we would implicate so that if necessary, on the TRC's part or investigation unit, those people would then be subpoenaed. So we're merely complying with the notice which we were required to comply with.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not what I had been told. I had been told that you wished specific persons to be subpoenaed.

MR MADASA: The people that we wanted we have subpoenaed, and one of them is Ms de Lange, but other people were implicated, it was purely a compliance to that notice which was issued. Thank you Mr Chair, I have no further questions to the applicant.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MADASA

MR MALAN: Mr de Ru, you said somewhere, I think it was in your affidavit in your application, that Joseph was known to you. How was he known to you?

MR DE RU: Chris brought him to my office, that's Chris Fouche, I saw him together with Chris Fouche.

MR MALAN: When?

MR DE RU: The exact day I cannot remember, it was after Chris infiltrated the group.

MR MALAN: And the time since infiltration up until the death that was about ten days, end of March until the 7th April?

MR DE RU: Yes it's about ten days.

MR MALAN: Why did he bring him to your office?

MR DE RU: Why did he bring him to my office?

MR MALAN: Yes.

MR DE RU: He came to give me information and Joseph basically confirmed that this information was right.

MR MALAN: And Joseph was one of the MK trained men?

MR DE RU: At that stage I did not know. It wasn't even known to me that Elsa de Lange was an MK trained member.

MR MALAN: So how do you explain that, what was Fouche's motive to introduce one of these men to you as a trained MK member who wants to undermine the Government and who he has to infiltrate, now he brings him to you to give you information?

MR DE RU: If I look at it today and I think back it's only one conclusion that I can make and that is that Fouche had his own agenda and I base it on the fact that the facts are now known to us.

MR MALAN: Yes but with what purpose?

MR DE RU: It's very difficult for me to say, I cannot answer you.

MR MALAN: But you said he had his own agenda, then surely you mean he had something in mind?

MR DE RU: That is what I'm insinuating, yes.

MR MALAN: But what did he have in mind?

MR DE RU: Chairperson I do not know, I made conclusions from the statements that I had available to me. There was a fear that the people might not be arrested and allegations were also made against him of offences committed which he never reported to me. Maybe he thought that if these people are arrested he'll be arrested too. He did things which was not in line with his instructions that morning.

MR MALAN: But Mr de Ru, he reports to you firstly that six policemen were killed and then later on you found out that it's not true but you do not confront him about that? Then he also reports to you that a Corolla was stolen, thirdly that a Cressida was stolen. He reports all these things to you in round about a time of a week, maybe less than a week, because this is already after he infiltrated the group. Now you are saying that crimes were committed which he does not tell you about? Which crimes are you referring to?

MR DE RU: I do not know if I can answer this with regards to the statements I've seen of Elsa de Lange, I do not know if ...[intervention]

MR MALAN: No, you can take this into consideration because you are now talking about a suspicion that he had his own agenda. Now please explain this agenda to us?

MR DE RU: Chairperson, if you look at Elsa's statement it would seem that Fouche planned the robbery that morning at the Hypersave and it was not the case that the gang gave him the information, do you understand? He was involved with Joseph in the diamond transactions and he never told me this, and now Elsa is saying this in her affidavit.

MR MALAN: But did he not tell you that these people were stealing weapons, exchange it for diamonds and then they buy in new weapons with that money?

MR DE RU: That is correct Chairperson, but you understand what I'm saying? Now it seems that there were other transactions going down in order to gain financial benefit from it and he never told me about this, never.

MR MALAN: Which transactions are you referring to?

MR DE RU: The fact that Elsa said that he went with Joseph to Lesotho and also in her statement she says that he told her that he killed her lover boy because he - sorry let me put this right - that Joseph cheated Chris in a diamond transaction. These are things that I never knew about and the same goes with the robbery that morning, from Elsa's statement it would seem that he picked up Elsa and Joseph and he saw a person walking on the street and said I want to rob that guy because he's got money and with regards to the shopping centre the next morning.

MR MALAN: But you say Elsa de Lange is here but you have decided not to call her as a witness?

MR DE RU: No, she is being called, Elsa is being called, she's here. I think maybe the advocate maybe hasn't explained it yet.

MR MALAN: You then said that the shock grenades were thrown and detonated, then shots were fired?

MR DE RU: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Then you gave the instruction to answer the fire because you are being attacked?

MR DE RU: That is correct.

MR MALAN: How do you explain the fact that the pistol that was found on the deceased in the vehicle was still in his belt?

MR DE RU: I cannot explain that.

MR MALAN: So you do not know where the shots were fired from?

MR DE RU: The only conclusion that I can make Mr Chairperson, is that the shots were fired from the vehicle because no one else could have shot.

MR MALAN: Were any of those weapons - were shots fired by any of those weapons?

MR DE RU: The whole matter was investigated. I can mention that according to the ballistic report, the 38 revolver they found two shells and two live rounds but according to the ballistic personnel, the forensic evidence, they did not find any residue on the hands of the deceased. Could I just clear up a point here? Once again Fouche states that I would have given him an instruction that directly after he picked up the people he must take the people to fire shots in order for them to have gunpowder residue on their hands and that is confirmed by the forensic personnel saying that they did not find any gunpowder residue. That is what I do not understand, but now it is clear to me that the people in the vehicle did not fire, that the fire or the shots were fired from the side of the shop without any instructions. That is why I am in front of you today. It seems now that my instruction to shoot the people in the vehicle was a mistake. At that stage I thought that the shots could only come from one place and that is from the vehicle because they were the only people who could have shot because none of the other backup groups had the instruction to fire, no one else could have fired, not even the people on the roof. There was a specific instruction given that no one will shoot unless I shoot first.

MR MALAN: We have to get an impression of what you are saying to us and we have to find out what happened and if it fits in an amnesty application that you bring to us. If I listen to you now and if I summarise it correctly, you are trying to say to us and that what you are thinking is that Fouche wanted to get rid of these three men and he wanted to frame you for it. Is that what you are saying to us?

MR DE RU: You can see it in that light.

MR MALAN: I'm asking you how you see it because you said he's got an agenda, and everything that you say to me is as if you are putting this story in front of us.

MR DE RU: That is correct. Fouche was a co-accused, the case was withdrawn against him in 1994 and he is now state witness. That is what I'm trying to say to you.

MR MALAN: But that does not bring us closer to the truth because we haven't got evidence concerning this. I'm going to leave it there.

In conclusion I'd like to follow the following up. You said that in order to succeed in your application for amnesty you must admit that you committed an offence and that this specific offence was committed with a specific political motive. In your evidence you did not have an objective firstly, in order the killing is in an attempt to arrest them, things went wrong. So the political objective, if you had one, would then be around the arrest. But the arrest would not have been an offence because it is a legal arrest and that is the problem that we've got.

Concerning the facts that you present to us, I understand it and I see it as well, and I think that is why the advocates said that they would clear this up in their argument. I would just like to say that from the Amnesty Committee's side that wherever they can, if they have to they will stretch towards the side of the applicant but there must be a basis for which we can do this, but I'm struggling to find it. We will then wait for your witness.

MR DE RU: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Could I raise something arising from what you've just told my colleague, and that is that I understood your evidence and I may have been mistaken, that you heard the shots coming from below you, in front of you.

MR DE RU: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you have just said the shots could have come from the car, so you didn't hear them coming from in front and below you?

MR DE RU: Maybe you did not understand me correctly. I heard the shots and my conclusion was the only place where they can come from is from the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: How could you come to that conclusion when you knew people had walked off to the right, who were presumably armed?

MR DE RU: Your Honour, only one person had to walk to the right hand side and that is Fouche.

CHAIRPERSON: But Joseph went with him?

MR DE RU: I did not carry any knowledge about that, it was not the instruction and I did not know about that. He was supposed to go alone around the corner.

CHAIRPERSON: So were none of you people watching what was going on below you?

MR DE RU: It was impossible because then they would have immediately seen us on the roof.

CHAIRPERSON: So you just ordered "open fire" because you heard a shot coming from somewhere which you couldn't place?

MR DE RU: As I explained it to you, my only conclusion was that it could have come from the vehicle in front.

CHAIRPERSON: But you had no evidence to support that, it was merely a conclusion?

MR DE RU: That is correct yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Oh, sorry you said you were calling the witness, what's her name, Mrs or Ms de Lange?

MR DE RU: That is correct.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR MADASA: Thank you Mr Chair, I beg leave to call Elsa de Lange?

ELIZABETH DE LANGE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR MADASA: Thank you Mr Chair.

Ms de Lange, do you know the applicant, Mr de Ru?

MS DE LANGE: Yes I know the applicant.

MR MADASA: Since when, when did you know him for the first time?

MS DE LANGE: October 1991.

MR MADASA: Do you know the deceased persons?

MS DE LANGE: Yes I do.

MR MADASA: How?

MS DE LANGE: We were friends from 1983.

MR MADASA: Friends? How?

MS DE LANGE: Through politics.

MR MADASA: Were you a member of the ANC?

MS DE LANGE: Yes I'm a member of the ANC.

MR MADASA: And them?

MS DE LANGE: They were members of the ANC too.

MR MADASA: Were you an MK member?

MS DE LANGE: Yes I'm a member of the MK.

MR MADASA: Them?

MS DE LANGE: They were members of MK.

MR MADASA: When did you start to become an MK member, you?

MS DE LANGE: Me? 1983. I was part of the ANC going around with those guys.

MR MADASA: No, I mean MK.

MS DE LANGE: Yes, well the MK.

MR MADASA: 19?

MS DE LANGE: '83.

MR MADASA: '83? And the deceased, do you know when they joined the MK?

MS DE LANGE: No I don't know. I don't know.

MR MADASA: When did you become aware for the first time that they were also MK members?

MS DE LANGE: Because they used to go to Zone 13 with me, to those meetings of the ANC.

MR MADASA: Did you later become aware that the deceased were MK members?

MS DE LANGE: Who? Sorry?

MR MADASA: Did you later become aware that the deceased were MK members?

MS DE LANGE: No, they were just going with me to those meetings so we realised that all of us we were MK members but we were not active MK members so they just go along with me to those meetings and let me put it this way, they were card carrying members.

MR MADASA: Pardon?

MS DE LANGE: Card carrying members.

MR MALAN: Card carrying members of what, Ms de Lange?

MS DE LANGE: Of the ANC.

MR MALAN: Not of the MK?

MS DE LANGE: The MK is ANC.

MR MALAN: No, card carrying members, ANC?

MS DE LANGE: Ja, ANC.

MR MALAN: Did you see their cards?

MS DE LANGE: Yes.

MR MALAN: All of them? All of their membership cards?

MS DE LANGE: No, not all of them.

MR MALAN: So whose did you see?

MS DE LANGE: I saw Joseph's card and Buthelezi.

MR MADASA: Ms de Lange were you an MK trained member?

MS DE LANGE: Yes I got my training.

MR MADASA: Pardon?

MS DE LANGE: I got training.

MR MADASA: Where were you trained?

MS DE LANGE: In Sebokeng itself.

MR MADASA: Do you know if any of the deceased was trained as well?

MS DE LANGE: We were not guerilla trained people if you want to know that. We don't train to go and make bombs or something like that, no. But on reading, yes, they ask us - you know like ANC we just - sometimes we did discuss that there must be a new Government, we must be equal but not deep politics like going to go out and murder someone. Never, we never discussed something like that.

MR MADASA: Do you know if, amongst the deceased, anyone of them was trained MK as well?

MS DE LANGE: Trained? No.

MR MADASA: On the 10th October 1997, I'm referring now to the bundle on page 255, 254 I'm sorry, 254 - you made a statement. If you could look at the statement? Look at paragraph 4 on page 254.

MS DE LANGE: Yes, I've got it.

MR MADASA: Can you explain that paragraph about training or non-training of yourself and the deceased, whether you spoke about politics?

MS DE LANGE: Yes, yes, I say here that I'm trained.

MR MADASA: You say you were trained?

MS DE LANGE: Yes that is what I say there.

MR MADASA: And then the deceased?

MS DE LANGE: No. They do not get involved into politics.

MR MADASA: What do you mean by that?

MS DE LANGE: That they were not involved in politics.

MR MADASA: In what way?

MS DE LANGE: They didn't go out to kill people because of politics and we didn't plant bombs or anything like that.

MR MADASA: Okay, let me put it this way. What were you involved in? You have told us what you were not involved in, you were not involved in murder and killing people. What were you involved in?

MS DE LANGE: In Zone 13 we had to protect the ANC in Sebokeng because at that stage there was a lot of attacks of Inkatha on these people and that is what the whole operation was about.

MR MADASA: Were you involved in gun smuggling?

MS DE LANGE: I would not say directly smuggling but we did have weapons available.

MR MADASA: Were you involved in distribution or buying of guns?

MS DE LANGE: Weapons were bought yes.

MR MADASA: Where.

MS DE LANGE: In Sebokeng.

MR MADASA: From whom?

MS DE LANGE: Different people, they were never the same.

MR MADASA: What quantity of weapons, did you buy a lot of weapons?

MS DE LANGE: No, single ones.

MR MADASA: What for?

MS DE LANGE: It was not used, it was the weapons that we handed over to the police. It was the weapons that we bought.

MR MADASA: You bought weapons and supplied the police?

MS DE LANGE: Yes. We did not provide the police with weapons, whenever you hand in a weapon we would get remuneration for that and that is why we did it.

MR MADASA: Did you get those weapons from the ANC or IFP?

MS DE LANGE: The most of the weapons we got from the IFP.

MR MADASA: What kind of weapons?

MS DE LANGE: 765, small shotguns, there were AK's as well.

MR MADASA: In doing so, were you disarming the IFP?

MS DE LANGE: Yes. Single people who went into a certain neighbourhood and caused trouble, then the ANC youth would then catch that person and take his weapon from him and that is how we got these weapons.

MR MADASA: Was there a political war at that stage in the township between the IFP and ANC?

MS DE LANGE: Yes there was.

MR MADASA: Was there also third force activities?

MS DE LANGE: Not what I know of, no.

MR MADASA: Do you know anything about that?

MS DE LANGE: No, nothing.

MR MADASA: And now, in retrospect?

MS DE LANGE: No not at all, I carry no knowledge of that.

MR MADASA: Were you involved in diamond smuggling?

MS DE LANGE: No, I did not smuggle diamonds myself.

MR MADASA: No, I don't mean you personally. Did you know about it?

MS DE LANGE: Ja, I know about it.

MR MADASA: Which involved the deceased?

MS DE LANGE: Yes I did.

MR MADASA: Who amongst the deceased were involved in that?

MS DE LANGE: Joseph.

MR MADASA: And who else?

MS DE LANGE: As far as I know only Joseph.

MR MADASA: Did you know Fouche?

MS DE LANGE: Yes.

MR MADASA: How did you come to know him?

MS DE LANGE: After he came to my house to go and buy the first weapons together with us.

MR MADASA: Did you know that he was a policeman before he came to you?

MS DE LANGE: Yes.

MR MADASA: Did he then join you?

MS DE LANGE: Yes.

MR MADASA: Were the other members aware of that, that the policeman had joined you?

MS DE LANGE: Only Jospeh, Joseph was the only one that was aware.

MR MADASA: Joseph and yourself? The others did not know?

MS DE LANGE: No.

MR MADASA: You did not tell them?

MS DE LANGE: No.

MR MADASA: Did you tell them? Did you tell other members that Fouche a policeman had joined?

MS DE LANGE: No we didn't tell them.

MR MADASA: You did not?

MS DE LANGE: We didn't.

MR MADASA: Was he reliable?

MS DE LANGE: Ja, I think so.

MR MADASA: Did you trust him?

MS DE LANGE: We trusted him.

MR MADASA: Now did you trust him up to the date of the shooting - Fouche?

MS DE LANGE: Yes right up until before the shooting.

MR MADASA: Why did you not go with them?

MS DE LANGE: Because from the beginning I said it was going to be a trap. It's impossible, policemen planning a robbery cannot be true.

MR MADASA: So you knew that on that day of the shooting the robbery was a trap?

MS DE LANGE: I had a feeling it might be the case but I didn't have facts.

MR MADASA: Is that why you did not go with them?

MS DE LANGE: Yes I stayed at home.

MR MADASA: So meaning that you did not trust Fouche?

MS DE LANGE: No the robbery, no.

MR MADASA: Why did you not believe that the robbery was genuine?

MS DE LANGE: A policeman planning a robbery, I mean really, how would they achieve that? It cannot be, it can't work.

MR MADASA: But why did you allow him to be part of you because he was a policeman and you were MKs?

MS DE LANGE: We wanted remuneration for the weapons.

CHAIRPERSON: Well has she said she was MK? You said you were MK, she said she was a card carrying member of the ANC?

MR MADASA: She said she was a trained MK.

CHAIRPERSON: The training she had was in discussions, she told us, not guerilla warfare. Isn't MK training normally guerilla warfare, what we refer to as MK training in any event.

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, with due respect, that's not necessarily the case. What she says she was a trained MK, we should take it at that.

CHAIRPERSON: She made it quite clear. As I understand it, that you were not trained in the use of violence, your training consisted of political discussions?

MS DE LANGE: Ja.

MR MADASA: What did Fouche say was the reason for the robbery?

MS DE LANGE: That was a long weekend and there was supposed to be a lot of money in that shop.

MR MADASA: What was the money for?

MS DE LANGE: They were supposed to go away to South West and I think he talked about a divorce.

MR MADASA: About?

MS DE LANGE: Divorce.

MR MADASA: His divorce, so he needed money?

MS DE LANGE: Yes.

MR MADASA: What about South West?

MS DE LANGE: I wasn't sure, I only heard that they said they wanted to go there.

MR MADASA: Did you ever supply information to De Ru about your involvement, either yourself or the other members of the deceased?

MS DE LANGE: No.

MR MADASA: Do you know if Fouche gave the applicant information about your activities? You don't know?

MS DE LANGE: I don't know.

MR MADASA: What information did you give to De Ru about the deceased? What did you tell him about the deceased, about your members?

MS DE LANGE: At which stage?

MR MADASA: When you had contact with him, when you gave him information, what information did you give?

MS DE LANGE: Basically Joseph was present each time that I talked to De Ru.

MR MADASA: Pardon?

MS DE LANGE: Joseph was present most of the times.

MR MADASA: No, that's not my question. What did you tell him, De Ru?

MS DE LANGE: Ja, but that's why Joseph knew what kind of information I gave him about guns.

MR MADASA: You gave De Ru information about guns?

MS DE LANGE: Ja.

MR MADASA: What about guns?

MS DE LANGE: About the certain guns we are going to bring in and that we need money, you can't just get those guns for free.

MR MADASA: Did you tell De Ru that you were MK members?

MS DE LANGE: No, never.

MR MADASA: What did you say you were to him?

MS DE LANGE: I don't think I ever said anything to him what I am because he never asked me.

MR MADASA: On what basis were you dealing with him?

MS DE LANGE: At first I worked with him through Vosloo of the Diamond and Gold Branch.

MR MADASA: You worked with De Ru? With Fouche?

MS DE LANGE: No, not directly.

MR MADASA: Did you supply information to the police about your members?

MS DE LANGE: No.

MR MADASA: What did you do, did you give information to Fouche about your activities?

MS DE LANGE: Fouche was part of us so we didn't have to give him any information.

MR MADASA: Did you tell the applicant, De Ru, about your activities?

MS DE LANGE: No, he never asked me about my...

MR MADASA: Did you ever talk to De Ru?

MS DE LANGE: Yes I spoke to De Ru.

MR MADASA: About what?

MS DE LANGE: When he asked me about some diamonds that I knew was in Everton, so he asked me to go and fetch them and he introduced me to a Sanna and one day we went to his house, together with Josesph.

MR MALAN: Sorry, he introduced you to who?

MS DE LANGE: Warrant Officer Vosloo.

MR MADASA: Did Vosloo tell you that he killed your lover boy?

MS DE LANGE: Ja, he did say that.

MR MADASA: Why did he tell you that?

MS DE LANGE: That he killed my lover boy?

MR MADASA: Why did he tell you that?

MS DE LANGE: I don't know.

MR MADASA: What was the story with your lover boy being killed by him?

MS DE LANGE: I don't know what was the story, that's why I'm here today, I also want to know what's the story about it.

MR MADASA: Do you know if Fouche had a problem with Joseph, cheated by him or something like that?

MS DE LANGE: I don't know.

MR MADASA: Is that lover boy Joseph?

MS DE LANGE: It must be Joseph, there's no one else.

MR MADASA: Pardon?

MS DE LANGE: It is Joseph.

MR MALAN: Are you saying that you and Joseph had an affair?

MS DE LANGE: Yes.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR MADASA: Sorry Mr Chair. Thank you Mr Chair.

Did Fouche tell you the reason why he killed Joseph?

MS DE LANGE: No.

MR MADASA: Did he ever accuse him of having done something before?

MS DE LANGE: Not that I know of.

MR MADASA: Were they on good terms, Joseph and Fouche?

MS DE LANGE: It looked like that.

MR MADASA: Was Fouche present when the Toyota was robbed?

MS DE LANGE: When?

MR MADASA: Was a Toyota robbed, firstly? The one that was used at a ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Robbed or stolen?

MS DE LANGE: Toyota? No the Toyota they give back to us - I know it's a stolen car.

MR MADASA: Who gave you the car?

MS DE LANGE: Seuntjie.

MR MADASA: Who?

MS DE LANGE: Seuntjie.

MR MADASA: Who is that?

MS DE LANGE: One of those members, ja.

MR MADASA: One of your members? But you knew it was stolen?

MS DE LANGE: Ja.

MR MADASA: Which car is that, is that the one that was involved on the day of the shooting?

MS DE LANGE: No, that was the red one, the red one.

MR MADASA: And then the yellow one, do you know where it was found?

MS DE LANGE: It was stolen the evening before the robbery.

MR MADASA: By whom?

MS DE LANGE: By all the members, I was also present.

MR MALAN: Was Fouche also there?

MS DE LANGE: Yes he was also present.

ADV SOGODI: So you do know why the yellow car was stolen?

MS DE LANGE: It was stolen specifically to be used in the robbery. They didn't have a vehicle which they could use.

MR MADASA: Sorry, I wish to refer you to page 137 of your statement. Paragraph 29, the underlined sentence. Page 137, paragraph 29. You see that? There Fouche is supposed to have said he wanted to get Joseph because he, Joseph, had cheated him on a transaction at Lesotho? Do you see that?

MS DE LANGE: Yes I do see that.

MR MADASA: Did he say that to you?

MS DE LANGE: Yes it's in here then he did say that to me.

MR MADASA: He did say that?

MS DE LANGE: Yes.

MR MADASA: So is it possible that there were activities that Fouche was involved in but you were not aware of?

MS DE LANGE: That can be possible.

MR MADASA: Why?

MS DE LANGE: Because they used my car for a week, I wasn't present.

MR MADASA: And where is the car? What happened to that car?

MS DE LANGE: It got stolen.

MR MADASA: Was it later recovered?

MS DE LANGE: Recovered, ja.

MR MADASA: What was the story about it, what were you told about it as to what had happened to that car?

MS DE LANGE: It was in Natalspruit and they said that there were weapons in the car and I could not get it back.

MR MADASA: Who was using the car?

MS DE LANGE: Joseph and Chris.

MR MADASA: And Fouche?

MS DE LANGE: Ja it's Fouche.

MR MADASA: Chris Fouche, oh. That's the story you got?

MS DE LANGE: Yes that was the story.

MR MADASA: Do you know anything about the involvement of the police in your group whether your group was involved with the police or the police involved with you?

MS DE LANGE: No I carry no knowledge of that.

MR MADASA: Except Fouche of course?

MS DE LANGE: Ja.

MR MADASA: The other, do you know?

MS DE LANGE: I do not know.

MR MADASA: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MADASA

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, just two or three questions.

Ms de Lange, the statement on page 254 of the thick bundle, do you have that in front of you?

MS DE LANGE: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Do you stick to the contents of that statement? So are you still convinced that what you said here was correct?

MS DE LANGE: Are you referring to paragraph 4?

MR STEENKAMP: No I'm referring to the whole statement.

MS DE LANGE: Yes, I stick with that.

MR STEENKAMP: In all great respect then I do not understand your evidence today and I would like to read to you paragraph 4. Paragraph 4 Mr Chairman

"According to me they were not involved in political

activities"

and today you are saying under oath that they carried cards, they were members of the ANC.

MS DE LANGE: It doesn't mean if you are a member of the ANC that you're involved in politics and that you are going to kill people, how many times must I say this. You might be a member of a party but it doesn't mean that you're involved in killing of people with regards to politics.

MR STEENKAMP: So why did you not mention that in your statement, why did you choose to say that they were not involved with politics at all? Why didn't you say in your statement that they were card carrying members. Do you understand my question?

MS DE LANGE: Yes I understand the question.

MR STEENKAMP: Why is there a difference in your evidence?

MS DE LANGE: Probably because it's four years ago and I'm sitting here today.

MR STEENKAMP: Which of the versions do we have to believe?

MS DE LANGE: They were not involved in politics, they did not kill and rob for the sake of politics.

MR STEENKAMP: The problem I've got with that is that even Fouche, as I listen to you today, even Fouche says in his statement that the deceased were not involved in politics?

MS DE LANGE: Yes, they were not involved in politics.

MR STEENKAMP: So it's only you and the applicant then as far as I know who told this Committee today that these members were in fact ANC members, no one else says this except yourself and the applicant.

MR MALAN: No, Mr Steenkamp, that is not correct. This witness said that they were members of the ANC and that they were card carrying members.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I'm sorry if I did not put it in correct - I'd rather put the question again.

The problem I have is this, it's only you and the applicant, Mr de Ru, who told the Committee today, under oath, that the deceased were ANC members. All the other people who knew the deceased, even the family and even the informant Mr de Ru used, denies that the deceased were ANC members. Do you understand my question?

MS DE LANGE: Yes I do.

MR STEENKAMP: Now I'm asking you why is that the case?

MS DE LANGE: I knew Joseph much longer than all of them, I met Joseph in 1983, so why would I say he had a card if he didn't have a card. He had to survive in Sebokeng in all those times and it would not have happened if they were not members of the ANC, otherwise Inkatha or another one could have killed or otherwise I would not have been allowed there, I did not say they were involved but they were members of the ANC, they were members of the ANC. I'm only talking about Joseph now.

MR STEENKAMP: Just stop with Joseph for a while, you said that Joseph specifically always told me that he does not get involved with politics.

MS DE LANGE: Yes but that does not mean if we talk about politics - he said that because I'm white I do not want to get involved with politics, we do not talk politics, we do not talk murder, we do not talk robbery, we do not talk about those things because the politics in Sebokeng at that time was to kill and Inkatha was the biggest problem, I say that again.

MR MALAN: Can we just try and clarify a thing here Mr Steenkamp? Ms de Lange, if Steenkamp asks you about politics and I hear the question, I'd say to be a member of a political party and to attend meetings, that's political involvement but when you talk about politics you also always mention murder and fighting?

MS DE LANGE: But that's what they told me, if they say to me that I was - they keep telling me that they were actively involved. They were not actively involved.

MR STEENKAMP: But you yourself were not actively involved either?

MS DE LANGE: No I wasn't.

MR STEENKAMP: You were member of the party, you attended the meetings so for you was actively involved, it meant that you were involved in the fight in the townships?

MS DE LANGE: Yes those are the people who fought guerilla warfare.

MR MALAN: Do you refer to that as politics and active and the fighting between the Inkatha Youth etc and the defending of the townships, as far as you're concerned that's politics?

MS DE LANGE: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Otherwise it only means being a member or a supporter of the ANC and you distinguish between that and being politically involved or active.

MS DE LANGE: I distinguish between that.

MR MALAN: I think that's probably the misunderstanding.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, I'll leave the question there. Just one or two questions if you would allow me Mr Chairman?

Do you know if the deceased were ever involved in political violence?

MS DE LANGE: No never.

MR STEENKAMP: You see then you also heard that I asked the same question from Mr de Ru and Mr de Ru gave another answer?

MS DE LANGE: Yes I did hear that.

MR STEENKAMP: Why does your evidence differ from that of Mr de Ru?

MS DE LANGE: Because Mr de Ru talked about six policemen who were killed and of that I do not know anything and I would have been aware of that.

MR STEENKAMP: Now if Mr de Ru says this is he telling a lie?

MS DE LANGE: I do not know, maybe he's got other information that I don't known about, about that I do not know anything.

MR STEENKAMP: Ms de Lange, is it not true that this group that you knew so well was just an ordinary group, criminal group who went out to get financial benefit and were not involved in politics at all, is that not the reason or the way in which this group operated?

MS DE LANGE: Yes, according to me there was no politics involved they just robbed.

MR STEENKAMP: Were they ever involved in any crimes like murder and robbery?

MS DE LANGE: Yes maybe robberies because cars were robbed.

MR STEENKAMP: But never murder?

MS DE LANGE: No never, not where I was involved.

MR STEENKAMP: Would you say that according to your knowledge and that is my last question, that Mr de Ru could have in any possibility have a case against these people? Could he arrest them for any offence at that stage?

MS DE LANGE: Yes he could have.

MR STEENKAMP: What offences?

MS DE LANGE: They had stolen weapons with them and a stolen vehicle and he could have arrested them for that.

MR STEENKAMP: And Mr de Ru knew about it?

MS DE LANGE: Yes he knew about it.

MR STEENKAMP: Can you give an explanation why he never arrested them?

MS DE LANGE: No I do not know.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP

MR MALAN: Ms de Lange, you say that Mr de Ru was aware of the fact that there were stolen weapons with them? You also testified that at more than one opportunity you saw him and that you took weapons to him?

MS DE LANGE: Yes.

MR MALAN: For remuneration as part of the scheme, can you remember how many times you took weapons to him?

MS DE LANGE: The first weapon I took was an AK and a shotgun, a 765, a PPK, a Baby Brown and a 38 Special.

MR MALAN: So you're talking about six weapons that you took to him? Did he give you money for that?

MS DE LANGE: No I did not receive anything.

MR MALAN: Why not?

MS DE LANGE: They said that they are waiting until the case was completed. That is what the people are saying now. We complained a lot because we said we want our remuneration and they said that this comes from the top and it's not them who can give us this money.

MR MALAN: So you never received anything up till today?

MS DE LANGE: No, never.

MR MALAN: Can you remember how many times you saw him?

MS DE LANGE: Quite a few times because he came to the house. We went to Fouche a lot and we complained with him about the remuneration and asked why don't we get our money?

MR MALAN: Are you talking about three times or ten times or twenty times?

MS DE LANGE: Every day.

MR MALAN: You saw him every day?

MS DE LANGE: Yes.

MR MALAN: And he never talked to you about any activities?

MS DE LANGE: Chris?

MR MALAN: No, did I talk about Fouche? Mr de Ru?

MS DE LANGE: No I didn't see Mr Roux that often.

MR MALAN: How often did you see Mr de Ru?

MS DE LANGE: Only when I phoned him to come to my house or when we went to his house or to the police station. Let's say about five times.

MR MALAN: Now the weapons that you handed in, who did you give this to?

MS DE LANGE: Some of the weapons I gave to De Ru directly and the others were given to Fouche to give to De Ru.

MR MALAN: Did you live in Sebokeng with Joseph since 1983?

MS DE LANGE: Yes I did stay there for a while.

MR MALAN: For a while?

MS DE LANGE: Yes I would say for about six months.

MR MALAN: What did you do then?

MS DE LANGE: We had a model school.

MR MALAN: In 1991, 1992?

MS DE LANGE: Yes.

MR MALAN: And today?

MS DE LANGE: Today I'm working at the municipality.

MR MALAN: I would just like to get an idea of your political involvement. You said you were an ANC member, you joined them, you attended meetings and you say that you were MK. Now that confuses me and the applicant's advocate. Can you tell me, how did you join MK?

MS DE LANGE: I joined the ANC or I started with the ANC in Sebokeng and I said that I cannot be an ordinary member because at that stage whites haven't joined yet. I'll have to join at the MK wing, I had to learn how to use weapons and because we were involved with a lot of weapons, that is why they said that I was member of MK not just an ordinary member of the ANC.

MR MALAN: Did they just tell you that you were a member of the MK?

MS DE LANGE: I later received a card that said I was an MK member.

MR MALAN: Who told you this?

MS DE LANGE: It was Radebe.

MR MALAN: From Sebokeng?

MS DE LANGE: Yes, we only knew him as Radebe?

MR MALAN: Did you have any activities with them?

MS DE LANGE: No I did not work with them. They gave me books an stuff to read and that I did and they showed me the weapons that they had and that is about it.

MR MALAN: Did you receive any training in the handling of weapons?

MS DE LANGE: We did shoot yes in Zonkezizwe with AK's.

MR MALAN: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: So you did receive some military training?

MS DE LANGE: Yes but it was not guerilla warfare in that I was in the bush. They told me what is a 9 mm, what is an AK and what rounds are used and to really use it, no I did not receive that training. I shot twice with an AK47, that was when Fouche was with us at Zonkezizwe.

CHAIRPERSON: How long was Fouche with you?

MS DE LANGE: Probably four months.

ADV SOGODI: As a member of the MK, who was your commander?

MS DE LANGE: Radebe.

ADV SOGODI: Did he know about your involvement with the police?

MS DE LANGE: Yes.

ADV SOGODI: What was the MK's relationship with the police then?

MS DE LANGE: Not very good.

ADV SOGODI: No I want more detail on that because I'm trying to think of a situation where the MK would have dealings with the police?

MS DE LANGE: It was to get cash. They would remunerate us for the weapons that we handed in.

ADV SOGODI: The police would remunerate the MK members for cash for weapons that ...[intervention]

MS DE LANGE: They didn't know that I was a member of MK. They said on the T.V., it was even on the radio, anybody who handed in a weapon, AK's and something like that, they get money for that. That was to take all those weapons out of the community.

ADV SOGODI: So your commander knew that you were taking weapons out of the community and taking them back to the police and getting remuneration for that?

MS DE LANGE: For money.

MR MALAN: Ms de Lange, if I say to you that you were never a member of MK, it was just part of a game, you were white and you were a member of the - you received books, you did not really know what was going on?

MS DE LANGE: In politics yes, I believe I didn't know what was going on.

MR MALAN: Because MK started the STU's(?), they had to train them, they had to ensure stability, security, you were never part of that? You were never involved in that?

MS DE LANGE: All that I wanted to know - if I only had the protection of the community there, if I said that I was a member of the MK to move around.

MR MALAN: The fact that you were a MK member, is that not part of your imagination?

MS DE LANGE: No because I was with them because where else would we have received these weapons from?

MR MALAN: The weapons were freely obtainable, anyone could get a weapon at that stage in that area. It was stolen and you traded in it and anyhow it was practice and it was exactly the idea to get it out of that area and the ANC and STU's at certain areas worked together to get these weapons out of the community in order to stop the violence?

MS DE LANGE: That is what we did. We took the weapons out of the community.

MR MALAN: But I would put it to you that you were never a member of the MK and that it's part of your imagination. Maybe your own opinion of yourself?

MS DE LANGE: I cannot think how it can be myself importance.

MR MALAN: Have you still got your membership cards?

MS DE LANGE: Yes I've got my ANC membership cards.

MR MALAN: You said earlier you also had an MK card?

MS DE LANGE: Yes I did have one.

MR MALAN: Do you still have it?

MS DE LANGE: No I do not have it.

MR MALAN: Did you ever have it?

MS DE LANGE: Yes I did have one.

MR MALAN: Why is it gone?

MS DE LANGE: I travelled a few times and I was arrested by the police and I didn't think or see the need for keeping it.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

ADV SOGODI: Were you employed at the time when you stayed in Sebokeng?

MS DE LANGE: Yes.

ADV SOGODI: What work were you doing?

MS DE LANGE: We had a model school.

ADV SOGODI: Was it a school under the Department of Education?

MS DE LANGE: No, it was private.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean by model school, a school for models?

MS DE LANGE: Yes a modelling school.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR COETZEE: Ms De Lange, this incident of the 7th April where the deceased were killed, did it have any connection with your involvement in the ANC?

MS DE LANGE: No I do not believe it had.

MR COETZEE: It did not have any connection with the deceased's involvement in the ANC?

MS DE LANGE: No.

MR COETZEE: Thank you, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR COETZEE

MR JOUBERT: I've got no questions Mr Chairperson.

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

Ms de Lange, do you agree with me that the fact of the matter is that there are activities of your group which were not aware of?

MS DE LANGE: Yes that's true.

MR MADASA: And this is born out by the allegations about Lesotho?

MS DE LANGE: That's true.

MR MADASA: Secondly, referring to the second bundle that was prepared by others, on page 42, there's a newspaper article there, headlines reading as follows

"First White Sasolburger to Join the ANC as a Woman"

You are aware of that article?

MS DE LANGE: Yes I am.

MR MADASA: When was this written do you know?

MS DE LANGE: '92.

MR MADASA: 1992 and at the bottom there of that page the photo indicated - is that you in that photo?

MS DE LANGE: It must be yes, I'm the only person who joined the ANC that year.

MR MADASA: With some members, clenched fists, look you seem to be addressing a crowd or something. Just have a look at it? It's the small bundle.

MS DE LANGE: Ja it's me.

MR MADASA: What was going on there?

MS DE LANGE: We had a rally.

MR MADASA: Where?

MS DE LANGE: In Zandele Stadium.

MR MADASA: Where?

MS DE LANGE: At Zandele Stadium.

MR MADASA: Where is Zandele?

MS DE LANGE: It's a location of Sasolburg.

MR MADASA: What was the rally about?

MS DE LANGE: I don't know.

MR MADASA: You can't remember?

MS DE LANGE: No I can't remember.

MR MADASA: Lastly, it is therefore - you remember you said there were activities you were not aware of that your group was involved in? Now I'm following on that - would you agree with me that therefore there is a possibility that the applicant, Mr de Ru, could have been given information that was wrong?

MS DE LANGE: Yes.

MR MADASA: Either by Fouche or by a member or your group, is that not possible?

MS DE LANGE: That is possible.

MR MADASA: Or he was given information that was in fact correct but you were not aware of?

MS DE LANGE: That is correct.

MR MADASA: I have no further questions, Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MADASA

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to clarify something that I missed, I'm afraid I didn't - you've told us about the guns that you took along, an AK, a shotgun, a PPK, a Baby Brown and then what were the two others?

MS DE LANGE: A 765 and a 38.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry?

MS DE LANGE: A 38.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever see any of these guns again?

MS DE LANGE: Ja when they started the investigation after this robbery I saw those guns again.

CHAIRPERSON: Which ones?

MS DE LANGE: It was the Walter PPK and the 765.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry the?

MS DE LANGE: Walter PPK.

CHAIRPERSON: PPK and were they at the scene of this killing?

MS DE LANGE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know what the calibre of the PPK was?

MS DE LANGE: 765.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: Can you remember which of these weapons you gave to De Ru?

MS DE LANGE: I gave him a Baby Brown and about the others I'm not sure.

MR MALAN: You gave him the Baby Brown?

MS DE LANGE: Yes.

MR MALAN: And you didn't see that again?

MS DE LANGE: No, never.

MR MALAN: Thank you. Sorry, I'm just going to take this a bit further. The firearms which you gave to Chris Fouche, where did you hand it over to him, at the police station?

MS DE LANGE: No, the AK47 we went get ourselves at Zonkesizwe and he took it directly from there to the police station.

MR MALAN: Why did you think you'll get money for this because you didn't hand it over to the police, you gave it to Chris who was part of your gang?

MS DE LANGE: No, Chris wasn't supposed to be part of the gang.

MR MALAN: But he knew about everything?

MS DE LANGE: It was in order to gain information.

MR MALAN: For who?

MS DE LANGE: For the police.

MR MALAN: From whom, from yourselves?

MS DE LANGE: Yes from us.

MR MALAN: Political information?

MS DE LANGE: No, with regards to weapons. They were looking for weapons, firearms.

MR MALAN: And you give him firearms which you got in the township which he would then take to the police station.

MS DE LANGE: What else would he have done with them?

MR MALAN: But my question is, you hand over the weapons to him while he's visiting you?

MS DE LANGE: No, when we finished he had to take the firearms to the police station and it had to be written down somewhere so that we could get the remuneration for it.

MR MALAN: But he always got the weapons from him, you never went and took it to the police station?

MS DE LANGE: No, I don't think we ever actually took it to the police station.

MR MALAN: And the weapon which you gave to Mr De Ru where did that happen?

MS DE LANGE: At my house.

MR MALAN: Also at your house.

CHAIRPERSON: But you never got any remuneration for any of these weapons either so how can you say he must have taken it to the police station?

MS DE LANGE: Because I got my money for the diamonds before from that Vosloo.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you hand diamonds over to Vosloo?

MS DE LANGE: Ja, he was from the ...[indistinct] Welkom.

CHAIRPERSON: And he paid you for them?

MS DE LANGE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But Fouche never paid you for the guns?

MS DE LANGE: No, never.

MR MALAN: May I just ask one question? Ms de Lange, did you ever speak to Mr de Ru about the firearms and did you ever ask him for the money?

MS DE LANGE: Yes, we asked him once and he said that certain forms had to be filled in and the amount was coming from the top and it's a long process.

MR MALAN: So he received these weapons from Fouche?

MS DE LANGE: Yes he definitely received them because he said it would be about R15 000.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you expect to be paid R15 000 for handing in one AK47, one shotgun and four handguns.

MS DE LANGE: That's not the amount that we expected, that's they amount that he told us about. He told us that is the amount we are going to get.

MR MALAN: Thank you, no further questions.

MR MADASA: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: This concludes this witness, I'm not sure from what you've said whether you have another witness or not?

MR MADASA: No.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Do any of the other parties have witnesses?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I don't have any witnesses to call at all.

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, I don't want to call any witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: So we can commence with argument tomorrow morning?

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, I know this may be disruptive but there are certain aspects that we want to look into and would ask permission to make submissions in writing?

CHAIRPERSON: Can't you address oral argument and if you have any additional submissions that you can do so in writing? We've heard evidence today, we can hear argument on that evidence tomorrow.

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, we need time, Mr Chair to refer to - to look into certain matters and as far as the law is concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that you can do by submitting written argument. We want argument tomorrow on the evidence that we have heard today. Not on the legal effect of that evidence, simply on the value to be attached and inferences to be drawn from it. Very well.

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, I propose we do all that in writing.

CHAIRPERSON: Why? Why cannot you - you've heard the evidence, you've been here, you've prepared your client's evidence, why can't you address us on it tomorrow?

MR MADASA: There are matters I want to research on.

CHAIRPERSON: You've told us you want to research on the law, I do not see how you can want to research when I'm asking you merely to address us on the evidence that has been given before us today.

MR MADASA: But that would be piecemeal submission.

CHAIRPERSON: It may well be but it disposes of all argument on the evidence. What are the views of the other gentlemen?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman I'm going to be very brief with regard to argument so I am available tomorrow for argument.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I'm going to be very brief as well.

MR JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, basically I have no argument.

CHAIRPERSON: We expect you to do some homework tonight. We adjourn till 09H30 tomorrow morning.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, may I just put the record straight and if needs be I'll submit certain documentation? I don't want to embarrass my learned friends here but Mr Malan was subpoenaed on a request of my learned colleagues here. I have just spoken briefly to my colleague here and he indicates to me that he doesn't need Mr Malan here any more so as far as at least I am concerned, Mr Malan is not relevant at all.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it's necessary to quite say he's not relevant at all but I think his presence here is no longer relevant. You're excused from further attendance and thank you for having made yourself available today - 9.30 tomorrow.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS