Amnesty Hearings

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. The application commences at page 264 Bundle 1, Mr Chairman, of this applicant.

Mr van Zweel, you are an applicant in this application for amnesty which has regard to the incidents which took place on the 12th June 1988 on the Piet Retief Houtkop Road.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And four persons were killed during a shooting incident on that road?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr van Zweel at the time of these events you were stationed at Ermelo attached to the Security Branch, is that correct?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: What rank did you have at that time?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I was a Warrant-Officer.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr van Zweel you were also tasked with investigations which had regard to insurgents from Swaziland to the Republic of South Africa, specifically Natal and Eastern Transvaal, is that correct?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And that was members of the ANC, Umkhonto weSizwe?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: On the 12th June of 1988, you received instruction and you accompanied the previous applicant Mr Deetlefs to Piet Retief?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And at Piet Retief you received further instructions as to what would happen that evening?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And this entailed that certain person who illegally entered the country through the border would be transported by a member of the Detective Branch, a Mr Manzini?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And that that person would be led into an ambush at a specific place?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: What was the information that you had, were those people to be armed?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, they would be armed.

MR PRINSLOO: Would they be trained MK members?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And from your experience in the Security Branch, have you visited scenes and tasked with situations where it was well-trained MK members?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr van Zweel, on this specific evening after these instructions were given, did you accompany the members to a point on the Houtkop, Piet Retief Road,?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you take up specific places where the incident would take place?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you realise beforehand that shots would be fired at these persons?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And that if persons were killed there, that you would be guilty of murder?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you act out of own interest or was it an instruction?

MR VAN ZWEEL: It was an instruction in the interest of the South African Police and the South African government.

MR PRINSLOO: Have you executed previous similar acts for which you have applied for amnesty?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And was it also on instructions from above?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: This particular evening where you took up position, did a vehicle approach from the Swaziland side on that road?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there any indication given by that vehicle on it's arrival there?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, the lights were dimmed and then put on bright again. The left indicator was switched on and it pulled off the road.

MR PRINSLOO: And the left indicator that was switched on, what indication would that be?

MR VAN ZWEEL: It would be that the persons would be armed.

MR PRINSLOO: Did this vehicle stop at the pre-appointed place?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, it passed that point, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And after this vehicle stopped, did you hear any gunfire or see?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, we ran closer and shots were fired. Bullets hit the ground, hit the tar road between myself and Rorich. I fell down behind the vehicle and it was a few seconds and everything came to an end.

MR PRINSLOO: Just one moment, you say a bullet hit the tar road where you and Mr Rorich, a fellow applicant who still has to give evidence, were?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Could you determine where the shot came from?

MR VAN ZWEEL: From the kombi's side.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you see a person?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I suspected that it was the person who had jumped out of the left side of the vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: Would that be an occupant of the kombi?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And was there a mark on the tar surface which was visible for later investigation?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And was it indicated during later investigations?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: You say you ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Excuse me, just one moment before you continue. The bullet mark, did you see it or how do you have knowledge of it?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Later we found the place on the surface of the tar road. I cannot recall how long afterwards, a few days afterwards, I cannot recall, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: You say we, did you go back to the place?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Excuse me, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Did you go back to the place?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, later a reconstruction was held and we went back to the place.

MR MALAN: And when the reconstruction was held, was that not a long time after the incident?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes.

MR MALAN: And you still found the mark in the tar road?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Clearly, Sir.

MR MALAN: Was that the first time that you saw the mark in the road?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, can I just get clarity on that? You say the shot hit the ground between you and Rorich, you saw that and then later on when you came to reconstruct, you found that same mark?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: I just wanted to understand that. Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Besides what you saw with reconstruction, but that evening you saw the bullets hitting the surface of the tar?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you, when you fired on that vehicle, did you fire, shoot to kill?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: With which weapon did you fire?

MR VAN ZWEEL: With an R1, my official weapon.

MR PRINSLOO: And you say after the shots ceased, which happened seconds, it was determined that people were killed there in the vehicle?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: How many people were there?

MR VAN ZWEEL: There were four people.

MR PRINSLOO: And were those four persons armed?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Those persons were armed with AK47 rifles and they all had magazines, the weapons were cocked. Hand grenades were also found, two.

MR PRINSLOO: And the specific action this evening, did you see this as an execution of your general duties?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, it was in the execution of my duties.

MR PRINSLOO: And you, at a later stage, I refer the Committee , Chairperson, to bundle 5 page 53 as it is paginated, there is a statement.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that your statement?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: The date is not very clear but it seems to be 1989, it seems like the 14th. I cannot make out the month Chairperson, maybe somebody could assist us here?

Can you recall in which month this statement was made?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I cannot recall Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: This statement was made for the purpose of a death inquest.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And in that statement you indicated that Maj Deetlefs was the person who was in command?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: While Col de Kok's name was omitted from this statement.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: No mention is made of him?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Not at all, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And mention is also made of a blue light.

MR VAN ZWEEL: There was no such thing, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that part of your statement false where Col de Kock is not mentioned, what his role was and you have heard what his role was in this application.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you omitted that?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you created the impression that there was a road-block in which the people were killed?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And that was false?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you knew by submitting a false statement, and you give evidence afterwards, it would be perjury?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you knew it was defeating the ends of justice?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall whether you gave evidence at the inquest?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Who, or let me ask you as follows, why did you omit Col de Kock's presence?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Because it came to light that we should not mention Col de Kock.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you receive such an instruction?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: From whom?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I cannot recall, possibly from Maj Deetlefs.

MR PRINSLOO: Was Maj Deetlefs your Commander at that stage in Ermelo?

MR VAN ZWEEL: He was my direct Commander, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So you served under his command?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr van Zweel, your application is embodied in the volume as indicated to the Committee, it's page 264 to 266, it's the application itself which you have signed, and then the specific incident for which you apply for amnesty in this instance appears on page 269 at the centre of the page and runs up to page 271 with regard to the incident and then the general background which you sketched and forms part of your motivation, appears on page 275 and runs up to the end of your application?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I do, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you apply for amnesty on four counts of murder, because of the four people that were killed there that evening?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: As well as charges of defeating the ends of justice and perjury?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And any other competent finding which might emanate from the facts which are placed before this Committee?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And for any delict which you are guilty of, any civil action which may be instituted against you?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no questions.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. Mr van Zweel, the person who fired the shots, was he on his feet outside the kombi or in which position was he?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I suspected it was the person who jumped out left, I cannot be 100% certain but the bullet came from that vicinity.

MR LAMEY: So you don't know whether it was that person?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I cannot confirm that.

MR LAMEY: Is it possible that shots could have gone off while you were firing, that you inferred that that bullet hit the road there and that was the spark and you assumed that, the recollection is that it came from that direction?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, it may be a bullet that must have ricocheted from somewhere.

MR LAMEY: So you cannot say with clear certainty that he fired the shot before Mr de Kock fired at him?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, I cannot be certain, it happened very quickly.

MR LAMEY: No further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane, any questions you'd like to put to the witness?

MR MOERANE: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Mr van Zweel, for how many years before this incident were you a member of the Security Police at Ermelo?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Since 1983 I have been a member of the Security Branch at Ermelo. I started in '83 at Ermelo.

MR MOERANE: And as a member of the Security Branch, particularly in those years, the 80's, was it one of your main duties to investigate ANC related matters?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And for that purpose I take it you had to have contact with Middelburg, with Piet Retief?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And was there general co-operation between the Security Police in the Eastern Transvaal?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: From time to time from the 80's did you make use of the people from Vlakplaas, de Kock's people, for operations?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, we did make use of them.

MR MOERANE: From that time, from the 80's did you believe that you could do things that were illegal in discharging your functions as a member of the Security Police, against the ANC?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I believed that one could act against the ANC because they were illegal.

MR MOERANE: So was it ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think the question was, sorry Mr Moerane, it didn't seem to be a correct answer. What Mr Moerane was asking you is did you believe that you as police could become involved in illegal acts when acting against the ANC?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, I believed so.

MR MOERANE: And would I be correct to say that was the general culture of the Security Branch in the Eastern Transvaal?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Please repeat.

MR MOERANE: Was that part of the general culture amongst the Security Branch in the Eastern Transvaal?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, I wouldn't say that Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Where did you get that impression from therefore that you could engage in unlawful activities when you were pursuing the ANC or acting against the ANC?

MR VAN ZWEEL: In that instance at Piet Retief, we acted illegally. We killed the people there.

MR MOERANE: Yes, but what I am trying to find out from you is whence came this idea that you could act unlawfully when acting against the ANC?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No.

ADV GCABASHE: No, Mr van Zweel, maybe it will assist you to use the translators because the answer you have just given doesn't make sense in relation to the question. I'm sure it's a language, either language or you can't hear.

MR VAN ZWEEL: I don't hear him properly, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Just try with the earphones Mr van Zweel, it might facilitate your hearing. Could you please, Mr Moerane, repeat the question again?

MR MOERANE: Yes. Mr van Zweel, where did you get the idea from that you could act illegally when acting against the ANC?

MR VAN ZWEEL: With the incident in Piet Retief.

MR MOERANE: No, but before that, before the 12th June 1988, I understood you to be saying that you could act illegally against the ANC.

MR VAN ZWEEL: I cannot recall if this was the incident in Swaziland, whether it was before or after.

MR MOERANE: I'm talking about an incident that you have mentioned in the present application. That incident was in 1984.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: Yes, so by the time 1988 came, 12th June, you knew or at least you believed that you could engage in illegal acts against the ANC?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: Now my question is, where did you get that idea from?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I observed it myself that we had to act against the ANC because they infiltrated the country illegally, committed illegal acts and so forth.

MR MALAN: Sorry, Mr Moerane. Mr van Zweel, let me speak to you in Afrikaans. The question is, did you believe that you may commit illegal acts against the ANC, in other words that rules were not applicable, or that you did not have to adhere to prescriptions when you acted against the ANC? Now why did you think...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What was the answer?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No.

CHAIRPERSON: No. Okay.

MR MALAN: The question was put to you in English whether you thought that you could use illegal methods in actions against the ANC and you said that you believed so.

MR VAN ZWEEL: I misunderstood there, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: But you also said on a further question that you observed illegal actions being used against the ANC. You referred to the incident at Piet Retief.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes.

MR MALAN: And I think you also referred to a matter in Swaziland in 1984.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that's correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Thank you, Mr Malan. So you did appreciate the question. You knew what the question was about. The question was about illegal acts that you performed in your fight against the ANC. Not so?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: I ask you again, where did you get the idea from that you could employ illegal methods when fighting the ANC?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I received the order to do so.

MR MOERANE: So are you telling this Honourable Committee that whenever you employed illegal methods in your fight against the ANC, it was on instructions?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Instructions from your seniors?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: And in particular Maj Deetlefs?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes.

MR MOERANE: Why are you hesitating?

MR VAN ZWEEL: The order was from Piet Retief and Vlakplaas.

MR MOERANE: Is your case, Mr van Zweel, that in all the illegal activities in which you engaged, you were simply following instructions? You were following orders?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And that went to the extent where you had to lie and commit perjury, were you still following instructions then?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, the perjury was upon instruction. It was upon instructions.

MR MOERANE: So when you made that statement under oath in anticipation of inquest proceedings arising out of the events of the 12th June 1988, you were following instructions?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, I've already told the Committee that it was a false statement, or that at least aspects of the statement were false.

MR MOERANE: Yes. And is it correct that the lying there, the following of instructions there was a concerted effort on the part of your seniors? By that I mean that not only you, but other persons in a lower rank, had to toe the line and tell the same lie?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, all of us told the lie.

MR MOERANE: Yes, but it was something that was organised by your seniors, that you should lie?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Now with regard to...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Sorry, Mr Moerane, if I may, on this point. The preparation of the statements, did you ever have any interviews with Pienaar, or did he prepare the statement and give it to you to sign?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I don't believe that this statement was taken by Mr Pienaar. I cannot see who took that statement.

MR MALAN: The question is whether you were interviewed? The statement was made under oath, can you recall whether any interview was held with you regarding this statement or were you simply given the statement?

MR VAN ZWEEL: The statement was written, I was given the statement to read and I signed it.

MR MALAN: Was the statement taken from you, in other words in your presence?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes.

MR MALAN: Are you sure of that?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I'm almost 100% certain of that. I cannot recall precisely, it's quite a long time ago, but I am almost certain of it.

MR MALAN: Sorry, Mr Moerane, if I may just proceed on this point. Were all of you called in to agree on a version or how did it come to be that everybody could lie about exactly the same thing in this statement?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I can no longer recall.

MR MALAN: Isn't it probable that somebody compiled these statements for everybody and gave it to them to sign?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is possible.

MR MALAN: It doesn't seem to me that there is any other possibility.

MR VAN ZWEEL: I cannot say.

MR MALAN: And you cannot recall who presented the statement to you?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No.

MR MALAN: Mr Pienaar gave evidence that he was the investigating officer. Isn't it probable that it was he who compiled it?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is possible.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR MOERANE: The investigating officer of that intended inquest was W/O Pienaar.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Yes. Now coming to the statement that you made in connection with your amnesty application.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes.

MR MOERANE: You made that statement on the 13th December 1996 at Delmas.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Would I be correct in saying that, present at the same place and the same time, was W/O Pienaar?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And also Mr Theron?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And Mr Hayes?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I cannot recall. I don't believe that Mr Hayes was there.

MS VAN DER WALT: I think you should consult the documents Mr Moerane because that is not correct.

MR MOERANE: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman, that is correct. The statement of Mr Hayes was completed in Pietermaritzburg on the 13th December, I beg your pardon.

The statement of Mr Deetlefs was completed in Delmas on the same day.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Tell me, how did it come about that all of you were at Delmas, those that I've mentioned and those that you have confirmed, were at Delmas on the same day?

MR VAN ZWEEL: We were consulting with our Advocates, person to person, in Delmas. I'd already left the force. Somebody took me there. I cannot recall who the person was that took me there.

MR MOERANE: When did you leave the force?

MR VAN ZWEEL: 1992.

MR MOERANE: I see. As far as the attesting of the affidavit that you made on the 13th December 1996 is concerned, how did that come about?

MR VAN ZWEEL: It took place in Delmas in Mr Prinsloo's offices.

MR MOERANE: And did you know that the affidavit that you made was in identical words with that made by the other people I have mentioned? Pienaar, Hayes, Barnard, Theron and others too who were not there, Rorich and Deetlefs.

MR VAN ZWEEL: I haven't read any one of the statements made by any of the other persons.

MR PRINSLOO: That's not quite correct that it's identical words. If you look for instance at page 271 in the fifth paragraph,

"The left passenger door swung open and a person jumped out with an AK47 and opened fire"

CHAIRPERSON: Compared with?

MR PRINSLOO: Or am I mistaken about that?

CHAIRPERSON: Compared with what, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: I'm sorry, I made a mistake there, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's also a question for argument.

MR MOERANE: In any event it's exactly the same, page 117, identical and it's the same paragraph. They all consist of six paragraphs and each paragraph is exactly the same. The only difference, as I've pointed out, are the names. Obviously the person can't say that so-and-so, for instance you couldn't say van Zweel, you say myself, and then you mention the others.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, is the suggestion, with respect, that these statements ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We seem to go through this with each and every witness. I think we can leave it for argument. We know, it's been pointed out that they are the same, except for that one aspect which is different. We know that they were taken all at Delmas on the same day. I think it's fair that you ask how it happened that they got there the same day, but I think we can deal with this in argument, if you want to raise it in argument.

MR MOERANE: That is so, I will raise it in argument, but I think in fairness, I have to put it to each of the witnesses, particularly, Mr Chairman, in the light of the statements that were prepared for the inquest, I do not want to be accused of not having put it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm not disallowing the questions, I'm just saying that each time we get the objections and there's the same interjections, we're just losing time.

MS VAN DER WALT: I beg your pardon, these are my clients who are also being implicated. This is my greatest problem. I know it is not my client and it is not my turn to speak, but as a result of the insinuations which Mr Moerane is making, especially with regard to what he has just said, that the statements were all taken by Mr Pienaar for the post mortem inquest, Mr Moerane is now alleging that the legal representatives, as both witnesses have just given evidence, the incident was set out to indicate that there was dishonesty on behalf of the legal representatives and I would like to object to that because the same sort of point has been put to the Committee before and his Honourable Justice Wilson has stated beforehand that everybody knows how legal representatives compile statements. We have technology available to us in the form of a computer and if the form of the document is universal, why should that be a problem? If there is a measure of dishonesty, then Mr Moerane must put it as such. I request that this be the case.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know what Mr Moerane is going to argue, but I must say that this form of application when there are several applicants and there is very similar wording, is very common, not only with regard to Security Force personnel but with regard to other applicants as well. I've come across it quite often that there's the same wording used, the same political motivation keeps coming over and over again in different applications from different people. But I don't know what the point Mr Moerane is going to be arguing and I don't know if there is any insinuation that the legal practitioners were part of a conspiracy to make the same story, I don't know.

MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, anyone who has been present here will know that I have made no insinuations against the legal representatives. I am concerned with the applicants themselves and their credibility.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we have wasted quite a lot of time on this point about this. If we can move on now.

MR MALAN: Mr Moerane, with your permission. May I just determine from you, Mr van Zweel, when you made your application did Mr Pienaar or anybody else contact you to tell you about everybody who was involved in this matter and who had to apply for amnesty?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I had already left the force, I cannot recall. I think that a person from Ermelo, if I recall correctly, a Maj Marais, took me to Delmas in order to make my statement, but I am not certain.

MR MALAN: You cannot recall that Mr Pienaar contacted you or Mr Deetlefs?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, I did not travel with them.

MR MALAN: And this Mr Marais, or whatever his name was, did he simply get to you himself and tell you to apply for amnesty for this incident?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, he told me that the Generals had decided, or that this was the decision that came from Head Office, I cannot recall exactly, that we should apply for amnesty and all of us should go to Delmas.

MR MALAN: And then you made a statement to your legal representatives there?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that's correct.

MR MALAN: And you then signed it on a different day?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, it was signed on that day.

MR MALAN: On the very same day that you made the statement?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR MOERANE: Thank you, I am indebted, Mr Malan. So in short, Mr van Zweel, you were requested to make an application?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: And you came up to Delmas?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: You had this consultation and you signed the affidavit and you went back?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Yes. Now, let's come to the incident itself. Do you recall what you were told when you were invited by Mr Deetlefs to come and join him, to come to Piet Retief? What did he say to you?

MR VAN ZWEEL: He picked me up at Ermelo and I went with him to Piet Retief. In the office I was present for a while when the matter was discussed and from there we went to the scene.

MR MALAN: Mr van Zweel, the question is, can you recall what Mr Deetlefs said to you before he picked you up and why he came to pick you up, the reason why he came to pick you up.

MR VAN ZWEEL: He said we were going to Piet Retief. He said that there were people infiltrating from Swaziland and that we had to go and assist.

MR MOERANE: Yes, and when you got to Piet Retief there was a briefing session, not so?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: What was said to you about the operation? What was going to happen?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That there would be a vehicle coming from Swaziland containing MK members and that at a certain point on the Houtkop road we would take up position and wait for the people.

MR MOERANE: Yes, continue.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That transpired later.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane wants to know what you were told at the briefing session. You said that you were told that there was going to be infiltration, people would be coming in a vehicle, you'd take up position at a spot. Was there anything else?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That the people would be armed and that the planning was of such a nature that they would give us a signal should the people be armed, the indicator light would flicker and we reacted upon that.

MR MOERANE: How were you to react to that?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That if Manzini climbed out and ran, we had to open fire on the vehicle and we did that.

MR MOERANE: I see. So you knew that there was going to be an ambush?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And you were prepared to go along with that?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Had you heard that there was an incident four days before that?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, I heard about it.

MR MOERANE: And had you heard that four ANC members had been killed in that incident?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that's correct.

MR MOERANE: Had you heard that that incident had taken place at the same spot where you were to lie in wait?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: And had you heard that the first group, the group that came through on the 8th of June, had not been armed?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, I never knew that. I heard about that the other day here. I never knew about it until the day upon which evidence was given about it.

MR MOERANE: What information did you have?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Simply that the people had been armed and that they had been killed. I never had any information that they were not armed.

MR MOERANE: And had you been told that the people in the first incident, that's the incident of the 8th June, had shot at the police?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I can no longer recall what the precise information was, I just recall hearing that people had been shot dead.

MR MOERANE: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOERANE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: Sorry Chair, just before you proceed to Ms Lockhat. Mr van Zweel the question was put to you whether you had knowledge of the first incident, but the time of your knowledge was never specifically mentioned. Just to have certainty, I assume that you understand that this has to do with your knowledge of the first incident before the second incident took place?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, I heard about the first incident before the second incident took place, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: I have no questions.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Adv Gcabashe any questions?

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before - yes, re-examination, sorry Mr Prinsloo, I forgot. Do you have any re-examination?

MR PRINSLOO: Briefly.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr van Zweel when you executed orders, did you believe that you were acting in the interests of your country in the execution of your duties?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Adv Gcabashe.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr van Zweel in the statement you made, the one in volume 5, that was used at the inquest, paragraph 8 thereof, you talk about the man coming out of the kombi and that you heard shots from the direction of the kombi.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: Is there any reason why you did not mention the fact that a bullet actually hit the surface of the tar between yourself and Rorich as you were approaching the vehicle?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I don't know why I never mentioned it.

ADV GCABASHE: But the statement itself was prepared by you or by Mr Pienaar, just help me again with that.

MR VAN ZWEEL: I cannot say who took the statement because I cannot make out who signed at the bottom.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I think what Adv Gcabashe wants confirmed is whether you provided the taker of the statement, the person who had this statement typed out, with the contents contained there or if you were just presented with a written statement for you to sign.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Chairperson, I think I have already stated that I cannot recall how it took place, because this statement was taken quite a while afterwards. In all honesty I cannot tell you whether the statement had already been prepared or whether I was there when the statement was taken, I really cannot recall.

ADV GCABASHE: But you would agree that mentioning the fact that the bullet struck the tar would have strengthened your version as presented at the inquest?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: One other matter. Do you know how the deceased got to be shot in the head?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, I cannot say.

ADV GCABASHE: Do you remember directing shots at any one of the four specifically in the region of the head and neck?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I shot into the back section of the kombi, I don't know where my bullets hit, whether they hit any of the deceased, it is very difficult for me to say.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan.

MR MALAN: Mr van Zweel, I did not put this to any of the other applicants, but this is something which remains strange to me and that is that you find the people there with their weapons ready to fire and the evidence is that they told the driver not to be afraid, that they would protect him, that everything was fine.

MR VAN ZWEEL: The only way that I can assist you with that is that everything happened very quickly and that the people didn't have a chance to fire back. I really cannot tell you why they didn't fire any shots. What the circumstances were inside the kombi is very difficult for me to say.

MR MALAN: Weren't those guns planted on them?

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, never.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you given the opportunity to volunteer for this operation or were you just instructed to go along?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I was given instruction to accompany, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, I ask because Mr Deetlefs said that Sgt Manzini was a - volunteered for it. I was just wondering whether that applied to anybody else in the operation.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Chairperson, one could probably refuse, I don't know, but I don't think one could refuse if you worked for the state. If you receive instructions you must execute those instructions. I don't believe one could refuse. It is in the interests of the country and in the interest of the South African Police, so I believe that the instructions which I executed were justified.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions arising from questions put by members of the panel.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman yes. It might not arise directly but it relates to the

firing by this person and the reconstruction about a year later. Mr van Zweel you told the Honourable Committee, that you attended a reconstruction of this event at a later stage?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And I assume that at that reconstruction each one of the people who fired stood at a position where he alleged he was at the time of the shooting?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Now was Col de Kock at that reconstruction?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I don't know Chairperson, it was a long time ago. Is it not in the report? I cannot recall.

MR MOERANE: All you say is that on the 24th May 1989,

"I was present at the scene when the scene was reconstructed and I indicated the place from where I fired shots."

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: So you do not recall whether Col de Kock was there or not?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I cannot recall who were all there.

MR MOERANE: In all probability he wasn't there because at that stage he was being kept out of this matter, not so?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is possible, yes, Chairperson, because he was kept out of the matter.

MR MOERANE: You say even on that occasion, or on that occasion you saw a mark on the tar which you believed was caused by a bullet from the firearm that was fired by this person who came out of the kombi?

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that's what I said, Chairperson, but I also said that it could have been one of the other - the advocate asked me and I said it could have been a bullet that might have ricocheted from somewhere or somebody else's bullet, I did not deny it.

MR MOERANE: I see. So you are actually saying that you are not positive that that mark was caused by that bullet?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I am positive that the mark was caused by a bullet but I am not positive that it was caused by the bullet of an ANC member.

MR MOERANE: I suggest to you that this question of the person from the kombi firing, is something that you people fabricated for purposes of the inquest.

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: You didn't see him fire.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Chairperson, I say I suspected that the person who had jumped out the left front of the vehicle fired in our direction and you asked that it could have been another bullet and I said, "yes it is possible."

MR MOERANE: Yes, but what I'm putting to you is that you did not see this person fire.

MR VAN ZWEEL: No, Chairperson, I suspected that he fired.

MR MOERANE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any other questions arising? Thank you Mr van Zweel, that concludes your evidence. You may stand down now.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Thank you, Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED