CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. We are to start slightly later than usual but that has been due to circumstances which were beyond our control and we hope to make up for the loss of time. Advocate Steenkamp I assume we are dealing with the De Meillon matter?
ADV STEENKAMP: That is correct Mr Chairman, Honourable Members. We are dealing with the De Meillon and two others matter which is before you. It's application number 4570, 5610 and 5611 of '96 and '97 respectively, that's as far as Section 94 is concerned, Mr Chairman. My respectful submission is both the victims in this matter are represented and were duly informed and I must apologise and thank you for your indulgence, Mr Chairman, we're ready to start. Thank you Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Advocate Steenkamp. For the purposes of the record, today is Wednesday 14th October 1998. This is a sitting of the Amnesty Committee. The panel is being presided over by myself, my name is Denzel Potgieter. I am assisted on my right by Advocate Gcabashe and on my left by Mr Sibanyoni. Advocate Steenkamp, just for the formality, you can just put yourself on record before I speak to the legal representatives?
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, I'm Andre Steenkamp, I'm the Evidence Leader in this matter, thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, you are representing one of the applicants, perhaps you can place yourself on record?
MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairperson, I represent the first applicant, Mr de Meillon, and instructed by Swart, Redlinghuys, Nel and Vennote Attorneys and assisted by Mr Johan Lubbe on my left.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo.
Mr Kotze do you not have a microphone? Alright, we'll see how it goes but we might very well have to get another microphone over there but for the moment Mr Kotze can you place yourself on record?
MR KOTZE: Thank you Mr Chairman. I represent Mr Eddie Holder and Willie van Zyl, the second and third applicants in this matter and my name is Kotze from the firm Koekemoer, Kotze in Boksburg.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kotze. Mr van Schalkwyk?
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. My name is Gert van Schalkwyk, I represent Stephanus Frederick Terblanche and Andre Reinier Swart who are opposing the application and I am instructed by Van Schalkwyk and Associates, Pretoria.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON: Right, there's nothing else that you wanted to put on record?
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you Mr Chairman. I can maybe just not directly dealing with this matter but I just want to inform you, Mr Chairman, that the other two matters standing down, I will be dealing with the moment we finish with this matter.
CHAIRPERSON: As it pleases you.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
Mr Prinsloo, ...[inaudible]
MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, Mr Chairman. The applicant can you it at the same time.
CHAIRPERSON: I am sure we can improve the situation a bit later. Oh, I see there is an extra one. How long will it take you to - is that so? Alright I think go ahead, we'll wait for you. We now have another microphone, I have been informed that it will take a few minutes to connect so I'll allow for it to be put on so that there aren't any further interruptions, so we'll just adjourn for a while.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: I think we are ready. Mr Prinsloo?
MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases you Chair and Members of the Committee. The application of the applicant is in the bundle in front of you from page 1 up to page 15. Page 4 is only correspondence, that is not part of the application.
Chairperson, before the applicant starts testifying, there are certain aspects where we want to make some amendments or changes. At annexure A, page 5, Members of the Committee, paragraph 1, the fourth line:
"I received training at the army and I was once in the airforce and part of the year I also did service at Hoedspruit."
Paragraph 2, third line:
"I was a member of the Secunda Division and Holder and Van Zyl also members of the AWB. I met them shortly before the incident."
CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that is at the end of that sentence is there a phrase added?
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairperson, at the end of the sentence
"I was a member of the Secunda Division ..."
and then full stop and:
"... with the two friends"
That has been deleted, that is:
"Van Zyl and Holder, two members of the AWB who I met shortly before the incident."
At page 7 at the top:
"I was told that it is the right time and it is the apt time to act. Devon would"
Devon has to be deleted.
"that it is the right time and appropriate time to act."
CHAIRPERSON: So you say the word "Devon" has to be deleted and the "right place" that has to be deleted as well?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct. So
"I was told that the time is appropriate."
and then in paragraph 7:
"I came to the guard in the base and I pointed my weapon at him and I told him that we were from a right wing group and that we would have to take weapons"
the word "their" with the weapons, "their" has to be added.
"and the guard then also pulled his weapon and I think the light was shot"
I "think" the light was shot.
And then the word:
"shoulder"
has to be changed:
"in the left forearm"
And the words:
"by the guard"
That has to be deleted.
Paragraph 8, there is a typing error. It should be 15 years sentence instead of 18 years. It is correct in the appendix.
CHAIRPERSON: Right, we have then made the corrections and the application has been changed in accordance. Would you like to swear the applicant in?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes as it pleases you.
OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr de Meillon, you are the applicant in this specific case and you have applied for amnesty. This relates to a charge of murder and armed robbery and that was based on an event on 23 April 1994 at Devon, is that correct?
MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr de Meillon, you also heard that certain changes have been made to your application, do you confirm that?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Do you also confirm the content of annexure A and B as it is before you?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr de Meillon, can you explain to the Honourable Committee in what type of family you grew up, was it liberal or conservative family?
MR DE MEILLON: Chairperson I was raised in a very conservative family.
MR PRINSLOO: And your parents, what were their political ideas, what did they support, right or left?
MR DE MEILLON: Rightist politics.
MR PRINSLOO: Have you received any military training?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: When did you receive training, can you remember?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes it was in 1992, beginning of 1992 I enrolled at the airforce. I did my training at Hoedspruit, my rank was Corporal and that was in weapon training and the last three months of my training I was at Devon Airforce Base.
MR PRINSLOO: What was the nature of the training that you received?
MR DE MEILLON: At Hoedspruit I did weapon training and I was trained to also train people in weapon training.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you give weapon training to people whilst in the airforce?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I did, I trained troops.
MR PRINSLOO: Whilst you were in the airforce did you receive any training in regard to acting against the enemy?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: As you understand the politics, I'm specifically referring to your training, on the training, how did you understand it, who was the enemy if there had been one?
MR DE MEILLON: The enemy was the Communist, the ANC/SACP Alliance, that was mainly the enemy.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you join any white groups?
MR DE MEILLON: No, I was not a member of any groups at the right but shortly after I completed my military training I joined the AWB.
MR PRINSLOO: And at the AWB did you have a rank?
MR DE MEILLON: No I did not.
MR PRINSLOO: Were you part of the Wen Kommando, the Ystergarde?
MR DE MEILLON: I was part of the Wen Kommando.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you receive any training there?
MR DE MEILLON: At the Wen Kommando they gave us further training in weapons, they enhanced it.
MR PRINSLOO: With regard to the AWB, what was the view of the AWB in relation to the Government of the day, that is the National Party and also the ANC and South African Communist Party.
MR DE MEILLON: The ANC/SACP Alliance was also the enemy of the AWB at that stage.
MR PRINSLOO: Was the AWB in favour that there should be black take-over of the government, the ANC/SACP Alliance?
MR DE MEILLON: No, definitely not.
MR PRINSLOO: What was your view with regard to the National Party with regard to politics at that time, that was before the election?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I felt that the National Party was busy selling us out.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage during your membership of the AWB change from the movement?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I changed from the AWB to the BWB.
MR PRINSLOO: What does BWB stand for?
MR DE MEILLON: That is the Boere Weerstandsbeweging.
MR PRINSLOO: Who was the leader of the BWB?
MR DE MEILLON: That was Commandant General Andrew Ford.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you know him?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I know him.
MR PRINSLOO: Who was the deputy leader?
MR DE MEILLON: I'm not quite sure, I can't really remember who that was.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, just a moment please?
MR PRINSLOO: Am I too fast?
CHAIRPERSON: No we have a bit of a technical problem. My colleagues listening to the interpreting service have problems in hearing so I just want to find out if that is now sorted out. Right, it seems that we don't have any problems. Right I think it will be better now. Could you just repeat the name of the leader of the BWB, Mr de Meillon?
MR DE MEILLON: His name was Andrew Ford.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo you may continue.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr de Meillon did you also know the programme of principles that was given out by the BWB? Chairperson, you have that on page 101 up to page 107. That is a document - is this the document that I'm showing to you now, is this the one of the BWB?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes it is.
MR PRINSLOO: You refer to page 101 to 107 of the bundle?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr de Meillon at that stage why did you change, if I can put it, from alliance?
MR DE MEILLON: The AWB didn't really satisfy my needs, they were also talking of war but they were never prepared to do anything about it and I felt that I needed something more.
MR PRINSLOO: And the BWB, what was their objectives?
MR DE MEILLON: At that stage they were in a state of war with the government of the day and they were in a state of war.
MR PRINSLOO: The meetings of the BWB did you attend them?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I did.
MR PRINSLOO: And who addressed these meetings?
MR DE MEILLON: Some of the meetings were addressed by the leaders themselves and others by people having higher ranks.
MR PRINSLOO: And at these meetings did they only have soft talk or did they refer to making war? What was the situation?
MR DE MEILLON: They always emphasised the fact that the BWB was in a state of war and that they were expecting full scale war.
MR PRINSLOO: What did the BWB want from the government or whoever?
MR DE MEILLON: They want a Christian Boere State where they could be independent?
MR PRINSLOO: And where would this State be?
MR DE MEILLON: That would have been in the Transvaal, Orange Free State and Northern Natal.
MR PRINSLOO: Would it have been linked with the old Boer Republics?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And is that also then part of the programme of principles?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: In the BWB was there any movement known as a military movement?
MR DE MEILLON: The BRA, that is the Boere Republican Army, that would be the military wing of the BWB.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you belong to that?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I did.
MR PRINSLOO: And could you just explain to the Honourable Committee how it was structured?
MR DE MEILLON: In the BRL it consists of cells and it operated underground.
MR PRINSLOO: Now how many members constituted a cell?
MR DE MEILLON: That was your own choice. My cell consisted of two members.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you have a cell leader?
MR DE MEILLON: In the cell itself, ranks weren't important but I had a paracell member.
MR PRINSLOO: Now that member, did he have a higher rank than you?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes he did.
MR PRINSLOO: In the BWB, who was he?
MR DE MEILLON: It was General Gerhard van Rensburg.
MR PRINSLOO: Was that the person you referred to in paragraph 5 of your application on page 6 in the bundle?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: In which area would you be responsible for and where would you act?
MR DE MEILLON: That would have been the whole Secunda area.
MR PRINSLOO: Where you there?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I was.
MR PRINSLOO: How would that cell have functioned in any action?
MR DE MEILLON: Well it would have functioned underground and instructions would have been given anonymously by telephone to the cell members.
MR PRINSLOO: Was it said that there would have been any actions?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I had been informed.
MR PRINSLOO: And what would happen in the nature of the action?
MR DE MEILLON: It would depend. We had to get weapons and we had to prepare for a full scale war.
MR PRINSLOO: Now the weapons that you had to obtain, for whom did you have to obtain it?
MR DE MEILLON: That would be the BWB.
MR PRINSLOO: Where would you have obtained it?
MR DE MEILLON: We had to get it from any available source.
MR PRINSLOO: Now would it be on a legal or illegal way?
MR DE MEILLON: It would be illegal.
MR PRINSLOO: With violence or not?
MR DE MEILLON: If it had to be with violence, it would have been done in that way, otherwise without any violence.
MR PRINSLOO: Was the BWB aware of the fact that you had training and that you had knowledge of the airforce base at Devon?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes they were aware of it.
MR PRINSLOO: And that was also where you received part of your training?
MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage receive a call from anyone?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I received a call.
MR PRINSLOO: Do you know who the person was?
MR DE MEILLON: I have no idea.
MR PRINSLOO: And what was the request?
MR DE MEILLON: A person told me that the time is now appropriate to get weapons and I should know where to get them.
MR PRINSLOO: Were you told where the target was or did you have to decide yourself?
MR DE MEILLON: The choice of the target was left to me.
MR PRINSLOO: Would you have to act with someone?
MR DE MEILLON: Initially I would have acted with my personal member but at that stage he was not available.
MR PRINSLOO: Now your personal member, who was that?
MR DE MEILLON: That would have been General Gerhard van Rensburg.
MR PRINSLOO: And what did you do, that was now in connection with this call?
MR DE MEILLON: Now I contacted ...[inaudible] van Schalkwyk of the AWB, a close confidante of mine and I asked him whether Mr Holder and Van Zyl would assist me with this operation.
MR PRINSLOO: And what did he say then of Holder and Van Zyl?
MR DE MEILLON: He told me that when I met them I could trust them and that they would be prepared to assist me with any operation if I needed people and he also told me that I could trust them.
MR PRINSLOO: The AWB at that stage, what was their view on obtaining weapons, or didn't they have any ideas on that?
MR DE MEILLON: They always talked about it that they wanted to obtain weapons but they never really did anything.
MR PRINSLOO: On the 23rd April 1994 did you do any planning?
MR DE MEILLON: Everything happened very fast, I really didn't have time to thoroughly do preparation.
MR PRINSLOO: What happened on that day?
MR DE MEILLON: Mr Holder and Van Zyl picked me up at the single quarters.
MR PRINSLOO: Was it on your request or theirs?
MR DE MEILLON: It was on my request and from there we went through to Pretoria. We had a look at the situation Vermeulen Street, there were certain guards at a building, I don't know which building.
MR PRINSLOO: Where would this building be?
MR DE MEILLON: It is in Vermeulen Street in Pretoria.
MR PRINSLOO: Now this particular building, was there any mention made of it in the BWB discussions?
MR DE MEILLON: No not really, I passed it and I then saw that there were any guards.
MR PRINSLOO: Were you accompanied at that opportunity?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I was, by Gerhard van Rensburg.
MR PRINSLOO: And on this particular day, you say you went to Pretoria, what did you want to do there?
MR DE MEILLON: That was to look at the situation in Vermeulen Street to see whether we could get the weapons from these guys.
MR PRINSLOO: Now this is not from a safe, it is from the person himself?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And after you had a look did you think you could act there?
MR DE MEILLON: No at that stage there were more guards than were expected and I did not want to expose my people to the risk.
MR PRINSLOO: So there was nothing done that day?
MR DE MEILLON: No.
MR PRINSLOO: And what did you do then?
MR DE MEILLON: Then we went back to Secunda and on the way I remembered Devon Airforce Base, it was on our way and I then informed Mr Holder and Van Zyl about this and then told them that at the guard gate there are usually two airforce troops, usually they are weaponed with R5 and also 9 mm pistols.
MR PRINSLOO: Continue?
MR DE MEILLON: And we then decided to try and take off these weapons from the guards. Mr Holder and myself, we put on airforce uniforms along the road and we travelled a bit further and just past the base, we stopped, we got out of the car, we went into the base.
MR PRINSLOO: At that stage you still believed that that base was still operating as an airforce base?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes, that was my impression.
MR PRINSLOO: Continue?
MR DE MEILLON: Mr Holder and myself then went to the guard room, that is at the gate. I walked in first and when I walked in I saw that there were police. I didn't expect police there. I then aimed my weapon at the guards and I told them they shouldn't be Rambos, we're from a right-wing organisation, we only want their weapons. The guard nearest to me smiled at me as if he was thinking I was making a joke and then I ordered him to take out his weapon. He took out his weapon and he lifted it. I grabbed it with my left hand and in the meantime Mr Holder passed me, to the other guard, and that was Mr Swart I found out later on and whilst I held Mr Terblanche's weapon with my left arm, a shot went off. It was Mr Holder or Mr Terblanche who shot. The lights went out at that stage. At that stage I thought the lights were shot out and I felt that something is wrong with my arm.
Mr Terblanche started struggling to get his weapon back and a shot was fired from my pistol. Mr Terblanche took his weapon and I shot. Mr Terblanche fell, I took his pistol and Mr Holder and myself left the scene.
MR PRINSLOO: At that point did you realise that those were members of the South African Police?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: What was your aim when you went in there?
MR DE MEILLON: It was to take the weapons from the guards.
MR PRINSLOO: What did you want to do with it?
MR DE MEILLON: That was to use it for the war.
MR PRINSLOO: The weapons would have gone to whom?
MR DE MEILLON: Well the one part would have gone to the BWB and the others would have gone to the AWB.
MR PRINSLOO: Now after you had obtained this weapon and Mr Terblanche, that is the deceased, after he had been shot dead did you foresee that you would have killed him, shooting at him. Did you aim at him?
MR DE MEILLON: No at that stage I didn't really know where I aimed my pistol, I just realised that I had to shoot.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you realise that there could be a possibility that you could kill him?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I did.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you at that stage in any way act for your own gain, did you have any revenge feelings, did you know the person?
MR DE MEILLON: No I did not.
MR PRINSLOO: The police at that stage, did you see them as part of the government or how did you see it?
MR DE MEILLON: They were part of the government.
MR PRINSLOO: And in the BWB itself, did there exist any system according to which when BWB members acted a message would be sent out so that you could act.
MR DE MEILLON: Well when a cell operated in the BRL they were provided with a telephone number for contact purposes and to say that cell number so and so had accepted responsibility for the deed that had been committed.
MR PRINSLOO: Now after this action, did you feel that there was something wrong with your hand? What was wrong?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I didn't realise at that stage what was wrong. Only in the car on the way back to Secunda I realised that I had been wounded in the left arm.
MR PRINSLOO: Okay, the person had been shot, you'd taken the firearm and you had left the building, you and Mr Holder?
MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Where were you taken?
MR DE MEILLON: Well we went to the car which had been waiting for us.
MR PRINSLOO: Who was waiting in the car?
MR DE MEILLON: It was Mr van Zyl.
MR PRINSLOO: Is it one of the two applicants on the left?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Where did you go?
MR DE MEILLON: We returned to Secunda. I requested that they drop me off along the Main Road leading into Secunda because my General lived directly next to the Main Road. I crossed the wire fence to Mr van Rensburg and he nursed my wound.
MR PRINSLOO: Are you referring to Mr van Rensburg, your fellow cell member, Mr Gerhard van Rensburg?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And then after that?
MR DE MEILLON: And as a member of the AWB he took me to this person and in the meanwhile the BWB headquarters in Rustenburg had been approached by him to find out whether there was a doctor who was supporting our cause. In the meanwhile I returned to a doctor and he took me to the member where the doctor treated me.
MR PRINSLOO: Were you treated there by the doctor?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Were you later hospitalised?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: How long were you in hospital?
MR DE MEILLON: Approximately two weeks.
MR PRINSLOO: And at that stage was the BWB aware of your action or not?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes they were aware of what we'd done there.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you inform them of the events?
MR DE MEILLON: No, I didn't do so personally but my General did so.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you inform your General, Gerhard van Rensburg about what had happened?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I had.
MR PRINSLOO: And as far as you know was this carried over or was this message given through to the movement?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you have any opportunity to accept responsibility for this deed?
MR DE MEILLON: At that stage I couldn't accept responsibility for the deed because shortly after my hospitalisation I was arrested.
MR PRINSLOO: While you were in hospital?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you state your version of what had happened to the police?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And did you also inform them that you had initially gone to Pretoria?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I did.
MR PRINSLOO: So they were aware of this throughout?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And you also made a statement before a Magistrate?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I did.
MR PRINSLOO: And during your trial did you initially plead not guilty?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Was that before Judge Grobbelaar in the Circuit Court of Springs?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct to both questions.
MR PRINSLOO: And after the first witness had been led, Mr Swart, did you change your plea to guilty?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Without having been cross-examined at that stage?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Why did you initially plead not guilty?
MR DE MEILLON: That was at the recommendation of my Advocate, Mr Nel.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you plead not guilty to both the murder and the robbery with aggravating circumstances?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And you were found guilty on both counts?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair, I wish to just state that I am in possession of Judge Grobbelaar's finding in the case and I will provide the Honourable Committee with copies of this, I obtained this yesterday. If I look at the finding the judgement, page 2, approximately line 20, says statement had been submitted, that the respective cases of the State and the Defence had been concluded and both passed that the accused be found guilty and then Judge Grobbelaar said it was clear that you had been of the intention to plead guilty, is that correct?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: After this deed and after these events and that which you had been wanting to achieve, how do you feel about all of this?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I'm disappointed because I feel that I had not really achieved my objective.
MR PRINSLOO: And how doe you feel about the victim, the late Mr Terblanche who was fatally wounded and killed during this action?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I'm very sorry about the death of Mr Terblanche.
MR PRINSLOO: During your trial did you meet any relative of Mr Terblanche?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes, during the trial I met his father and his stepbrother and other relatives.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you discuss things with them?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes they three talked to me but in particular Mr Terblanche, the deceased's father.
MR PRINSLOO: What did you say to him?
MR DE MEILLON: Well just after deciding to change my plea from not guilty to guilty, Mr Terblanche after the court had adjourned, met me in the passage and he held me against him and said they didn't hold it against me and they were praying for me and also on the day I was sentenced, after my sentence had been given, I was given time to greet my family and when I stepped towards my family, Mr Terblanche met me, gave me Christian books, told me that they didn't hold it against me, that they realised it had been for a political struggle and they were praying for me.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage receive any letter from anybody in this regard?
MR DE MEILLON: Well after I had been sentenced, Mr Terblanche wrote a letter to me whilst I was in prison in which he explained to me how he had felt in the beginning about the death of his son and that he had realised after he had met me that he had to forgive me and there he once again confirmed that he had forgiven me and that they didn't hold it against me.
MR PRINSLOO: Today, do you commit yourself to violence, to negotiation or what is your position at present?
MR DE MEILLON: Well at this stage today I do not wish to associate myself with violence, I feel negotiation is the right road to follow.
MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment, your Honour.
And Mr de Meillon, just to conclude, in your application did you state at all that you had done it for any other purpose than for political purpose?
MR DE MEILLON: No Sir.
MR PRINSLOO: Is your reply no?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes, I did not do it for any other purpose or any other objective than a political objective.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you your Honour.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kotze?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KOTZE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
Is it correct that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment. I think those two microphones can work simultaneously if you press your red buttons, let's just see?
INTERPRETER: The Chairperson's microphone is still off.
MR KOTZE: Mr de Meillon, is it correct that you met Mr Holder and Van Zyl just a couple of weeks before the incident on 23 April 1984?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: And this meeting was brought about by Mr Ochert van Schalkwyk who at that stage a commandant in the AWB?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: And you say he was an old confidante of yours, Mr van Schalkwyk?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: I was instructed that during this introduction Mr van Zyl and Mr Holder were told that they could trust you and on the other hand that you could trust them, is that correct?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR KOTZE: And they were also informed that you had the rank of Commandant in the BRL?
MR DE MEILLON: No in the BWB.
MR KOTZE: Okay that's correct, in the BWB. During that discussion the possibility of co-operation between the AWB and the BWB was discussed, is that correct?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR KOTZE: And in the presence of Mr van Schalkwyk it was also stated that should Mr Holder and Mr van Zyl receive a request from your side to assist you and members of the BWB in operations, they had to do so?
MR DE MEILLON: I'm not sure whether they were instructed to do so but I was told that I could trust them and they would be prepared to assist.
MR KOTZE: But a strong possibility of co-operation was mooted at that point?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: And furthermore, was the arrangement that should they co-operate with you, it would be under your control?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I wouldn't be able to state that, it would depend on whether I would be supporting them when they had received an instruction or whether they would co-operate with me when I had received an instruction.
MR KOTZE: But should you have received an instruction it would have been regarded as a BWB instruction and you would be in command?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: Furthermore the idea was that you would report to your higher command regarding the result of such an operation?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: You at that stage also lived and worked in Secunda?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: Would you agree that in the run up to the elections of 1994 there was a strong political awareness that developed in Secunda?
MR DE MEILLON: Very strong, yes.
MR KOTZE: And it reached it's height immediately preceding the 27 April 1994 elections?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: Are you also aware that there was a system of so-called safe houses that was developed by the AWB in Secunda?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I am aware of that.
MR KOTZE: And the idea behind the safe houses was that on election day as many as 70 000 persons from the neighbouring townships would stream into Secunda and that a civil war would then develop?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I wasn't aware of the figure of 70 000 but I was aware of the uprisings that would come.
MR KOTZE: And were you of the opinion that a large influx would take place into Secunda and that people would cause havoc in the white neighbourhoods of Secunda?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: And the AWB organised quite widely identified houses and prepared emergency plans?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I don't know about their plans and the houses identified but I was aware that they were planning.
MR KOTZE: And the idea was that should attacks take place on houses where women and children would be, the relevant safe houses had to be defended meaningfully?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: And the idea was that hand held weapons would not be proper defence against automatic attack weapons which at that stage was believed to be under control of the people who were expected to make the attacks?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: Is it also correct that according to your knowledge the City Council of Secunda as a matter of fact also issued emergency notices also contained in the bundle, which you had seen I assume, in which if I could possibly refer to it, is contained a list of emergency provisions for families or couples of people that had to be held for various periods of time contained on page 57 to 59 of the bundle? Page 57 to 59.
MR DE MEILLON: I never received such a list myself so I wasn't aware of it.
MR KOTZE: My instructions were that this document was comprehensively distributed throughout Secunda.
MR DE MEILLON: It is possible but as I said I never received one of these lists.
MR KOTZE: But would it be correct that you were aware that shortly before the elections there was a feeling of let's call it panic and of danger, comprehensive danger that existed and that wide plans had been made to resist an emergency situation?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes definitely.
MR KOTZE: On the 23rd April 1994, the day of this incident, the circumstances were that after you had received the telephone call you and Mr van Schalkwyk, the other applicant's commander went to Mr van Zyl - no first to Mr Holder's house, you didn't find him there and then you went to Mr van Zyl's house where you found Mr Holder as well, is that correct?
Let me make it easier, you went to look for them with Van Schalkwyk?
MR DE MEILLON: I can't remember accurately but yes I had, I went to look for them.
MR KOTZE: And what happened was you found Mr Holder at Mr van Zyl's house but Mr van Zyl wasn't there at the stage and you conveyed the instruction you had received to Mr Holder, is that correct?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes, it is.
MR KOTZE: My instructions were also that you and Mr van Schalkwyk at that stage told Mr Holder, who conveyed the message again to Mr van Zyl at a later stage, created the impression that firearms had to be found at some dump or an arsenal where according to Mr Holder's understanding it would be illegal arms which were in possession of freedom fighters, they believed, and that it would be a case of going to a specific place, the guards would be drunk and that the arms could be taken in a method that didn't hold a high risk.
MR DE MEILLON: Well I don't know whether Mr van Schalkwyk told Messrs Holder and van Zyl this but I definitely did not say so.
MR KOTZE: From the beginning...[inaudible] Mr Holder and Van Zyl that guards themselves were the target?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes at that stage they very clearly understood this.
MR KOTZE: My question was whether you yourself had conveyed this to them?
MR DE MEILLON: I can't remember whether I conveyed this to them myself or to Mr van Schalkwyk but that was clearly my objective.
MR KOTZE: With regard to what Mr van Schalkwyk had conveyed to Mr Holder, you can't express an opinion obviously?
MR DE MEILLON: No I can't.
MR KOTZE: Mr Holder said that he had believed that a number of automatic firearms would be obtained and that hand held firearms would not be the objective of the operation because effective firearms had to be obtained?
MR DE MEILLON: Well, the guards were armed with R4 rifles as well as with pistols in some cases and at the army base of Devon. That ...(intervention)
MR KOTZE: I'm sorry, I'm referring to Vermeulen Street.
MR DE MEILLON: At Devon Army Base or Airforce Base they had R5 firearms and 9 mm pistols.
MR KOTZE: At the stage when you arrived in Vermeulen Street Pretoria Messrs Holder and Van Zyl say that for the first time you indicated that you considered attacking the guards of the relevant Defence Force installation?
MR DE MEILLON: Well at that stage and I still don't know what building it was, my purpose was to rob the firearms of the guards, whether Mr van Schalkwyk had stated this to them I'm not aware but if that was the first time they became aware of this then they had gone blind into a situation they didn't know anything about.
MR KOTZE: My instructions were that at that stage they realised that you would not hesitate to attack persons and that that was actually not the purpose of their actions.
MR DE MEILLON: Well, I would have done anything in my ability to carry out my instruction correctly.
MR KOTZE: Would it be a correct word to say that at that stage you were fanatical?
MR DE MEILLON: No I wouldn't think so.
MR KOTZE: You wouldn't think that it was wrong to describe it as such?
MR DE MEILLON: No, I wouldn't think that I had been fanatical.
MR KOTZE: Messrs Holder and Van Zyl said that in Vermeulen Street at one stage you said that the guards had to be eliminated for propaganda purposes and that they had made it very clear to you that they were not prepared to go along with that kind of action?
MR DE MEILLON: No, that is not correct, it's not true.
MR KOTZE: For what reason did you say that the guards in Pretoria were not attacked for their R5 attack rifles?
MR DE MEILLON: Well normally two guards guarded the building but that particular night there were approximately six guards and that is the reason why we decided against this.
MR KOTZE: If you say we decided, it was actually your decision, wasn't it?
MR DE MEILLON: One could say that.
MR KOTZE: And that was after Mr Holder and Van Zyl had said that they believed that it would be much too risky for their liking?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes, it would have been at a great risk to me as well.
MR KOTZE: You then decided not to continue with the Vermeulen Street target and the decision was taken to return with Mr van Zyl's vehicle to Secunda?
MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.
MR KOTZE: And on your way back did you remark to Messrs Holder and Van Zyl that previously you had undergone service training at Devon army base or airforce base which was well known to you?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes, that is correct.
MR KOTZE: You once again selected the target if one could state it as such?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR KOTZE: And your idea was according to Messrs Holder and Van Zyl or the impression that you created with them was that you knew the area well because you had spent quite some time on the premises and that you were aware that there was an arsenal or that there would be an arsenal on the premises, of firearms?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes there is an arsenal of firearms but from the beginning my objective was to rob the guards of their firearms because in my opinion it would have been impossible to get access to the two safes where the other firearms were kept, I wouldn't even have attempted it.
MR KOTZE: Messrs Holder and Van Zyl say that at this stage when the action at Devon was planned very briefly, it wasn't a long drawn out planning, that they believed that the guardhouse and the guards would not be attacked but that it would only be a reconnaissance of the premises and if firearms could easily be obtained for the arsenal or firearms cache, it would be done?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I stated it very clearly to them, from the beginning that we would go to obtain firearms. We weren't going for observation, we were going to obtain firearms.
MR KOTZE: But would you state in broad terms, to obtain firearms that you would say you were there to obtain firearms or would you state in particular where the firearms would be obtained?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I told them in particular about the guards in the guardhouse and that we would take their firearms from them.
MR KOTZE: Messrs Holder and Van Zyl deny this, they state that it would only be a matter of reconnoitring and possibly obtaining firearms and that the attack on the guards had never been on their agenda that day.
MR DE MEILLON: Well if had never been on their agenda, I wasn't aware of it.
MR KOTZE: The circumstances briefly were then that Mr van Zyl remained behind in the vehicle and you and Mr Holder climbed over the wall, I mean the fence?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes over the fence.
MR KOTZE: Then you crept up to, or you crossed the premises so that you wouldn't be detected, you were ahead?
MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.
MR KOTZE: Mr Holder followed you at a few metres distance?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: Mr Holder alleges that the next thing he saw you were at the guardhouse and he assumed that you were moving there in order to observe how many guards there were and how prepared they were?
MR DE MEILLON: Well at that stage I stated it very clearly to him that we were going to take the guards' weapons from them and he was aware of the guardhouse because we had driven past it.
MR KOTZE: Mr Holder had a .38 special revolver with him at the stage when the guardhouse was approached?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: He alleges that it was in the pants hip pocket of his browns, as he called it?
MR DE MEILLON: No, it was definitely not in his hip pocket.
MR KOTZE: Where would you say it was?
MR DE MEILLON: In his hand.
MR KOTZE: And you had a 9 mm pistol in your hand, you stated previously?
MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.
MR KOTZE: Mr Holder said that the guardhouse is a square type and that he looked through a window in the one side while you went round the corner to another side where the door was which rendered access to the guardhouse?
MR DE MEILLON: I wouldn't know whether he looked through the window.
MR KOTZE: No, but the point that I'm trying to make is that you had lost eye contact with each other in the sense that you went round the corner and that he was standing on the other side of the corner or he remained behind?
MR DE MEILLON: Well the door is not very far from the corner, it was on the corner so it is possible that for a few second we lost eye contact.
MR KOTZE: Mr Holder alleges that he believed that the purpose of the visit to the guardhouse was purely to make an observation with regard to how many people there were in the guardhouse, how awake they were and he states that the next moment he observed you storming, rushing into the guardhouse?
MR DE MEILLON: He was aware at that stage that I was going to enter the guardhouse because he was directly behind me.
MR KOTZE: Are you saying that at the stage when you entered the guardhouse you were already aware that there were two white police officers in the guardhouse?
MR DE MEILLON: At that stage I was not aware of it.
MR KOTZE: Are you saying that regardless of who was in the guardhouse your purpose was to attack them and rob them of their firearms.
MR DE MEILLON: Well if I'd known beforehand that they were policemen I wouldn't have run the risk because the police at that stage were much better trained than airforce troops were trained and they dealt daily with crime and violence and they would have been able to act and react much quicker than airforce troops would have been able to do. I wouldn't have run that risk.
MR KOTZE: Are you saying that you went past the window and not at all looked through it into the guardhouse to see who was inside?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I ducked below the window so that I wouldn't be seen so I couldn't look through the window, I didn't look through the window.
MR KOTZE: Mr Holder alleges that when he saw you storming into the guardhouse he followed you?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes he followed me.
MR KOTZE: But he says it was a total change on the original game plan?
MR DE MEILLON: Well as I had stated previously, it was very clearly stated from the beginning that we were going to obtain or take by force firearms and that was made very clear to them and I accepted that that was what they understood and that they agreed to it and that is the way I explained it to them.
MR KOTZE: Mr Holder alleges that immediately after you had stormed into the guardhouse your remark had been that the guards shouldn't do anything stupid.
MR DE MEILLON: My words were that we were of a right-wing organisation, that they shouldn't try to be Rambos and all that we wanted were their firearms.
MR KOTZE: Mr Holder alleges that a struggle developed between you and Constable Terblanche and then as a consequence of this the lights went out.
MR DE MEILLON: Well at the stage when the lights went out it was after the first shot had been fired but neither myself nor Mr Terblanche had fired the first shot, Mr Holder or Mr Swart, a co-guard, would have had to fire the first shot.
MR KOTZE: And then you fired a second shot?
MR DE MEILLON: Well as I had said I grabbed Mr Terblanche's firearm, the first shot was fired, the lights were out and I felt there was something was wrong with my arm. Mr Terblanche started struggling to get his firearm and at that stage a shot was fired from my firearm, not deliberately, and Mr Terblanche jerked his firearm from my hand and then I fired.
MR KOTZE: Do you accept that a shot from your firearm had fatally wounded Mr Terblanche?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I accept that.
MR KOTZE: Mr Holder denies having fired any shots in the guardhouse.
MR DE MEILLON: Well I wouldn't be able to say whether he had fired any shots but I know that in my trial and I have statements made by the various sections of the police or issued by the sections of the police in which some of the evidence that was provided was a projectile fired from a .38 special firearm and that was only one person there who had that kind of firearm and that was Mr Holder.
MR KOTZE: Mr Holder says that his impression was that you had shot yourself in the forearm.
MR DE MEILLON: Well I definitely don't agree with that because I can't see how I could have shot myself because if one looks at the degrees at which the projectile had penetrated my arm and if one looks at the course between the entry wound and exit wound it's impossible that I could have shot myself because the firearm would have been aimed at myself which is not something I would have done.
MR KOTZE: Mr van Zyl says that he looked at the pistol that had been taken in the robbery after Mr Holder had received it and had later been handed over to Van Zyl. Van Zyl said that he checked the firearm and it was apparent that Mr Terblanche's pistol had never been cocked or fired that night.
MR DE MEILLON: Well I was aware that it had not been fired, I was aware of that but as I said I had the barrel in my left hand and not for a moment did I think that Mr Terblanche had fired any of the shots.
ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, but I thought you said just a little earlier that that first shot that went off you assumed it came either from Terblanche or I beg your pardon, who is the other chap? Who is the other victim? Swart? Swart or Holder?
MR DE MEILLON: I was under the impression, Mr Chair, that the first shot had come from Mr Swart the co-guard with Mr Terblanche or from Mr Holder my co-applicant, I was under the impression that the first shot had come from one of them.
MR KOTZE: After the shooting incident did you pick up the firearm of Mr Terblanche?
MR DE MEILLON: I picked it up, yes.
MR KOTZE: And you and Mr Holder then left the guard room without looking for R5 attack rifles?
MR DE MEILLON: Now in the guard room they don't have R5 weapons, they don't keep it there. Now I was under the impression that it was airforce troops guarding it and they were always armed with R5's and 9 mm pistols but when we entered it was quite clear that these two guards weren't armed with R5's.
MR KOTZE: And you then returned with Mr van Zyl's vehicle from Devon to Secunda?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR KOTZE: In the car was the weapon given to Mr van Zyl?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR KOTZE: And you were then dropped close to Mr Gerhard van Rensburg's home with the clear impression that you would go there, get assistance and then also report on the event?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes, my intention was to go there for assistance but at that stage it didn't go through my mind that I had to report concerning this operation. Mr van Rensburg was also not aware of this operation. He did not give me the instruction.
MR KOTZE: Up to that point you didn't know it and you accepted that Mr van Rensburg would have had knowledge of the operation?
MR DE MEILLON: No, I knew that he would not have had any knowledge of the operation, he would have been informed there.
Afterwards I would have informed it if everything had gone successfully.
MR KOTZE: Now did you in fact inform Mr van Rensburg of what happened earlier in the evening?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I did.
MR KOTZE: And did you also request him or did you get a commitment from Van Rensburg that Van Rensburg would report to Van Schalkwyk concerning the activities of the AWB members?
MR DE MEILLON: I did not do it, if he had done it, it would be on his own accord, his own decision.
MR KOTZE: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOTZE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kotze. Mr Schalkwyk?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK: As it pleases you Chairperson.
Mr de Meillon, did you leave right-wing politics?
MR DE MEILLON: No not at this stage.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Not at all?
MR DE MEILLON: No.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you are still clinging to the principles of right-wing politics?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes, the principles I still believe in.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You also don't say that you have any remorse?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I do have remorse.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you Sir, that in your testimony you have said that you were disappointed that you did not achieve your aims, you did not say that you were disappointed because you took a person's life?
MR DE MEILLON: That was concerning the operation, that was not concerning the taking of a person's life.
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, with respect, the applicant has said that he was very sorry for taking a person's life, that is how I heard it.
CHAIRPERSON: But it is so that in answering a question he said that he was disappointed because the operation did not reach it's goal. He did in fact say that he was feeling very bad about the death of Mr Terblanche but he had indeed referred to his disappointment concerning the operation. I think that is the point that Mr van Schalkwyk is making.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not activated.
The speaker's microphone is not activated.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that your attorney had asked if you had remorse and you said that you were disappointed that you were not successful in the execution of this act?
MR DE MEILLON: Chairperson, could I just confer with my advocate before I answer?
CHAIRPERSON: Unfortunately you may not. When all the questions have been asked then your advocate will once again have the opportunity to put questions to you and then he will then try and clear any uncertainties but for the moment you will have to answer the questions.
MR DE MEILLON: Well I can't remember exactly what my advocate asked me whether I had any remorse concerning the event or not.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: How many weapons did you envisage that your organisation or the AWB would steal?
MR DE MEILLON: Well, there were two guards. Mr Holder and Mr van Zyl would have taken the one weapon and I would have taken the other one. I would have given my weapon to the BWB.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now seen globally in this right-wing organisation, how many weapons did you foresee that you had steal? A hundred, thousand, how many?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I didn't really know how many I would have to obtain. My aim was to get the weapons at places where it would have been the easiest.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir do you think it is justified to shoot a policeman and kill him for one 9 mm pistol?
MR DE MEILLON: No I don't think so.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now the firearms that you had been using were they licensed?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes, my firearm that I used it was licensed.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: For how long were you in service of the South African Defence Force?
MR DE MEILLON: I did a year service.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: When did it start?
MR DE MEILLON: That was in the beginning of 1992.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You were trained in the use of weapons?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You say that if you had known that it would have been a South African Police member you would not have taken the weapon?
MR DE MEILLON: What I said, that I would not have taken the risk to try and get the weapons.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you then say in other words that you don't care to rob a South African policeman of his weapon but that you only saw it as a danger?
MR DE MEILLON: Well at that stage the South African Police was part of the government against whom the BWB declared war.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that in none of the written work of your organisation there was never anything said about attacking police?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I can say that there was declaration of war and it was clearly put to us as members that there was war declared against the government of the day.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Was it said directly to you to shoot white policemen?
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: No, not.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: At the time that you spent in the South African Defence Force, did you do it voluntarily or why did you spend it there?
MR DE MEILLON: Well it was national service and I did that voluntarily.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Please explain to me, why do you do military service if you are against the government?
MR DE MEILLON: It was national service.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But you had a choice, you could have gone to jail, you could have left the country, but now you are serving this country?
MR DE MEILLON: Now I perhaps had the choice but anything is better than jail or leaving the country.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you are saying is that you support the government enough to do your national service?
MR DE MEILLON: Well at that stage I didn't really have much of a choice.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I want to put it to you that you had a choice. You could have left the country, you could have sat in a jail, you had different options other than doing your national service?
MR DE MEILLON: Well it would have been more advantageous to doing my military service because I was trained in weapons.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I want to put it to you Sir that in all situations you do what is to your advantage. Now today you have remorse because it is to your advantage but you don't really have remorse.
MR DE MEILLON: But one of the reasons for admitting my guilt was because I felt remorse.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you testify against your two co-accused in the trial?
MR DE MEILLON: No I did not testify.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why didn't you testify against them?
MR DE MEILLON: Because each of them have a wife and two small children.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now if you say to us that you are a person who has remorse for your deeds and there are co-accused who have - why didn't you testify against them?
MR DE MEILLON: It was also told to me by my investigative officer that I don't have to testify because they have sufficient testimony against them.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now I have been instructed by my client that there had been a specific discussion with the investigating officer, that was Captain Nel, where he then indicated that you don't want to co-operate and that you refused to co-operate because you referred to them as co-people with you in the struggle?
MR DE MEILLON: No, I put it quite clearly to him why I did not testify.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In other words you say that Captain Nel is lying if he says that you did not want to testify?
MR DE MEILLON: I won't say that he was lying but that is not what I told him. I did not tell him that I refused to testify.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I also put it to you that Mr Terblanche senior stopped corresponding when it became clear that you didn't break from right-wing politics where you initially indicated that you had remorse?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I don't know, I never told Mr Terblanche that I was not prepared to break with right-wing politics. I cannot do away with my heritage.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that Mr Terblanche specifically opposed this application that you had indicated to him that you felt remorse and that you wanted to break from your past but that Inspector Nel indicated to him that you are not prepared to co-operate or to testify in the criminal case of these two co-accused who had plead guilty?
MR DE MEILLON: That is what Mr Nel told him, that is not what I told him and I also put it to Mr Nel that I would be prepared to testify should he subpoena me and he told me that it was not necessary if I don't testify I don't have to because they had enough evidence against the two accused.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you're saying is that you would testify against these two people?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes, if they had subpoenaed me I would have.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I want to put it to you that you are lying, that you are now changing the truth to suit you?
MR DE MEILLON: I'm not agreeing, I don't have a reason here to lie, I'm here to tell the truth.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you agree with everything that is contained in the application here and the submission given here?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I agree.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are there any other changes that you would like to add or anything that you would like to point out that is not correct?
MR DE MEILLON: Not anything that I can think of right now.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why were these changes made today to the submissions and the statements?
MR DE MEILLON: Well when I read through it, it was briefly, it was only yesterday that I really went through it in detail and then I saw the different errors.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Would you agree with me that this is a very important application and it could save you ten years in prison?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I agree.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I want to put it to you that no normal person would have just glanced through such an application and just handed it in without really ascertaining whether everything is correct.
MR DE MEILLON: I took it as correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you read through everything?
MR DE MEILLON: No I did not read through everything but I believed that it was correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that it is quite unlikely that any person would have had his application compiled, handed in and then also confirmed that it was his without reading through it thoroughly.
MR DE MEILLON: Well I had absolute trust in my advocate.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you're saying is that it was only today that you realised that there were certain mistakes in the application?
MR DE MEILLON: No, not today, I read through the application thoroughly yesterday and then I saw the mistakes.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that you made the changes to then link up with the applications of the other two people so that there aren't any contradictions.
MR DE MEILLON: I have no idea what is contained in the statements of the other two.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Didn't you go through them at any stage?
MR DE MEILLON: No I did not read their applications.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I want to put it to you that in your application you made corrections where you said that they're not friends of yours and that you don't know them well?
MR DE MEILLON: No I don't know them well.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not activated.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: During the trial did you also say that you don't know these people well or did you view them as your confidantes?
MR DE MEILLON: In the trial I did not testify.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you then deny that you in any statements referred to them as confidantes?
MR DE MEILLON: Well they were confidantes in the sense that Mr van Schalkwyk told me that I could trust them.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In other words you want to say that a person that you've only met once and if a person is then indicated to be a confidante and someone you can trust that you then view him in that manner, in that way?
MR DE MEILLON: Well they could be confidantes but not necessarily friends. I believed that I could rely on his opinion of other people.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why didn't you join the AWB whilst in the army?
MR DE MEILLON: At that stage it was prohibited if you were in the service of any State department or did any service that you could join any political movement.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you are a person who, doing your national service, but you then also comply with the rules of the Defence Force?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I didn't have a choice, I didn't have a choice of complying with it.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And I put it to you that we all have choices. Now you had a choice in killing that policeman and you also had a choice in becoming an AWB member earlier.
MR DE MEILLON: Well I have always supported the right-wing politics but at that stage I just didn't view it important to join.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that you didn't have any right-wing relations before that date, you're only using it to obtain amnesty.
MR DE MEILLON: Well I have proof of my membership with the organisation and as I have said I was raised very conservatively in an Afrikaner house.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Nowhere you refer to an AWB number or any proof that you are an AWB.
MR DE MEILLON: Well I don't have my AWB membership card any more because I had to hand that back when I joined the BWB but I do have my BWB membership here, the original.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that you were not a member of the AWB whilst you were in the army because you didn't want to, it was only after these events that you obtained membership?
MR DE MEILLON: I don't agree, just after I completed my military service I then obtained membership at the AWB, that was after I met Commandant Ochert van Schalkwyk, he was with me in the single quarters. He introduced me to the AWB.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are you going to call Ochert van Schalkwyk to testify?
MR DE MEILLON: I don't know what my advocate is going to do, I don't know what purpose it would serve.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you're not going to call him?
MR DE MEILLON: I don't think so.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are you going to call Gerhard van Rensburg to testify?
MR DE MEILLON: I don't know, I don't think so.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You say there in your testimony that it was not Gerhard van Rensburg who gave you the instruction?
MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: How do you know that it wasn't him?
MR DE MEILLON: If it had been him I don't know of it.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that you come to us and you say that you know that one specific person didn't give the instruction but then you say that you don't know who gave the instruction?
MR DE MEILLON: Mr van Rensburg at that stage wasn't available, he was on an angling expedition with his family, so I don't know how he would have contacted me per telephone and given me an instruction. We were good friends, we trusted one another.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: No, you testify and you say that it is not him. How do you know that he did not give it?
MR DE MEILLON: In the first instance, I know his voice, I would have immediately recognised the voice if it had been Mr van Rensburg's voice.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: How many instructions did you get over the telephone from anonymous people?
MR DE MEILLON: That was the first one.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you've never before received such an instruction?
MR DE MEILLON: No.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that you never received such an instruction and that it is something fictitious that you have thought out?
MR DE MEILLON: I don't agree.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: How do you know that it was perhaps just someone who phoned you and let's say for example someone just playing with the telephone.
MR DE MEILLON: There aren't just people playing with the telephone having knowledge of the BWB and knowing of their operations.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now you say someone who did not identify himself tells you that the time is right, for what?
MR DE MEILLON: The time was right to obtain weapons, that is what the person said and that I would know where to get it.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that your statement doesn't indicate that the time is right to get weapons, it was only said that the time is now right, nothing was said about weapons.
MR DE MEILLON: That was not my precise words.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you say that your statement is not correct?
MR DE MEILLON: We have already changed that.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now the order and the way in which this was put was not quite correct. Now I put it to you that I asked you do you agree with the changed version and you said yes you agree?
MR DE MEILLON: But at that stage I was not aware of what this paragraph says.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you want to say to us that this changed version you have also not read through thoroughly?
MR DE MEILLON: I've read through it, yes.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that the first version and the changed version nowhere is reference made to weapons in this telephone conversation and that you are not telling the truth?
MR DE MEILLON: It is most definitely not an untruth.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you're saying to us is that your first statement and the changed statement is incorrect?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes, in that regard, yes.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is there anything else in your statement that you would like to change?
MR DE MEILLON: At this stage I can't think of anything, anything that is not correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I want to put it to you, in paragraph 6 and I read your words
"I realised that the situation is urgent and that two of my former confidantes of the AWB, Edmond Holder and Willem van Zyl, and that I approached them"
Why do you still refer to them there as confidantes if you now say that you only met them once.
MR DE MEILLON: As I said, Mr van Schalkwyk put it to me that I could trust them and rely on them, now in that regard I view them as being confidantes.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I'm going to put it later to the co-applicants Mr Holder and Mr van Zyl that they weren't confidantes. Should they testify that they weren't confidantes, what would your answer be to that?
MR DE MEILLON: I view them to be confidantes.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that Constable Swart is here and he is going to testify against you and say that you never said that you are a right-wing group and that you were not looking for weapons when you entered the building?
MR DE MEILLON: That is what I said.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why would he lie concerning such an important point?
MR DE MEILLON: I don't know why he would lie but I also don't know why I would lie.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you Sir that you are a convicted murderer and therefore you would lie to stay in prison for ten years less.
MR DE MEILLON: No, I'm not prepared to tell any lies here.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: The statement in paragraph 7 of how it happened, are you sure that it is correct?
MR DE MEILLON: I won't say that it is a hundred percent correct. As I explained to the Committee earlier, that is how it happened.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You told the Committee that you are sure that you didn't fire the first shot, is that correct?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Van Zyl was in the vehicle, so Van Zyl could not also have fired the shot?
MR DE MEILLON: No, it was definitely not Van Zyl.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: According to your statement, it would then only mean that it would have been either Holder or Swart could have fired the shot?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that Constable Swart's hands had been tested by Nel for some residue and there was nothing found?
MR DE MEILLON: That's possible.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In other words you say that if the testimony of Swart is that he did not fire the shot that the only other possible person who could have fired it would have been Holder?
MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Should Holder come and testify that he did not fire his weapon, is he lying?
MR DE MEILLON: It's quite clear, yes.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you say that it's quite clear that he is lying?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You also say that you have knowledge of a .38 round that was found?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes it was a .38 projectile.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Could you repeat that?
MR DE MEILLON: A .38 projectile was found at the scene.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: The only person on that scene with a .38 was Mr Holder?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you ever handle his weapon so that you could have fired the shot?
MR DE MEILLON: No, I never had his weapon in my hands.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now after this incident, why do you only take this one weapon from the policeman, but why don't you take Constable Swart's firearm?
MR DE MEILLON: Well at that stage I realise that everything had gone wrong. It didn't happen as I had planned and the first thing that came to my mind was to leave the scene. Now the guardroom was dark and at that stage I also didn't know where Constable Swart was.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You say in your testimony that Mr Holder had already taken out his weapon outside of the room, is that correct?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: If Mr Holder says in his application that he had not taken out his firearm and that it was in his pocket when he moved then he is lying?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why do you think that Mr Holder would be lying?
MR DE MEILLON: I don't know why he would lie but it would be possible to put all the blame on me, to blame me for everything, for the whole incident.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I take you to Annexure B, page 10, 10 - 15 of the statement and there you give an exposition of the Boere Weerstandsbeweging, the BWB, where does it indicate here that you may attack or wage war against the government of the day? I would like to say to you Sir, that nowhere in this document any basis is formed for an attack on a white policeman or any member of the police.
MR DE MEILLON: No, it is not summarised in this.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: What is your reply?
MR DE MEILLON: No, it is not summarised in this.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you are saying is that the basis of your movements, nowhere states that you may attack policemen?
MR DE MEILLON: No, it is not contained in the BWB's documentation.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you are saying that you made this decision yourself and that it was part of the policy of the movement?
MR DE MEILLON: As I had said at that stage the BWB had already declared war against the State, against the ANC/SACP Alliance and the National Party Government.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I don't agree with you that war had been declared. Where and when did this happen?
MR DE MEILLON: It was before I joined the BWB, I can't give day and date but it was made very clear to me that war had been declared, we had a flag which signified that war had been declared.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would like to say to you that this flag with the orange band is being used by many organisations in non-violent capacity.
MR DE MEILLON: Well I wouldn't know about this.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I wish to say to you that there is no proof that war had been declared at any stage.
MR DE MEILLON: Well the leader of the BWB is present here today, I don't know whether my advocate is going to ask him to testify but he will be able to confirm that.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well let us then look at the event. At whose house were you dropped?
MR DE MEILLON: Mr van Rensburg.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are you going to call Mr van Rensburg to come and testify?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I don't know whether we're going to call him, I won't be able to tell.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well, after you had been dropped off, did you tell Mr van Rensburg what had happened?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I informed him briefly.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: At that stage why did Mr van Rensburg not take you to the nearest police station because you had killed a policeman?
MR DE MEILLON: Well we were co-cell members, we worked towards the same objective.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So in other words you say that Gerhard van Rensburg identified himself with the objective and he didn't hand you over to the police because he agreed with the objective that was striven for on that day?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes we can assume that.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well I would say that he is a person who is a beneficiary by our law and that he had done so in order to favour himself?
MR DE MEILLON: That is possible.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did he assist you to escape that day?
MR DE MEILLON: He didn't assist me in escaping, he just nursed my wound and he took me to another person.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well I would state that he took you to another person to darken the trail you had followed so that the police wouldn't be able to trace you?
MR DE MEILLON: Well he had taken me to another person because he had gone to find medical assistance for me.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well I would like to state that he didn't take you to a hospital but that he wanted to obtain alternative medical assistance to ensure that he wouldn't be caught?
MR DE MEILLON: Well as I had said, he went to the BWB head office, headquarters to find out from the leader whether there were any doctors who would assist us.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Were there any doctors who were able to assist you?
MR DE MEILLON: Well the doctors came to Secunda for me to consult them.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Who was the doctor?
MR DE MEILLON: I wouldn't be able to say.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Who had called in this doctor?
MR DE MEILLON: Well as I was given to understand, Mr Ford, the leader of the BWB, gave the address of the doctor to Mr van Rensburg. I never enquired about that.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you meet Mr Ford just after the event, after the conclusion of the event?
MR DE MEILLON: No I didn't meet him shortly after the conclusion of the event.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: The evidence that was given at the court case of Mr van Zyl and Holder, did you read this?
MR DE MEILLON: No, I didn't read the testimony.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well I would say to you that Mr van Zyl was the driver?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would further like to say to you that he had made a statement to the South African Police regarding the events of the evening from 19H40, do you have any knowledge of this?
MR DE MEILLON: Knowledge of what? I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to?
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would like to put to you that he starts with the evening's events and nowhere in the statement to the police does he refer to the visit to Pretoria.
MR DE MEILLON: Well I'm not aware that he didn't refer to it in his statement.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would like to say to you and I'm going to read the paragraph to you
"Enter Constantia Hotel at 9.40"
and then they continue through the whole process of travelling to the base, he never talks about travelling to Pretoria, he only says to Devon.
MR PRINSLOO: Well is this a reasonable question to this witness? How will he know why Mr van Zyl is making certain statements and not referring to others?
CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm quite sure that he will react accordingly. Mr van Schalkwyk, you may continue.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Okay, I will rephrase my question.
I am stating to you that you never went to Pretoria that night, that there was not enough time to go from Secunda to Pretoria and back but that it was a fictitious statement that you ever went to Pretoria.
MR PRINSLOO: Is this a fact that is stated or a probability?
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I state it as a submission to which he can react if he is capable of doing so.
CHAIRPERSON: It appears as if it is a statement made based on probabilities of the circumstances concerning the relevant event.
MR DE MEILLON: Well I don't know why I wouldn't be able to tell, but we were definitely in Pretoria in Vermeulen Street.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are you saying you don't know which building you visited is that correct?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well I would say that it is highly improbable that you would plan a military operation at a building without knowing what the building was.
MR DE MEILLON: Well Sir, we didn't plan on entering the building we were planning to take away the firearms of the guards at the entrance to the building.
ADV GCABASHE: How did you know where the building was if you didn't know which building, which particular building, you had visited? Just explain that to me?
MR DE MEILLON: Mr Chair, as I had stated, Mr van Rensburg and I at a stage when we were in Pretoria, drove past the building and saw that there were armed guards at the entrance and this was in Vermeulen Street. We drove past and we saw that there were armed guards there.
ADV GCABASHE: Are you saying you were familiar with Pretoria and you would thus remember which building just be driving there and out again?
MR DE MEILLON: I'm not familiar with Pretoria and it's environs but I was aware of the street name because after I had seen the guards there I looked specifically to see what the street name was but I had no idea what the building was and what was held there or done there.
ADV GCABASHE: How often had you been to that particular building after that first visit?
MR DE MEILLON: At the time when we visited Pretoria we always drove through there every time upon my request because I wished to ascertain that there were still guards there.
ADV GCABASHE: How often?
MR DE MEILLON: Well after I had seen them the first time, probably once or twice that I had driven past there again.
ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir, why did you go to that building specifically?
MR DE MEILLON: Mr Chair, because I thought that I would be able to get hold of the firearms without any serious occurrences, I regarded that as the best option and the easiest at the time.
CHAIRPERSON: The person who phoned you, I can't remember whether I heard your testimony correctly, did he give you any targets or she? I don't know whether it was a man or a woman?
MR DE MEILLON: No, it was a man, he left the choice of target to me, he didn't specifically mention a target.
CHAIRPERSON: So that was at your own initiative you decided to go and see whether you would be successful there?
MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Schalkwyk?
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir I would like to state to you that you only joined the AWB after completing your military service, is that correct?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would say that you joined and immediately resigned to join another organisation, that you were virtually not a member of the AWB?
MR DE MEILLON: Well it was approximately three months that I was a member of the AWB before joining the BWB. I'm not one hundred percent sure of the dates, I can't tell you exactly.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In your evidence in chief you also refer on page 101 - 107 to the Boere Weerstandsbeweging. Is that in other words the basis on which you had acted?
MR DE MEILLON: Well that is the BWB programme of principles.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is there any reference that it is lawful to shoot policemen or attack the government of the day?
MR DE MEILLON: No, it is not contained in this.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you are saying that in both of these annexures there was no real basis for your actions?
MR DE MEILLON: Well as I'd said, it was very clearly stated to us that war had been declared against the government of the day and I had acted in accordance therewith.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I'm stating to you Sir that the new government which was to come in South Africa has been democratically elected and as a democratically elected government, you cannot rebel against it.
MR PRINSLOO: Your honour, it doesn't concern the government now, it is the government of the day at the time it's referred to, the National Party government. So what is the relevance to this aspect?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr van Schalkwyk, that is so. The government being referred to if I understand correctly is the National Government before the 1994 elections.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir, your struggle, was it against the National Party government or the new government that would come?
MR DE MEILLON: Well, I wouldn't have been able to tell what the new government would be and who would have been in control of the new government, so the National Party at that stage was handing over our country and our heritage to the Communists.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Had you declared war against the National Party?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that's the way I understood it.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I am stating to you that there is no proof of such a declaration of war against the National Party?
MR DE MEILLON: Well Commandant General Andrew Ford who is present here today will be able to confirm this, he is the leader of the BWB.
ADV GCABASHE: What other actions had your organisation taken against the government of the day before you acted, ones that you knew of?
MR DE MEILLON: Mr Chair I am not really aware of the actions specifically carried out by my movement or our movement but at that stage I know there were many bomb explosions and that kind of activity. I'm not sure whether they were carried out by members of my organisation but as I'd stated I operated in the BRL and one cell was not aware of what another was doing. As a matter of fact one cell wouldn't even know who were the members of another cell, it was totally underground organisation.
ADV GCABASHE: Yes but I'm trying to understand your knowledge at the time that you acted. How did you know that this was part of this declaration of war that your activity was tied into other activities?
MR DE MEILLON: At that stage we were expecting total war over the period of the '94 elections and we were working on that basis. We wished to prevent that election from taking place, we wanted a political uprising so the government would be forced not to continue with the elections and create fear among the general public so that they wouldn't participate in the elections.
ADV GCABASHE: Yes but so was the AWB, I've heard the same said of applicants who were AWB members. I'm trying to distinguish your particular organisation and understand your action as part of this declaration of war or uprising because of particular principles and objectives you believed in. Just help me understand that and this is why I'm being - organisation specifically, your organisation, your actions, tie that up with what everybody else in your organisation was doing?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I couldn't tie it up specifically with other members of my organisation but at numerous or various meetings we were told that we would have to get hold of firearms for the war, the full scale war that was going to break out and that is the basis on which I worked, it was clearly stated to us that we had to obtain firearms and that is one of the main reasons why I carried out my instruction.
ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir, I would like to submit further to you that the list of provisions from pages 57 - 59 had not been prepared by right-wing organisation at all.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair this witness never testified about that list, under cross-examination the other applicants referred to the list. This applicant said he was not aware of this list.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes it appears as if that cross-examination it had been some or other municipality who had prepared that list.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes that's correct, Mr Chair.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Okay, I'll state my question as follows. Sir, are you aware that this list had been issued by a right-wing organisation?
MR DE MEILLON: Well as I'd stated, I'm not aware of this list at all. Today is the first time that I have seen this list.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well in your trying to find firearms, would you regard it as justified that for every firearm stolen one person had to be killed?
MR DE MEILLON: No I would not regard it as justified.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In other words, therefore so much the less you would have to kill one person for one 9 mm pistol of which you also had a licensed one?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would like to state to you Sir that this military base was not a defence force base but a normal civil radar base manned by police of the Internal Stability Unit and guarded by them?
MR DE MEILLON: Well at that stage I wasn't aware of this at all. When I was stationed there at the end of '92 it was still airforce property.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I am stating to you Sir or submitting to you that you said in your evidence that you were well aware of the set up at the bases. Are you saying that you had never been there after completing your national service?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is true, I never visited the base after completing my national service.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I'm stating to you Sir that on the spur of the moment you selected that base as a target?
MR PRINSLOO: Is this stated as a fact or is it just an allegation? Is my learned friend going to lead testimony to this effect?
CHAIRPERSON: Well I would say that it was then based on the probabilities.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Yes I would like to rephrase my question.
Did you reconnoitre this base at all before selecting it as a military target?
MR DE MEILLON: No I didn't.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Steenkamp?
ADV STEENKAMP: No questions thank you Mr Chairman.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
Mr de Meillon, when you completed the application form for amnesty you were no longer a member of the AWB, am I correct?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR SIBANYONI: Were you still a member of the Conservative Party, KP?
MR DE MEILLON: I was never enrolled as a member of the CP/KP or any other party.
MR SIBANYONI: I notice on page 1, that is the first page of your application for amnesty, under paragraph 7(a) you indicated there, you wrote KP and AWB and BWB. Now my question relates to the two organisations there, CP and the AWB. Why did you mention that you were a member of those organisations?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I supported the CP, I supported the CP but I was never an enrolled member of the CP.
MR SIBANYONI: I see and then you said you were expecting a total war to happen, to be waged during the period, the elections. Who would start that war according to your expectations?
MR DE MEILLON: Mr Chair as I'd stated, our objective was to bring about a political uprising in order to prevent the National Party government from continuing with the elections and to create fear amongst the general public so that they would not participate in the elections and that, I believe, would have been war. That would have been open warfare between the people who had brought about the political uprising and the people who were would try to suppress us.
MR SIBANYONI: If I understand you well, therefore it was your organisation that was going to cause that uprising?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct, Mr Chair.
MR SIBANYONI: Therefore there was no need for panic amongst your members, members of your organisation. What do you say about that?
MR DE MEILLON: There was no reason for panic among the members of my organisation, Mr Chair.
MR SIBANYONI: When I look at your evidence it would appear in most of the things you were doing, you were using your own discretion, in other words there was no specific instructions or orders from your organisation? What is your response to that?
MR DE MEILLON: Mr Chair, as I stated, I received my instructions anonymously by telephone. As I had been informed was the method of operation of the BRL. A specific target had not been identified or selected for me, it was just stated to me that the time was right to obtain weapons and I would know where to find that, the target was left to my own initiative. That is why there was no real planning to go beforehand and reconnoitre the Devon Base or Vermeulen Street and make sure what the circumstances were. The target itself was left over to my initiative.
MR SIBANYONI: But it would appear your colleagues or the people who accompanied you were sometimes surprised about the decisions you took from time to time for example that they never knew before you went to Pretoria what was going to be done there and also when you were at Secunda they also didn't have the full knowledge of what was going to take place. Therefore, that's why I'm saying it would appear you were using your discretion?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I clearly told and explained to Mr van Schalkwyk my clear instructions which I had received, I don't know what he told Messrs Holder and Van Zyl and what they had expected but as far as I am aware, I never created the possibility that we were going to just reconnoitre or just to make observations. From the start I made it very clear and I believed that they understood it as such, that we were going with the purpose that night of obtaining the firearms, of taking the firearms.
MR SIBANYONI: Did you expect any resistance from the guards?
MR DE MEILLON: Well it would be natural from the guards side to resist and I to some extent I did expect resistance but I did not really expect shooting to take place but it was a possibility that rose in my mind.
MR SIBANYONI: Were you prepared to fight and remove their weapons from them by force or fight and defeat them?
MR DE MEILLON: I was prepared to obtain the firearms whatever I had to do, yes I was prepared to do so by force.
MR SIBANYONI: To me it seems an impossible task which you undertook and for that I'm going to ask you this question only to understand your actions of the day, not to despise you in any manner and the question is, were you sober on that day? Had you made use of any intoxicating liquor?
MR DE MEILLON: I was totally sober, I had not used any alcohol at that stage, Mr Chair.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.
ADV GCABASHE: Thank you Chair.
I want to take you back to the trip to Pretoria. I'm still a little unclear about that trip. Let's start with the objective, that was to get weapons, is that correct?
MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: So you received this instruction to say the time is right. On the same day you go to Pretoria to get these weapons. How many weapons were you hoping to come back with?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I depended on obtaining two weapons because the guards I had seen there on the previous occasions were two, there were two guards on duty there when I travelled past so I could depend on obtaining two weapons.
ADV GCABASHE: So you drove past Devon which is in Secunda all the way to Pretoria for two weapons, is that right?
MR DE MEILLON: That is correct yes.
ADV GCABASHE: You had not reconnoitred that particular building before you got there, not on that day anyway?
MR DE MEILLON: No I didn't.
ADV GCABASHE: And how long did the drive from Secunda to Pretoria take you?
MR DE MEILLON: Mr Chair, I'm not entirely sure how long it took us but it's an hour approximately, I'm not entirely sure exactly how far.
CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon, just give me an idea of the distance, I don't know the road very well from where you were to Vermeulen Street? Just a rough estimate?
MR DE MEILLON: It's difficult to say, I don't have any clear idea of how far Secunda is from Pretoria and I don't have my own vehicle, I was travelling with other people. I've never possessed my own vehicle and I honestly don't know how far Pretoria is from Secunda but it's quite a distance.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it more than a hundred kilometres?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I believe it is more than a hundred kilometres.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
ADV GCABASHE: Now you left Secunda at about 7 o'clock it would appear. Can you give me a rough time if that's not right?
MR DE MEILLON: Mr Chair, I think it was quite a bit earlier than 7 o'clock. I wouldn't be able to tell exactly what the time was.
ADV GCABASHE: No but was this day time or evening?
MR DE MEILLON: It wasn't dark yet, it was quite light so it could have been round about 5 o'clock.
ADV GCABASHE: Let's assume it was about 5 o'clock, you got to Pretoria at about 6 o'clock and it still wasn't dark at 6 o'clock?
MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: So you were going to attack this particular target in broad daylight essentially?
MR DE MEILLON: We would have waited until it was dark, until it would not have been as busy in town.
ADV GCABASHE: But how then did you know that the next shift would not be a two man shift which is what you said you were used to seeing, a two man not a six man shift? You know, I'm just looking at the planning, that's really the area that I'm looking at right now.
MR DE MEILLON: Chairperson, I didn't know when they would change, when the next shift would be there, how many guards there would be, I didn't look at that.
ADV GCABASHE: In your organisation these were not matters that you discussed that if you go out, come back at least with six weapons. If you go out make sure you operate in this particular manner. You didn't discuss that type of thing at all?
MR DE MEILLON: I don't understand the question?
ADV GCABASHE: I'm going one step backwards from your actions to the planning and any possible discussions you had in the organisation because you were a part of an organisation. Now when you went out as operatives what modus operandi did your organisation expect from you? Did they really expect you to come back with two weapons?
MR DE MEILLON: I don't think it was very important for them how many weapons I would return with. I think it was important for them that I would in fact return with weapons, I didn't think the quantity was really that important. The more the better of course but I think they would have been satisfied if I had only returned with two weapons.
ADV GCABASHE: You see, it just puzzles me a bit that you would put three lives at stake, you go all the way to Pretoria, achieve nothing and drive back to Secunda. That's really what happened, up to the point you got to Devon, that's really what had happened. You put three lives at risk and came back empty handed.
MR DE MEILLON: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: You see, I ask this because again I'm thinking of the planning. The idea to go to Devon occurred to you when you were now back in the Secunda area essentially, it's not something that had occurred to you when you left Secunda at 5 o'clock, am I right?
MR DE MEILLON: That is correct. Chairperson, the first idea that I had where to obtain the weapons was the situation in Vermeulen Street, that was my first option, my first choice. At that stage I didn't really think of Devon. To tell the truth it was such a long time since I'd passed this base one could almost say that I'd almost forgotten about this base.
ADV GCABASHE: But along with having forgotten about this base when you left Secunda, there was no real urgency either in coming back with one or ten weapons, was there?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I believe there was urgency to return with weapons.
ADV GCABASHE: But you have said that even if you came back with one weapon, it didn't matter to the organisation and this is why my conclusion and correct me if my conclusion is wrong, my conclusion is then there was no urgency if they would be happy to receive one weapon from three operatives after a mission?
MR DE MEILLON: Chairperson, in the first instance my organisation wasn't aware of the fact that I would have approached Mr Holder and Van Zyl to assist with the operation and I believed that each weapon, every weapon would have helped and any weapon that could have been obtained was necessary. I believed that it mattered whether we in fact returned with weapons.
ADV GCABASHE: Okay, so we get to Secunda and you get the idea that Devon might be the place to go to. Again, why didn't you go in and reconnoitre first, just find out what was happening? You hadn't been there in such a long time?
MR DE MEILLON: Chairperson, I thought of Devon Base before we arrived at Secunda. Now Devon is approximately midway between Devon and Secunda so on my way to Secunda I remembered the base and the reason why we first didn't reconnoitre. Well I don't really know what the reason for that was, at that stage I really believed that it was still a property of the airforce. I had no idea it had been handed over for example to the South African Police, I had no idea, I did not envisage that.
ADV GCABASHE: You see again, I asked because if indeed Mr Holder's version under oath is going to be that that was his impression, it would sound like a very reasonable impression to have had, but please, you were there, you can correct that best. Would that not have been a reasonable impression?
MR DE MEILLON: I believe that if I had not put it quite clearly of what my objective would have been with the operation, yes then it could have been a reasonable impression.
ADV GCABASHE: Now you get back to Secunda, you get your medical attention. The one bit that I seem to have missed, the report back, your advocate led you through how you would report back and how you did in fact report back. Can you just take me through that very briefly? What I understood you to say was you went to Mr van Rensburg for medical assistance more than to report back to him. Was that correct, is that why you went to him?
MR DE MEILLON: That is correct, Chairperson, I went to Mr van Rensburg mostly to get assistance, I told him what had happened and at that stage it didn't really occur to me to try and report back. I was very afraid, I wanted medical attention. Although I believed that Mr van Rensburg would have discussed this with the leader of the BWB and BRL or whoever had given the instruction would have then ascertained that I would have in fact executed the instruction.
ADV GCABASHE: Now again, this is what puzzles me. You needed to notify the State against whom you have declared war that you have tackled it's personnel somewhere. You did not bother to do this. How would the State know that your organisation was serious about that declaration of war?
MR DE MEILLON: Chairperson, if the operation had been successful then I would have informed the State that the operation went awry, I had to receive medical attention urgently so there wasn't really time for me to inform the State of the operation and as I said it was a failure, it did not succeed and then I don't think it is applicable to inform the State.
ADV GCABASHE: I understand what you're saying but then I may have misunderstood what you said earlier. Whose duty would it be to inform the State of the successful mission, yours or your organisation's?
MR DE MEILLON: The telephone number was made available to me to phone. The BWB would obviously have taken responsibility for the deed, that is the organisation, because I had received an instruction to commit the act.
ADV GCABASHE: Now your co-applicants are members of the AWB. What portion of that success would they be able to claim? Would their organisation also be able to say "we executed that mission successfully"? Again, what was the plan?
MR DE MEILLON: Chairperson, I don't really know what the AWB had planned in that regard. They would have taken the one weapon, I would have taken the other and what they had planned I don't know. They would be able to inform you.
ADV GCABASHE: But as the person who was in charge of this particular operation, you chose the target, you were their confidante. It was a two way process, I understand that. You did not plan with the AWB even with these particular colleagues how you would then inform the party you are fighting, the State in this instance, that you are the people who have done this thing and they had better take notice of you. I just want to understand that communication because unless you communicate what you are doing, you can't get the correct reaction from your enemy?
MR DE MEILLON: That is correct, I did not inform my co-applicants with relation to the number that I had, I didn't view it as relevant at that stage.
ADV GCABASHE: But that was a BWB telephone number anyway, not a general telephone number, is that right?
MR DE MEILLON: I think the telephone number was of the crime investigation service, I don't know whether that is the case but I think that to be the case.
ADV GCABASHE: Then one last question. This declaration of war I've been asking you about by your organisation, what exactly was said or written down or how was it communicated to the other side, to the people you declared war against?
MR DE MEILLON: I don't really know what the government of the day's reaction was in relation to this declaration of war but it was put quite clearly to our members at meetings, especially at headquarters, that we were in a situation of war with the government of the day and the ANC/SACP Alliance so-forth and what the NP's reaction was I can't say.
ADV GCABASHE: Yes but I'm more interested in how your leadership communicated this declaration of war to you, what did they say, did they say we've written a petition, we've sent a letter, we've sent a telex? How did they, as far as you know, to your knowledge, how did they communicate the declaration of war to the NP government, to the ANC, to the SACP?
MR DE MEILLON: Chairperson, I'm not a hundred percent sure, that happened before I joined the BWB, when I joined them they were already in a state of war against the government so I don't know exactly how they issued this declaration, whether it was published in newspapers or what they did. No, I'm not a hundred percent sure.
ADV GCABASHE: Thank you Mr de Meillon, thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
The call you received did you view that as the instruction for action?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I viewed it as my instruction to act.
CHAIRPERSON: And you also understood it to be from the BWB?
MR DE MEILLON: That is the BRL.
CHAIRPERSON: BRL?
MR DE MEILLON: That is correct, that is the military wing of the BWB.
CHAIRPERSON: Could you later ascertain whether it was indeed an instruction from the BRL?
MR DE MEILLON: Chairperson no, I cannot really say. As I say I don't know who the person was and I also don't know who of the other members were members of the BRL. Now these members operate in cells, the only person that you have knowledge of that is also a member of the BRL and also operates under them, that would be your co-cell members, you don't know if any of the other members are members of the BRL and operate.
CHAIRPERSON: So you can't really say?
MR DE MEILLON: No I can't.
CHAIRPERSON: So you obtained one firearm?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And what happened to that firearm?
MR DE MEILLON: Well because I had to receive medical attention quite urgently I then gave the firearm to Mr Holder and Mr van Zyl. I later on heard that they threw it into a damn, why I don't know. Perhaps they were scared.
CHAIRPERSON: So the whole operation was a total failure?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And the only weapon or the only result from your perspective, that was thrown away?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Why were they worried, because of the crime?
MR DE MEILLON: No I wouldn't be able to say Chairperson, that's just my opinion, I can't say why they threw it away.
CHAIRPERSON: Right, they'll tell us I suppose. If I understand you correctly, you didn't really want to shoot the policeman, you didn't really want to kill him?
MR DE MEILLON: No, that wasn't my intention, my objective.
CHAIRPERSON: If I understand it correctly it was more in the sense of an accident, the shot went off whilst you were busy trying to hold his weapon.
MR DE MEILLON: Yes, as I said Chairperson, the first shot that was fired from my firearm, that was accidentally, that was whilst Mr Terblanche was struggling with me then the weapon was taken from my hand, it was grabbed and I was under the impression that I would be shot at and I reacted and then I shot before he could shoot.
CHAIRPERSON: In other words you defended yourself, you were afraid that he was going to shoot you so you shot him first?
MR DE MEILLON: Well it happened so fast but one could say that yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So in other words it was not a situation that you deliberately decided that there is a policeman, I'm going to enter, shoot him, kill him and then I'm going to take his weapon? That is something that happened in the situation that you found yourself in?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes. If it had been my objective to enter and then to kill the policeman and then take his weapon then I would have made sure that I was in possession of unlicensed pistol instead of using my own firearm but then it would also not have been necessary to wear a balaclava because then there would not be anyone to identify me later on. My aim was to enter and then to tie them up and that was my goal and also to gag them.
CHAIRPERSON: Now did you understand the situation that - this now concerns the declaration of war, that it would be the policy of your organisation that you get to a white policeman that you could kill him?
MR DE MEILLON: No that is not how I understood it.
CHAIRPERSON: What I mean is, did you understand the policy in any way to mean that you could kill any white person?
MR DE MEILLON: To tell the truth Chairperson, no. They never referred to the killing of any person, whether white, black. They never specifically said that we may kill certain people and not others, no. They never really talked about killing people.
CHAIRPERSON: Could you just explain it once again, I know reference has been made to this, but if you say that you have been disappointed because of the action what specifically do you refer to?
MR DE MEILLON: I was disappointed Chairperson because this operation failed, not really failed, but because it didn't contribute, really contribute to the promotion of the struggle because it failed. That is why I was disappointed. I'm disappointed and I have remorse because another human life has been taken and there weren't really any results because of this operation. That is why I am disappointed.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chair.
Mr de Meillon, did you at any stage as it was put to you during cross-examination that you would just attack people blindly?
MR DE MEILLON: No that was never my intention or objective.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you ever convey this to your co-applicants that you would blindly attack people?
MR DE MEILLON: No I did not.
MR PRINSLOO: Now this specific base at Devon, is it correct it is closer to Delmas than to Secunda itself?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: From Delmas to Pretoria is approximately an hour, do you agree?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I agree.
MR PRINSLOO: Do you have your membership card here of the BWB?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I have.
MR PRINSLOO: Could you please just give it to us?
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not activated.
MR PRINSLOO: My apologies, Mr Chair.
Now this is named O.A. That is for?
MR DE MEILLON: That is for Ochert Antonie.
MR PRINSLOO: Then membership, membership number 24412?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And then an I.D. number. Whose is that?
MR DE MEILLON: That is mine.
MR PRINSLOO: And then a date of birth?
MR DE MEILLON: That is mine.
MR PRINSLOO: And then there's some kind of a stamp?
MR DE MEILLON: That is my I.D. photo which I removed to send it to a girlfriend, I didn't really have any other photos.
MR PRINSLOO: Then you also have a photocopy, is this a copy of the same document?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And on this copy there is a photo?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is the photo that was on the original membership card.
MR PRINSLOO: Whose photo is that?
MR DE MEILLON: That is mine.
MR PRINSLOO: And then with your permission I want to hand this in and this is then Exhibit A1 and A2.
CHAIRPERSON: That will then be A1 and A2.
MR PRINSLOO: You also in cross-examination mentioned the ballistic report in which it was indicated that a .38 special round or rather a projectile had been found in the place?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Which had been issued by the South African Police, this report?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: I also have a photostat copy of the report with me, I'm just looking for it. Your honour, this report had been given to my colleague who is not present today, Advocate van der Walt, I will get it from her and then I will submit it to the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes that is in order.
MR PRINSLOO: Oh, there is an extra report, an extra copy of the report, your Honour, if we could look at that? This specific report, page 2 of the report, it was brought out in terms of Section 212 sub-section 4(a) and 212 and 8(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Paul Johannes Murphy, attacked to the South African Police, rank Captain, Ballistic Investigation Officer. Under paragraph 3 he mentions that
"during the investigation I found the following as contained in the envelope, sealed under such and such a number"
Paragraph 3.3:
"One .38 fired bullet pointed out under the relevant number as quoted."
Is that the report to which you refer regarding the .38 bullet?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And then with regard to your matter "Devon M.R. 30/5/4433" and did you obtain the document with regard to the case against you?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: I would like to submit this as B and that copies of this also be made.
CHAIRPERSON: That will then be Exhibit B.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson. I'll hand over a copy to my learned friends then as well.
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt, I know I'm out of circuit here. There are certain documentations, paging the copy of the full police docket, except certain documentation which was not contained in the bundle for obvious reasons which I have made available now to everyone's welcome to peruse it and if there's anything else, I'm just putting it on the record, that's basically the ballistic reports and further medical reports, inquest record and so forth. I'm just putting it on the record for your knowledge. Thank you Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Well that's in order. If any of the parties wish to use some of the documentation then that will be in order, we'll deal with it at that stage but thank you.
MR KOTZE: It appears as if this ballistic report could be relevant to Messrs Holder and Van Zyl's application and I would also like to receive a bundle.
CHAIRPERSON: Would you like to receive instructions in this regard?
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, if I have an extra copy I'll make it available, of the bundle.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you your Honour.
Mr de Meillon, you did your military service at Devon. Did you know at all that the Internal Stability Unit section had taken over the base and that the airforce no longer operated from it?
MR DE MEILLON: No I didn't.
MR PRINSLOO: If you had known this, would you have gone there that evening?
MR DE MEILLON: No I wouldn't have.
MR PRINSLOO: Before you went there together with your co-applicant Mr Holder and climbed over the fence to go there did it in way come to your attention that it was no longer airforce base but that it was manned by police?
MR DE MEILLON: No it didn't look in any way different to me. There was no reason for me to think that the base as no longer in the airforce possession.
MR PRINSLOO: You also testified to a question by Advocate Gcabashe that you didn't know about the initial declaration of war but during your attendance of meetings, was reference made to the war that was declared and which was continuing?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes there was.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you doubt it in any way especially in the circumstances ruling in the country at the time?
MR DE MEILLON: No, I didn't doubt it at all.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you know a member of the BWB by the name of Harmse?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Vrooneman?
MR DE MEILLON: Vrooneman's name I know but I don't know him personally.
MR PRINSLOO: Are you aware at this stage that Harmse and Vrooneman had made application for amnesty for deeds committed under the banner of the BWB and that they had received amnesty?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I am aware of the fact that they had received amnesty.
MR PRINSLOO: Just a second please, Mr Chair?
Mr de Meillon, did you at any stage doubt that the person who had telephonically instructed you, did you at any stage think that he had been a false person, a faceless person who couldn't give the instruction?
MR DE MEILLON: No I never doubted the correctness of the instruction of the validity of the instruction which I had been given.
MR PRINSLOO: During your action with your fellow co-applicants did you inform them of your intentions?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I did.
MR PRINSLOO: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. My colleague, Mr Sibanyoni, has an additional question also which he would like to pose to your client and then if you would like to react to it you have the opportunity to do so.
MR SIBANYONI: In fact I'd made a note, I forgot to ask it when I had the opportunity to ask. Mr de Meillon, you said the National Party was giving away your heritage. I just wanted to ask you a question, what do you mean by that? What heritage were you referring to?
MR DE MEILLON: I'm referring to my Christian heritage inter alia and they were handing over the country as I believed at the time into communist hands and the struggle was basically against communism. The heritage which they were giving away concerned basically my Christian heritage, my national culture, those were the things which they were no longer recognising.
MR SIBANYONI: Are you saying they were giving it away by agreeing to go for elections?
MR DE MEILLON: Inter alia, yes.
MR SIBANYONI: The elections were held and the National Party is no longer in power. Are you saying that heritage has now been given away?
MR DE MEILLON: Well Mr Chair in the meanwhile I have come to realise and I am aware of the fact that various nations can live together in one country and that our heritage has not really been taken away from us but at that stage I believed that that was what was going to happen.
MR SIBANYONI: And in fact it has been protected by the Constitution because it guarantees the freedom of religion, culture, etc etc.
MR DE MEILLON: That is correct, Mr Chair.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you. No further questions Mr Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair, on further question stemming from this, not stemming from this but with regard to a question you posed?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes there is something I wanted to hear from your client but I assumed that to be so, those policemen were they dressed in uniform in that guardhouse?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes as far as I can remember Sir, they were.
CHAIRPERSON: And was there a window through which one could look into the guardhouse?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes one would be able to look in but as I had stated I crept below the level of the window so that I wouldn't be seen through the window before arriving at the door of the guardhouse.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chair.
Mr de Meillon, just to understand the answer to a question that the Chairman had asked you. Are you saying today or aren't you or do you still say today that you were guilty of the murder of the deceased?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I have.
MR PRINSLOO: You are not saying you defended yourself, you deliberately shot him?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes I am guilty, at that stage I did do so deliberately.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you your Honour.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Can I just pose a number of questions in reply to a number of matters?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes I had hoped that we could conclude the matter in the normal process but it is something which we'll have to allow.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Okay I will be very brief Sir.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone?
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: The documentation which you had issued, the proof of membership, what was the date of issue?
MR DE MEILLON: Well that was just after I had joined.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: What was the date?
MR DE MEILLON: I can't remember the exact date when I joined but it was quite early in 1993.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is there a date on this application or proof of membership?
MR DE MEILLON: No I don't think there's date on it, on this membership card.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: What proof do you have that this membership card was issued before this event or incident?
MR DE MEILLON: Well according to the card there's no proof but I can assure you that the BWB still has my membership application form in their possession.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I refer to form 1, page 1 of your application, why didn't you fill in this number as your membership number on the application?
MR PRINSLOO: Which paragraph are you referring to?
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I'm referring to paragraph 7(a) and (b) where his political affiliations have to be indicated but he doesn't state his membership number.
MR DE MEILLON: But Sir at that stage I was already a sentenced prisoner, I didn't have my membership card in my possession, it was in my parents' house.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In paragraph 8(b) you do mention your force number so you did enter some?
MR DE MEILLON: Yes my force number I remembered because I had to know it by heart.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you say your defence force number for which you didn't really want to serve you can remember but this organisation number you cannot remember?
MR DE MEILLON: No but it wasn't expected of us to remember our membership number, especially not by heart.
MR PRINSLOO: Sir is it doubted that this person was a member of the BWB because if that is the case we can obtain the documentation and submit it and we would possibly have to ask for an extension to go do so but evidence to the contrary can be led, we will investigate that.
CHAIRPERSON: Well it appears as if Mr van Schalkwyk is doubting the date of membership or debating it with your client. I'm quite sure, it depends on you how you wish to deal with the application but if it is an important point you can then deal with it.
MR PRINSLOO: Your Honour, I don't wish to waste unnecessary time but if it is a material fact we will have to submit it.
CHAIRPERSON: Let us see how the point develops.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir the attack which you wanted to launch in Vermeulen Street against the guards, would you have tied up and gagged the guards?
MR PRINSLOO: Sir on what basis are these questions now posed? My learned friend had the opportunity during cross-examination, he'd heard all the evidence and this is not stemming from another base, is everybody going to be allowed a second opportunity to cross-examine? Is the applicant also going to be allowed to ask more questions because then we're not going to reach any finality.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes it is true, it is the danger which I referred to. We do not wish to enter into unnecessary points and dwell on them but I don't want to be too technical, we're not a court of law here, we are trying to deal with the matter as fully as possible but it is indeed so that the point Mr Prinsloo is making is a valid point. I understand that the membership issue is something which had struck you but he had asked you and he had said during cross-examination, he referred to the membership number, you did not ask him to produce it, he had it in his possession. It was raised in re-cross but I don't wish to be too strict in this regard but I think you have to limit yourself to matters which really were raised afterwards, which you feel are really important to your client's purposes.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Okay then briefly one concluding question. I thank the Honourable Chair. What is your number, can you remember it off by heart now?
MR DE MEILLON: No, as I said it was never expected of me to remember it by heart. I am honest, I cannot remember it by heart.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo I don't know whether you have further questions, Mr Kotze is the only person who does not seem to have had as bite, perhaps I should ask him?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KOTZE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Well there are three matters on which I wish to comment.
Mr de Meillon, my instructions are that at no stage during Messrs van Zyl and Holder's trial the ballistic report which at a stage was submitted here was held up to them. Do you have any knowledge of what testimony was made available to them, how their trial proceeded or which evidence had been led there?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I'm not at all aware of how their trial progressed. I was a prisoner, I had already started serving my sentence, prison term, and I'm not sure what documentation they received and what had happened at their trial.
MR KOTZE: Well I would just like to say Mr Holder denied firing any shots in that guardroom.
MR DE MEILLON: Well Sir then it must have been the co-guard who had been present there.
MR KOTZE: But you are sure that only two shots had been fired?
MR DE MEILLON: No, three shots
MR KOTZE: Three shots?
MR DE MEILLON: As far as I can remember, yes.
MR KOTZE: Messrs Holder and Van Zyl alleged that if they had been aware that the objective had been only to try and obtain two firearms they would never have participated in the operation?
MR DE MEILLON: Well Sir, as I had stated previously, they understood very clearly what the objective was and nevertheless they participated.
MR KOTZE: And they further allege that there had been no agreement regarding the division of firearms, they accepted that it would be divided but depending on somebody else's decision besides themselves, so are you saying that on that evening you had said to them you're going to get one and I'm going to get one or would it depend on how the evening progressed?
MR DE MEILLON: Well I'd say it would have depended more on how the evening progressed, one cannot count your chickens before they're hatched, one had to see how many firearms and then make the decision.
MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOTZE
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo any further questions?
MR PRINSLOO: No further questions your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay I am going to take the lunch break. Is that the testimony of the first applicant?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I would just like to consider my position during this break so that we can make a decision regarding my position regarding any further applicants.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. We will adjourn for lunch and we will reconvene at 2 o'clock. We're adjourned.
WITNESS EXCUSED
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
