ON RESUMPTION
MS LOCKHAT: The next amnesty applicant, Mr Chairperson, is Mr Paul van Dyk.
PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Van der Walt?
EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Van Dyk, your amnesty application appears in Volume 1, from page 235 to 237, that is the official form, is that correct?
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: Which you have also signed under oath?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Then the incident is contained within Annexure A from page 238 to 239?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And the political motivation from page 240 to 248?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Do you confirm the content of your statement?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, I do.
MS VAN DER WALT: You were involved in the incident of the 12th of June 1988?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you have also heard the evidence of Mr Ras and Mr Tait, is that correct?
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: Do you agree with their evidence?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, I do.
MS VAN DER WALT: It would appear that you were in command of the instruction which was carried out across the border?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: What was your rank at that time, Mr Van Dyk?
MR VAN DYK: I was a Lieutenant.
MS VAN DER WALT: Under whose command were you at that stage when the incident took place?
MR VAN DYK: Colonel De Kock was the Commander, the immediate Commander.
MS VAN DER WALT: And according to the evidence, Mr De Kock also gave the order to cross the border?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: According to your statement on page 238, paragraph 3, you state that you had to assist with arresting the persons who assisted the MK members with infiltrating the country? You have heard the evidence of Mr Ras and Mr Tait that you had to shoot these persons dead, can you explain that?
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, the idea was to eliminate the persons, but in the event of something happening and if there was the remote opportunity of arresting somebody, we would do so. But arrest was not a priority.
MS VAN DER WALT: Why was it necessary for you if there was an opportunity, to arrest, why would it then be necessary to do so?
MR VAN DYK: We were not certain whether people would leave guards at the vehicle once they moved over the border to take people across and if we had to shoot before the others had crossed the border, we would have to shoot those persons, because we would have to get close to the vehicle, and that would upset the entire operation.
MS VAN DER WALT: Very well, was it necessary for your division to undertake personal arrests and if they had been arrested, what would the purpose behind that be?
MR VAN DYK: If we arrested a person, it would provide more information for us. Whether he would be prosecutor or what would happen to him after that, was unknown to me.
MS VAN DER WALT: Furthermore you state in the same paragraph
"... during the attempt to arrest, the persons shot at us. We shot back and one person was killed."
Why do you say that?
MR VAN DYK: I fired first Chairperson, but at night if someone shoots in your direction with a firearm, you would clearly see the flames emerging from the weapon. That is why I said that they fired at us as well.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that you actually saw, you saw that they were shooting at you?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, I saw the flames coming out of the barrel, so I assumed that they fired at us.
ADV GCABASHE: No, again I don't understand that. You saw the flames coming out of the barrels, your barrels or you could identity their barrels?
MR VAN DYK: No, I identified that the shots were coming from the other person.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just while we are on this Mr Van Dyk, you were four?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: How did you take up positions or what positions did you take up in relation to the vehicle? Were you all grouped on the one side or was there one person in the front, one at each side and one at the back, what was the position?
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, the vehicle stood on the opposite side of the road and we stood on the other side of the road, we lay on the back of an embankment in a row.
CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't have any possibility of shooting one of your comrades on the other side of the vehicle for instance?
MR VAN DYK: There was no possibility, all of us lay in a straight line next to one another.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Tait gave evidence that he drew an inference that you had been fired at, and you say that you saw fire emerging from a firearm?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, as I have said I saw a flame, and one could see it clearly.
MS VAN DER WALT: I don't know whether Mr Moerane had a basis for this, but he made a definite statement to Mr Tait that this was not the truth and that this was a fabrication when you made your amnesty applications. Did you have any contact with Mr Tait before you submitted your amnesty applications?
MR VAN DYK: No, we did not have contact at any stage.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you are not being represented by the same group or firm of legal representatives?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you say that you fired first?
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: And what happened after that?
MR VAN DYK: After we opened fire and then ceased fire, we approached the vehicle, we found the one person at the vehicle who lay on the other side, or at least our side of the vehicle. He was already dead. We attempted to open the boot of the vehicle, because the other instruction which we were given was among others, if possible to bring out that vehicle if we could, because there may be documents or any other items in the vehicle. But the person who escaped, took the keys. That is why we then decided to set the vehicle alight, if there were any other items inside the vehicle, such as weapons or explosives, that would also be destroyed.
MS VAN DER WALT: You also heard that Mr Tait as well as Mr Ras stated that these events took place very quickly?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Is that correct?
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know of any kind of military camp which was situated nearby?
MR VAN DYK: We had information from the local Security Branch and before we entered the area they informed us, Mr Botha was there, he also knew the area very well, we were informed that there was a military camp in the near vicinity but we didn't know exactly where it was situated.
MS VAN DER WALT: But your objective when you went there, was to kill the persons?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, that was the primary objective.
MS VAN DER WALT: Were you in any way involved in the arrangements for the shooting which took place on the same night on the Republic side?
MR VAN DYK: I had no share in that, not in the discussions nor in the events which took place there.
MS VAN DER WALT: The first incident which took place at Piet Retief, where the persons were killed?
MR VAN DYK: I was not involved with that.
MS VAN DER WALT: Were you at Island Rock?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, I was.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you hear about the persons who were killed, there?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, during conversation I learnt about it.
MS VAN DER WALT: You were a member of C1, is that correct?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: From when were you stationed there?
MR VAN DYK: From 1981 to 1993 I was stationed at Vlakplaas.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you were consistently under the command of Colonel De Kock?
MR VAN DYK: No, I served under various Commanders, Dirk Coetzee, Jack Cronje.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, did you say 1981 to 1993?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: You said you were under whose command?
MR VAN DYK: I was firstly under the command of Dirk Coetzee, after that Captain Jan Coetzee, Colonel Jack Cronje and then Colonel De Kock.
MS VAN DER WALT: You have heard what was put to Mr Ras that he committed criminal acts during that period in time, why did you commit these deeds?
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, it is correct, they were criminal acts, but it was necessary at that stage. It was the practice, the opportunities were created for us in these incidents during which we could take action and if the information was available, we would act.
MS VAN DER WALT: Against whom did you act?
MR VAN DYK: Against ANC members or trained ANC members who were entering the country or unless there was information indicating where they lived in neighbouring countries, we would also act in those circumstances.
MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Van Dyk, the trained ANC terrorists who entered the country, they didn't come here to have a tea party, is that correct?
MR VAN DYK: No, the landmine explosions, the bomb explosions, the Wimpy incident, Amanzimtoti incident and the Church Street bombings, all testify to that.
MS VAN DER WALT: They also committed acts of terror?
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: Against innocent people?
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you try to maintain the government of the day by combating those acts of terror or acts or murder?
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: You were also present when Mr De Kock initially gave his evidence with regards to Vlakplaas. Do you agree with his evidence regarding Vlakplaas?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, I agree with that, it is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And do you also request that that evidence be considered by this Committee on your behalf?
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you have also studied the evidence given by Gen Van der Merwe and do you also request that his evidence be incorporated with your evidence?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Then for this incident you request amnesty for the death of the person who was killed there?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Any other offence which may emanate from your actions as well as any illegalities?
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Van der Walt. Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions you would like to put to the witness?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr De Kock, during this incident, did you regard it as a war which reigned between the then government and the ANC?
MR MALAN: I assume you refer to Mr Van Dyk?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: And did you, during these incidents when you committed these acts, were you aware of previous acts which were committed in the Eastern Transvaal where the ANC had exploded several bombs in Volksrust where a boy was severely injured and people were killed at Davel and Carolina and Breyten?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: There was a high intensity of attacks from Swaziland?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And many people came over to Swaziland from Mozambique and necessarily had to come into South Africa?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, Chairperson, that was common knowledge.
MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, do you have any questions you would like to put?
MR HATTINGH: No thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Cornelius, I was negligent and missed you.
MR CORNELIUS: I am known for my brevity, I have no questions thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?
MR BOOYENS: No questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?
MR JANSEN: No questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: No questions Chairperson.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van Dyk, what is your background before you joined Vlakplaas?
MR VAN DYK: If you refer to my background, do you mean from the time I joined the Police?
MR MOERANE: Yes.
MR VAN DYK: I grew up and joined the Force in the old South-West Africa Police College and from the College I went and did some normal police work at the Uniform Branch and afterwards I was transferred to Oshoek border post and then Nesden and from there I was transferred to the Security Branch and since 1981 at Vlakplaas.
MR MOERANE: I see. So you are one of the longest serving members of Vlakplaas?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, I was there for a long time.
MR MOERANE: So, you must be familiar with all the doings of Vlakplaas from about that time?
MR VAN DYK: I am aware of lots of things, but I won't say everything.
MR MOERANE: I mean from 1981, is the murder of Mr Griffiths Mxenge for instance?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, I have knowledge of all those things.
MR MOERANE: Right up to the incident with which we are concerned today?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: I see you are one of those that deposed to a statement at Delmas on the 13th of December 1996?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: One of those statements which were produced from the computer that produced the statements of the other people that I have mentioned?
MS VAN DER WALT: What is the relevance thereof Chairperson, because this person, his statement is not the same as the others. Is there a problem with Delmas, I would like to know that. What is the relevance?
MR MOERANE: Mr Chairperson, may I continue with my cross-examination?
CHAIRPERSON: I don't see any objection, anything wrong with the question.
MR MOERANE: I have not made any suggestion or any insinuation, I just identified the statement, that it is from the same computer that produced the statement of Hayes, Theron, Barnard and the others. I am right at the beginning of my cross-examination and I would appreciate Mr Chairman, if I were not to be interrupted.
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.
MR MOERANE: Maybe I should come to the point, I put it to you that you lied in this statement that was produced on the 13th of December 1996.
MR VAN DYK: If you can point out to me where I would have told these lies, I would answer you.
MR MOERANE: Look at paragraph 3, page 238. The very first sentence in that paragraph is a lie and you know it. It says
"... I, Martiens Ras and Johan Botha were tasked by Eugene de Kock to arrest the persons on the other side of the Swaziland border who would help the MK members with their infiltration."
That is a lie?
MR VAN DYK: No, I only left out Mr Tait's name, but it was not the intention to tell a lie because I omitted a name.
MR MOERANE: You know what I am referring to and I am referring to the instruction that you were given, the task that you were given, the task was not to arrest those people, but to eliminate them, not so?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: Then why do you say that the task you were given, was to arrest them?
MR VAN DYK: To also arrest if possible, but if the persons at the vehicle while it had stopped and there was a guard while the other persons were across the border, we could not fire on those persons or eliminate them because the other operation on the other side, would be jeopardised. It was the only reason why I said "would have to arrest".
MR MOERANE: Why didn't you say in your application that your tasking, your duty was to eliminate these people?
MR VAN DYK: It is supposed to be here but unfortunately it does not say that, I do not deny that, we had to eliminate them. Would there be a remote possibility of arresting them, we would have.
MR MOERANE: You not only told a lie once, but you told it a second time in the very next sentence. You say
"... during the attempted arrest, the persons fired on us."
Firstly, you were not in the process of arresting those people, not so?
MR VAN DYK: No, I can see we were not there to arrest them.
MR MOERANE: So why do you say that "whilst in the process of arresting these people", they fired on you, why do you put it like that?
MR VAN DYK: It was just put wrong, I put it now and it reads wrong, it was not so.
MR MOERANE: I will leave this part for the moment, the one that says "the persons fired at us", I will go to the next part of your sentence.
"... We returned fire."
That is another lie?
MR VAN DYK: I see it.
MR MOERANE: Why did you tell that lie also?
MR VAN DYK: I don't understand because I shot first and it is clear from the other people's evidence that that was that, this is a mistake and I am sorry about that.
MR MOERANE: No Lieutenant, I suggest to you that this was just a deliberate attempt to minimise your role?
MR VAN DYK: Well, that is not true.
MR MOERANE: How else can you explain it, you signed the statement, not so?
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
MR MOERANE: After reading it?
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
MR MOERANE: After confirming that the contents were true?
MR VAN DYK: Correct yes.
MR MOERANE: Why didn't you correct it there and then?
MR VAN DYK: I assume that I did not read the whole thing properly, but it is not correct as it reads there.
CHAIRPERSON: It would also seem Mr Van Dyk, that it is a very, very short description of what occurred?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: It appears in about eight lines?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct Chairperson. As I said, it is not correct, but as it is described there, it is not correct, there was a possibility of arrest, but the main purpose was to eliminate.
MR MOERANE: Is it correct Mr Van Dyk, that throughout your life as a member of C1 at Vlakplaas, you were used to telling lies or making false statements under oath?
MR VAN DYK: Not in all instances. I cannot think of anything else you would refer to, if you can point out these instances to me, I would answer you.
MR MOERANE: I am talking very generally at this stage, I don't want to mention specifics. Was it not the rule that if you could get away with lies which have the effect of saving your skin, you did that?
MR VAN DYK: If you can show the instances to me, I cannot answer to that.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you ever made a statement following an incident or an operation, which didn't correctly reflect what happened in the operation, in other words some sort of cover up, planting of weapons, etc? We have heard about Mr Ras now, we have heard in evidence here that they went to the inquest and they gave evidence about things that happened, but which wasn't correct.
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, I would not deny that, but I cannot at this instance think of a specific case. But I know in certain cases, it did happen and it has been said here for example the inquest at Piet Retief, that things had been changed but at this instance, I cannot recall where specifically I did that.
CHAIRPERSON: If you had to put in a report after an operation in which an illegal action took place, and I believe there were many of those, where people were shot at or were ambushed or any sort of operation like that, would you come back and make a written report to the effect that you acted illegally or would you write the report in such a way that it would look as if it was a legitimate police operation?
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, once you were in an operation and such illegalities took place, one would give information to legalise this thing, not that you acted illegally. That is so, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that is what Mr Moerane was asking you about, whether in fact it was in fact a practice to do that.
MR MOERANE: Yes Mr Chairman. So from your last reply are you saying that such did occur, that in reporting the incident you would try to make it legal?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct, that is what I said.
MR MOERANE: You were in the process of your history at Vlakplaas, involved in a lot of illegal activities, not so?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: In respect of those activities, you, I assume, you have applied for amnesty?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, I have applied for amnesty as far as my knowledge goes, where I acted illegally, yes.
MR MOERANE: Are you the person that set this motor vehicle on fire?
MR VAN DYK: There were four of us at the vehicle, as far as I know, Mr Botha, he shot at the petrol tank and as far as I know, he also set the vehicle alight. It may have been Mr Ras, as he says.
MR MOERANE: Mr Botha was a junior to you then?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: You were actually the senior person?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: Did he perform that act under your instructions?
MR VAN DYK: We all decided together, but I would give the instructions.
MR MOERANE: Did you give such an instruction?
MR VAN DYK: I did give such an instruction, yes, I did.
MR MOERANE: When you gave that instruction, where was the body of the deceased?
MR VAN DYK: The person, as the vehicle was standing, was lying on the right hand side of the vehicle, about more or less two or three paces away from the vehicle.
MR MOERANE: Was he not inside the vehicle?
MR VAN DYK: No, he was not inside the vehicle.
MR MOERANE: You knew that if that vehicle caught fire, he would be burnt?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct, yes.
MR MOERANE: You wanted him to be burnt?
MR VAN DYK: No, I would not say that I - we did not do anything to him to burn, the vehicle burnt and because of this heat, he must have, I never visited that place ever again.
MR MOERANE: Well, if you didn't want him to be burnt, you would have removed him from the vehicle, not so?
MR VAN DYK: He was not in the vehicle, no, we did not move him.
MR MOERANE: Yes, what I am saying is that you would have removed him from the immediate vicinity of ...
MR VAN DYK: Yes, I concede if we did not want to injure him any more, but he was already dead.
MR MOERANE: I finally put it to you that you were not fired upon.
MR VAN DYK: Well, I saw, I testified that we were fired upon, if that is your opinion, I differ from you.
MR MOERANE: How many shots were fired?
MR VAN DYK: Many shots. From our side?
MR MOERANE: No, no, from the person at the motor vehicle?
MR VAN DYK: I don't know, I have no idea.
MR MOERANE: Well, how many flashes of light did you see?
MR VAN DYK: I don't know, I could not count, I have no idea.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, was it more than one?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, it was definitely more, it may also have been the other person who was at the vehicle. It could not only have been, it may not only have been the person who was laying on the other side of the vehicle.
MR MOERANE: Do you know in what direction his fire was?
MR VAN DYK: It was in our direction, I would not say directly at us, but I could see the flames.
MR MOERANE: I take it none of you were injured?
MR VAN DYK: No, nobody was injured.
MR MOERANE: Did any of you, any of your party have a search light?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, there was a light. As far as I know, Mr Botha had it.
MR MOERANE: At the time of the shooting, was it on?
MR VAN DYK: At the start of the shooting, no, but only later on.
MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOERANE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Moerane. Ms Lockhat?
MS LOCKHAT: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT
CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe?
ADV GCABASHE: Just one aspect relating to the shooting that I don't quite follow. Are you saying that before you shot, the people on the other side, shot at you?
MR VAN DYK: No, I was the person who shot first.
ADV GCABASHE: You were the first. Having shot, you then had fire returned from the other side?
MR VAN DYK: That is how I observed it, yes.
ADV GCABASHE: And this person was close to you, on the passenger side of the motor vehicle?
MR VAN DYK: I wouldn't not say, the vehicle was between six and ten metres, I heard the previous witnesses said between 20 metres and further, but we were maximum, it was just on the opposite side of the road, so the person fired from that side, it seemed as if one was at the back and one was more to the door side. But I cannot say whether it was the one in the front who was shot or the one behind, but they were close to each other at that stage. I imagine that the other person was on the other side, one on this side and one on the other side of the vehicle.
ADV GCABASHE: Yes, but you see you imagine, you did not actually see the other chap on the other side of the vehicle?
MR VAN DYK: It was dark, I could just see the movement.
ADV GCABASHE: But you could see the one on the nearest side, on the side that was closer to you?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, it was very dark, there was no moon, so I would not say that I saw the person clearly.
ADV GCABASHE: What you are saying is that it is possible that the other one was not there, he had gone off to pass water or whatever, it is possible?
MR VAN DYK: It is possible, I don't know.
ADV GCABASHE: So we are really looking at what you saw and that is one person who was about to get into the motor vehicle?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, I would concede that.
ADV GCABASHE: And this person would have had his back to you because he is getting into the motor vehicle? I am just trying to understand, to picture this?
MR VAN DYK: I would not be able to say whether he was with his back to me, because it was too dark to see whether it was the back of him or the front of him.
ADV GCABASHE: So you wouldn't be able to say he definitely had a firearm in his hand either, it was too dark to see?
MR VAN DYK: Not at that stage, but I accepted that he did have a firearm, because when the vehicle stopped, we heard them cocking their weapons. I don't know what was the reason therefore, whether they were just testing it, but they were armed.
ADV GCABASHE: Yes, but my difficulty with that is those were the four who where then found with AK47's on the other side of the border, so I assumed from the evidence, I understood those were the people, from the evidence that has been led, who had the AK47's, not necessarily the escorts who were on the Swaziland side of the border and who didn't know anything was afoot?
MR VAN DYK: We accepted that they were armed because of the arms being taken out there and the weapons being cocked. The people who took those people over the border, were armed, we assumed that they were all armed.
ADV GCABASHE: And as soon as you started firing, your colleagues started firing?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: So with the experience you have, the person who was getting into the car, would have had very little chance of whipping around and shooting back at four people firing at him?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, but that person had not been in the vehicle yet, he was just standing there.
ADV GCABASHE: Yes, I understand that, I am just trying to imagine this person trying to get into the car, or not suspecting you were anywhere near there, and yet being able to shoot back at you, not just one shot but quite a few shots, shooting at four people who had been completely obscured from his vision, who had no clue you were anywhere in the vicinity? You understand, I am just trying to get a picture of this in my mind, to understand it.
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, as I have said it was so dark, one could only see the silhouettes of these people and it was not clear, but weapons we were convinced that they were armed. I could not go and ask them, that is what happened there.
ADV GCABASHE: At the end of the day you found one Makarov pistol, you say?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct. But the other person, we don't know what weapon he had.
ADV GCABASHE: Yes, but you see again our difficulty, it is yours and mine, you don't even know if he was there, if he shot back at you at all. You can only speculate, you don't know?
MR VAN DYK: Much later reports that came through, that he was there and that he had run away.
ADV GCABASHE: No, we are talking about the shooting, whether he returned fire, that is what I am trying to understand. You can only speculate on that?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, we can only speculate.
ADV GCABASHE: By the time the shooting started here, the pick up point where the other Lieutenant was picking up the four, was a distance away so they would have left already by that time?
MR VAN DYK: The persons who took the persons away, would have taken them to the vehicle and then they would return, so the vehicle would have been gone already.
ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?
MR MALAN: Mr Van Dyk, the evidence of Mr Ras and Mr Tait referred to two persons who returned, your evidence is also that with reference to the silhouettes?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct.
MR MALAN: Are you certain that two persons returned?
MR VAN DYK: I am very certain. As Mr Tait said, the two people were talking when they returned. As one could see the silhouettes, it was two persons.
MR MALAN: After you had fired the shots, you said that it happened very quickly, how long did you wait after the cease fire before you went to the vehicle?
MR VAN DYK: When we ceased fire, the light was already on and we moved towards the vehicle and we lit it around and we didn't see the other person and that is when we quickly set the vehicle alight and we left.
MR MALAN: Were you not afraid that the person would fire at you?
MR VAN DYK: We discussed it amongst each other but as I say, we had to take the chance because we could not leave the vehicle, whether there were explosions and weapons in the car that could be used at a next opportunity.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Dyk, we have heard from both Mr Ras and Mr Tait that the plan was that you would wait until these people got in the vehicle and then shoot. It is clear that you started shooting before they were in the vehicle, is there any reason for that, why you didn't obey your own order?
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, that is correct. There was a very important reason for it. I don't however wish to present this as an excuse, I just want to put it clearly that this is what happened at that moment. One of the persons who lay with me in the line, his safety catch of his firearm was not off and as the person approached the vehicle in front of us, I cannot say who the person was, I am not certain, he pulled his safety catch back and this made a rather loud noise and it appeared to me as if the person on the other side of the vehicle stopped and listened in our direction, as if he wasn't certain of what he had heard. That is why I decided to open fire at that point.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions arising from questions put by the panel? Thank you Mr Van Dyk, that then concludes your evidence, you may stand down and I now see it is just passed eleven o'clock and this would then be an appropriate time to take the short tea adjournment.
MS LOCKHAT: All rise.
WITNESS EXCUSED
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
