ON RESUMPTION
EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: We beg leave to move before you the application of Brigadier Schoon in the matter which is described as The 2 ANC's. You will find his evidence or rather his amnesty application in Volume 1 at page 20 where he describes it under "voorval 2" in which he refers to as "elimineering van 2 ANC terroriste" - the elimination of 2 ANC terrorists. The actual application you will find at page 21. We have prepared for you a statement of his evidence which he will confirm and that according to our lists is marked C5 and I'm told that that has been placed before you. Chairperson, if we may go on directly?
Brigadier Schoon, you are still under your previous oath?
WILLEM FREDERICH SCHOON: (s.u.o.)
MR VISSER: And you are bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MR SCHOON: Yes Chairperson.
MR VISSER: You became involved in an incident during approximately 1972 you say which took place at or near Zeerust, is that correct?
MR SCHOON: Yes.
MR VISSER: And it involves two persons of whom you do not know their names?
MR SCHOON: Yes.
MR VISSER: And you are requesting amnesty for the murder of those two ANC supporters or any lessor judgement with regard to the aforementioned accessory after the fact and defeating the ends of justice and any other delicts or offence which emanates from the incident, is that correct?
MR SCHOON: Yes Chairperson.
MR VISSER: This matter has an interesting previous history and you address this in paragraph 2. Will you explain to the Committee from paragraph 2 what you know about this matter?
MR SCHOON: During 1972 one Alexander Mumbaris and his wife were arrested at the Koopfontein Hek Border Post between the R.S.A. and Botswana border. I believe that these arrests took place legitimately although I was not involved in these arrests. Consequent or subsequent investigations brought to light that Mumbaris would infiltrate a group of 26 members of the Special Operations Unit of the MK to the R.S.A. The boat with which they travelled went ashore somewhere along the coast of Africa which meant that the members of the group had to infiltrate the R.S.A. over land.
It also came to light that there were already various of these MK members who had entered the country in small groups of twos and threes. Mumbaris and his wife accomplished these infiltrations through Botswana and Swaziland. With the co-operation of Mumbaris, the most of these insurgents were apprehended and in terms of Section 6 of the Terrorism Act they were detained.
MR VISSER: Could I just interrupt you? What was the purpose behind the infiltration, what were they going to do here?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, they wanted to prepare for the insurgents of larger groups. They had to prepare the road. They were equipped with secret writing materials and secret codes which they were to use as well as contact addresses which they had to use for this purpose.
MR VISSER: Would you say that this was the precursor for what happened with Operation Vula for example?
MR SCHOON: Yes.
MR VISSER: Where were you in 1972 at the time of this incident, what was your position?
MR SCHOON: I was connected to the security head office, I occupied the rank of major at that stage and I had been deployed to the investigative unit in the old Kompal Building.
MR VISSER: Very well?
MR SCHOON: Because of the circumference of the investigation and the involvement of various divisions, head office decided that the investigation would be co-ordinated from Pretoria and that Major Roelf van Rensburg and I would have to prepare the police dossier for court. The investigation was managed from the old Kompal Building. Mumbaris maintained contact with his external commander and it was arranged with him to bring another two ANC terrorists into the R.S.A. from Gaberone.
MR VISSER: Who arranged this?
MR SCHOON: It was arranged by the operatives and the other investigators who were involved in the matter via correspondence.
MR VISSER: Very well, continue?
MR SCHOON: The matter was discussed with General Major Piet Kruger, I think he may still have been a colonel or a brigadier at that stage, who was the overall commander of the investigative unit.
MR VISSER: Where is General Major Piet Kruger today?
MR SCHOON: He has since passed away.
After discussion General Kruger ordered that the two terrorist be ambushed on the R.S.A. side and be shot. It was arranged with the counter-insurgency unit to make members available for this purpose. A member of the police intelligence division was used as a courier. Captain Hannes Gloy and Faan van Niekerk managed the operation from the security side.
MR VISSER: These people that you mention?
MR SCHOON: They were members of the investigative team of which I was the head at that stage. The latter mentioned persons later reported that two terrorists had been confronted near Zeerust and that one had been shot dead and the other captured. They brought the arrestee with to Pretoria.
MR VISSER: Were you involved in this incident?
MR SCHOON: No.
MR VISSER: Do you have any knowledge of what exactly took place there from your own knowledge?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I was simply informed that one had been shot and the other had been arrested, exactly how this took place is unknown to me.
MR VISSER: Yes, that's the point, you are not aware of the precise circumstances under which the person died?
MR SCHOON: That is correct. The situation was once again discussed with General Kruger and he ordered that the detainee be interrogated and that he be eliminated afterwards.
MR VISSER: Were you present when he issued this order?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, according to the best of my recollection I was there because I remember the telephone call which he put through to the security branch at Potchefstroom.
MR VISSER: Yes, you are going to discuss that now?
MR SCHOON: That is correct. He contacted Lieutenant Colonel Jaap Bekker from the security branch in Potchefstroom and informed him that he wanted him to report to his office the following day because he had a package of which it had to be disposed, at least those were the words that he used to that effect. The detainee was handed over to Lieutenant Colonel Bekker the following day. I cannot recall the name of the two victims, however I know that a post-mortem inquest was undertaken with regard to the person who had been shot dead at Zeerust. Although I was not directly involved in the operation during which the two suspects were killed, I was constantly informed of the true facts. Seeing as I was aware at all times that the two victims would be killed in that aspect I am possibly guilty of conspiracy to murder. I'm also guilty of obstruction of justice because I did not report the matter and I also did not make any other report about it later. The person who gave the order in this case was General Major P Kruger, deceased.
I committed these acts or omissions on behalf of the South African Police and the former government under the National Party whose interests I sought to protect through this. The acts and omissions which I committed, I committed in the execution of my official duties and under the order of a higher officer as part of the opposition to the struggle and was aimed against all supporters of a liberation movement. I request respectfully that I be granted amnesty for my acts and omissions in this regard.
MR VISSER: Just one question, Brigadier? When General Kruger said that the two persons had to be ambushed, you were then a major, what was your personal sentiment regarding the order, did you agree with his order or did you personally feel that this was not the correct way, however you would obey the order?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, it was strange to me because I had not previously had to do with this sort of operation during which people were eliminated and at that stage I was a junior major in the security branch who had no authority.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, just a question that connects with that? Was the objective of that ambush to kill them at that stage or was the objective to arrest them?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, the initial idea which I gained from the planning was that they would be shot dead there.
ADV DE JAGER: But then one was arrested and one was shot dead?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct, one was arrested and brought back.
MR VISSER: If we may discuss the person who was arrested, in his case it would have been an out and out case of murder?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.
MR VISSER: And the question that emerges is what happened to him? Do you know at all what happened to him?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, according to the best of my knowledge, Colonel Bekker arrived the following day and the detainee was handed over to him and Colonel Bekker left with him.
MR VISSER: Did you have any other report or information about that person afterwards?
MR SCHOON: No.
MR VISSER: But for the purposes of your amnesty application you accept that Bekker would have carried out his order?
MR SCHOON: Yes I accept that.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairperson thank you, that is the evidence-in-chief which we want to present in the present matter.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Visser.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, any questions?
MS THABETHE: No questions Mr Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE
CHAIRPERSON: Yes I assume you wouldn't have any further questions yourself? Would that be the case for the applicant in respect of this incident?
MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Would it be more advisable to take the other incident as well like we've done earlier?
MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, except that I would suggest that we wrap this one up, I don't really have an argument, the truth of the fact is that the facts speak for themselves and really, whatever I have to say will be a repetition of what I've already said, stated before you and what is already in the written argument as well as in the other documentation.
The fact here is that Brigadier Schoon at the time was a junior major, he received his instructions whatever that may have been which appears to be very peripheral because he was really doing the work of an investigator at the time in regard to the Mumbaris case and his biggest sin, if one may express it that way,
was the fact that he knew of what was going on and he did not declare it but it is conceivable that an Attorney General may have evidence at his disposal with which he might confront Brigadier Schoon as being somebody who was present at the time and therefore took part in the planning of this albeit in a minor way and that is the reason why we also ask for amnesty to be granted in regard to conspiracy to murder and then obviously it would include the murder of these two ANC persons.
Chairperson, we don't know what happened to the second person but on the evidence of Mr Schoon here before you today, it is not farfetched to believe that he would have met his fate at the hands of Mr Bekker. There is no suggestion and no knowledge that Mr Schoon has that the matters took a different turn and what he understood was given as an order and how it would have been executed and although we don't have information we would ask you also to assume for purposes of this application that the second person was first arrested, was in fact eliminated and that's really all I wish to add, Chairperson, unless there's something you would like to ask me?
ADV GCABASHE: Mr Visser has anybody else applied for amnesty in this matter, do you know for instance Jaap Bekker, is he deceased as well? Okay. And then Gloy and van Niekerk, Faan van Niekerk.
MR VISSER: Those two persons have been given notification according to Ms Thabethe. Oh, at this very second as your question was still hanging in the air, I was given a document which I haven't seen before. It appears to originate from J H Gloy. Could I perhaps just take a moment to read through it, Chairperson?
MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, sorry, maybe I can answer the Committee Member's question. Mr van Niekerk and Mr Gloy were notified in terms of Section 19.4 and both of them indicated that they have no interest in appearing in front of the Committee and there is a letter which I've just received now but it was received at the office sometime I think weeks ago from Mr Gloy.
MR VISSER: It appears to be relevant to the PAC matter which will be coming now and perhaps we could deal with it immediately. He says in his annexure to his letter the allegations against him as he understands them from Brigadier Schoon is totally untrue and he denies it in the strongest possible terms. He says that he's convinced that Schoon is confusing him with someone else because during 1981 he was not in the position to make such a drastic recommendation or suggestion or to give such an order and he says
"On the contrary I was convinced that Schoon has targeted another person who was present at the discussion in Schoon's office. After that, Schoon attempted to involve me telephonically which I categorically denied. Schoon's memory is not serving him correctly or he is not telling the full truth as required."
Chairman, the Two PAC members you will find at page 30 of Volume 1 and more specifically at page 31. My attorney suggests that we mark the covering letter and the annexure as Exhibit K before you. I've just referred you to the amnesty application itself. Chairperson, we also refer you to a statement which we prepared of the evidence of Mr Schoon in this regard and we - I think it's Exhibit C5 if I'm not mistaken - C6, I'm sorry. C6.
Brigadier Schoon, once again we are not going to repeat everything which you have already incorporated. Let us move directly to the matter at hand, the Committee is aware that you request certain evidence to be incorporated in your application. Might I refer you to paragraph 1 and request that you inform us about that.
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I refer to the written submission above and my evidence given before the Human Rights Violations Committee of the TRC on 19 November 1996. In this submission I referred in paragraph 4 to an incident to which Captain Dirk Coetzee had referred in earlier evidence before the Harms Commission and elsewhere during which two persons were killed namely Selvi Mavuso and Peter Dlamini. I'm quoting the relevant paragraph for the convenience of the Committee. Quote
"The murder of Selvi Mavuso and Peter Dlamini in October 1981 near Komatipoort. In 1981 the above military trained PAC members were released from police custody. Captain Dirk Coetzee took them to a safe house at Komatipoort after I had instructed him to try and persuade them to work for the SAP as informers. About one month later Coetzee returned and they reported to me that he could not persuade them and that they had been killed instead."
MR VISSER: Brigadier, might I interrupt you?
Chairperson, bundle 5, we have bound that in for you at page 39, that is again the written presentation of Mr Schoon to the TRC and he has now just read to you to contents of what is there.
Please continue with paragraph 3?
MR SCHOON: Insofar as I have referred to the particular victims it is falsely believed that Captain Dirk Coetzee referred to the incident for which I requested amnesty during which two PAC supporters were killed. I fix the attention thereon that I did indeed refer to two PAC supporters in the quoted paragraph. Upon rereading the written submission I only realised much later that I had made an error. Indeed, I do not know anything about the murder of two ANC supporters with the names as mentioned, namely Selvi Mavuso and Peter Dlamini. Indeed, I meant to refer to the incident which has currently been served before the Amnesty Committee in which the two mentioned unknown PAC supporters were apparently killed. I refer to this incident in bundle 1, pages 30 to 34. As an excuse I would like to submit the following. During the beginning of the amnesty process there was a great degree of doubt among me and other members of the security forces about the honesty of the new government and the fairness of the amnesty process. Various meetings were held and addressed by J V van der Merwe, the former commissioner of the SAP, during which he attempted to address the fears of the members of the SAP and to convince them to participate in the amnesty process. Ultimately, General van der Merwe and Attorney Wagener convinced me and other members of the SAP to participate. Unfortunately these events meant that there was not much time remaining to serve applications before the cut-off dates. I must also confess that my memory has worsened over the years and this means that I'm no longer capable of relying on my own independent memory with regard to all the events in which I was involved and that there are certain aspects of detail which escaped me. Because of my position as commander of Section C in security head office, I was directly and indirectly involved in many actions. No documentary evidence exists regarding the incidents for which I'm requesting amnesty seeing as they were illegal deeds and omissions which by nature of the situation would not be placed on written record.
When I compiled my amnesty applications, I spoke with Director Karel Barkhuizen, not the inspector but direct to Karel Barkhuizen at head office in order to attempt to attempt to obtain a documentation. He informed me that where there was written documentation those files had already been destroyed. Therefore, I have to rely on my own weak memory and on information which I can gain from other members.
MR VISSER: Are you saying that with regard to the incident which Dirk Coetzee has referred to about these two persons, when you read about that case you assumed that it was the case involving the two PAC operatives?
MR SCHOON: That is correct. I contacted the now General Gloy and asked him whether or not he could assist me. I told him that I wanted to know the names of the two PAC terrorists and he denied any knowledge of the incident and that he didn't know what I was talking about.
MR VISSER: Yes, that concurs with what he has said in Exhibit K.
MR SCHOON: Consequently at that stage before I went to the TRC in the Cape I accepted that it was these two persons which Dirk had referred the PAC terrorists.
MR VISSER: Very well, there is also another aspect and you mention it because it is relevant with regard to your explanation regarding you bad memory. Paragraph 7 please?
MR SCHOON: My bad memory and the course of circumstances has also meant that in my written amnesty application I duplicated incidents 12 and 15. Instead of incident 12 referring to an incident during which three ANC terrorists were murdered in Swaziland on 12th February 1989, by means of my legal representatives I will attempt to correct this matter at an appropriate time.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, what we're referring to here are before you in bundle 1 at page 67, that is ...(indistinct) and at page 81. We don't want to pursue that matter at this stage because it really isn't relevant in the present application but we just want to alert you to that fact in the meantime and then there's another matter which I will deal with, when we deal with the matter and George and Brown and I can tell you now that for some reason because of duplication and because of what the witness has just told you, that incident somehow got lost in the wash and we will have to ask you to include Brigadier Schoon as an amnesty applicant when that matter comes before you. I only mention it now because it all fits in with the explanation which he has just given in regard to Mavuso and Dlamini.
Now in paragraph 8 you state?
MR SCHOON: I would like to emphasis that I did not mean to mislead the TRC in paragraph 4 of my abovementioned submission. The information, although faulty, can be ascribed to the circumstances as set out by me above. I would like to use this opportunity to correct the facts and simultaneously to apologise.
MR VISSER: On page 30 of bundle 1 you have referred to the murder of two PAC supporters and you request amnesty. I'm referring to page 5 of Exhibit C6, you request amnesty for the murder of two PAC supporters, conspiracy to murder, accessory after the fact, defeating the ends of justice and any other offence or delict emanating from the incident. Could you continue from paragraph 10?
MR SCHOON: The two PAC supporters were detained in terms of Section 6 of the Terrorism Act. The two PAC members infiltrated the R.S.A. in order to commit acts of terror. Based upon information which was previously obtained they were arrested just after they arrived in the country. I was informed that each of them had been in possession of an AK-47 when they were arrested. I never interrogated or saw them myself.
During 1981 - this could also be faulty, it may have been 1982. During 1981 a member of C-Section whose identity I cannot recall and I upon the request of Colonel Gloy met in Brigadier Brooderyk's office in order to discuss the release of two PAC terrorists. At that stage the Minister of Law and Order did not wish to extend their detention or charge them.
MR VISSER: I would just like to interrupt you again, Brigadier? Mr Gloy maintains that your memory fails you because he says that you also implicated somebody else beforehand, as I have read Exhibit K. The question originates who this other person is and you refer in paragraph 13 of your application to a person who was a member of Section C1 whose identity you cannot recall. Could you address the Committee regarding that? When you considered this matter what did you do in relation to this?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, initially I believed that the person who had accompanied me was Dirk Coetzee. Later it became clear that it had not been and I was under the impression that it was Colonel Jack Cronje but also denied it when I approached him and asked him whether or not he was involved. He said no and that is why I decided that I couldn't mention a name because I could no longer recall who it was, those who I had thought it was denied their involvement.
MR VISSER: But what you do know is that somebody in your section accompanied you to this meeting with Gloy in Brooderyk's office?
MR SCHOON: Yes. Gloy and I sat next to the tea table, Brooderyk sat behind his office and he was in earshot of what we were saying.
MR VISSER: What did you discuss?
MR SCHOON: Colonel Gloy insisted that the two PAC operatives be eliminated while I insisted that they be persuaded to work for the SAP as informers.
MR VISSER: This is 1981/82, what was your position then?
MR SCHOON: I was then a Colonel in command of Group C.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you and Gloy occupy the same rank?
MR SCHOON: At that stage Gloy was still a major I think.
Or at the very most a lieutenant colonel.
MR VISSER: And at this state you then spoke up and said that you did not agree with this and that you thought it would be preferable for them to be persuaded to become Askaris?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is what I thought, that was my argument.
MR VISSER: Continue, paragraph 15?
MR SCHOON: Colonel Gloy was adamant however, that the two be eliminated. Although I argued against this initially I ultimately agreed with it but on the condition that an attempt first be made to persuade them to work for the security police.
MR VISSER: Why did you agree with the idea of elimination eventually?
MR SCHOON: I came to the conclusion that the planning had already been undertaken beforehand and that Colonel Brooderyk was aware and they had perhaps declared it with a high authority.
MR VISSER: Was Colonel Brooderyk your superior or your inferior?
MR SCHOON: He was my superior.
MR VISSER: Was any consideration given to possible alternatives in relation to the two PAC persons elimination?
MR SCHOON: No Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Did you in your own mind think of alternatives regarding what could happen should they not be eliminated?
MR SCHOON: No Chairperson, I believed that they could possibly be persuaded.
MR VISSER: That was a possibility, that was your greatest consideration?
MR SCHOON: Yes.
MR VISSER: But you already knew that the Minister of Law and Order would not extend their detention?
MR SCHOON: Yes.
MR VISSER: And that they were not going to be prosecuted?
MR SCHOON: Yes.
MR VISSER: Paragraph 16 please?
MR SCHOON: The reason why I agreed with the elimination of the two should they not be prepared to cooperate was that they were supporters of the PAC, they were trained terrorists who had infiltrated the R.S.A. to commit acts of terror whereby which lives and property would be jeopardised. There was no talk of prosecuting them seeing as the minister had already decided against it. To prosecute them would according to my opinion have given the PAC a public stature which would have assisted them in their struggle seeing as they could have been placed in a position to receive money from foreign donors. At this stage the PAC was not very prominent. Any prosecution in this relation would according to me place them in the spotlight and they would then have received free publicity in this manner.
MR VISSER: And that would have fortified their struggle?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.
MR VISSER: Let us return to the meeting. Paragraph 18?
MR SCHOON: During the meeting I already realised that the chances were very favourable that they would refuse to cooperate and should this happen the chances were also very good that they would be murdered. The attempt to persuade the two PAC detainees to cooperate with the SAP would be undertaken by members of Vlakplaas.
MR VISSER: Now those members of Vlakplaas to who are you referring when you speak of them?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, later I informed myself that this person was Colonel Cronje. I traced him and asked whether or not he could remember his involvement in that and he said no. To this very day I still don't know, I'm not certain who the person was.
MR VISSER: Yes but you refer to the same person that you referred to in paragraph 13?
MR SCHOON: That is correct.
MR VISSER: So it is not a new person or another person?
MR SCHOON: No. The final arrangements for the release of the persons whose names are unknown to me were made between the aforementioned C1 member and Colonel Gloy. The former would take them to a safe house at Komatipoort and attempt to persuade them to cooperate with the security branch. Before his departure I once again emphasised it with the C1 member that he should rather attempt to persuade them to work for us. After approximately one month, the relevant C1 member returned and reported to me that he could not persuade the persons to work as informers and that they had been killed.
Two persons were consequently killed in this matter and their names are unknown to me. The person who in this case gave the order was Major General Hans Gloy, to me directly. By implication I believed that Colonel Brooderyk had given the authorisation. Based upon that I saw that the two persons could be killed and I reconciled myself that and because of this I am guilty to murder and/or conspiracy to murder. I have also committed defeating the ends of justice by not reporting the incident and also not making any further report afterwards about it. I committed these acts and omissions on behalf of the South African Police and the former government under the National Party whose interests I sought to protect through this. The acts or omissions which I committed were committed in the execution of my official duties and as part of the opposition to the struggle and were aimed against supporters of a liberation movement.
I request respectfully that my amnesty application be granted for my acts or omissions in this regard.
Chairperson, may I just add that I exposed these matters not to be held responsible later for not exposing all incidents that I was involved in or all information that I possessed to the Committee. This is the only reason why.
MR VISSER: In other words when you mention anybody in your affidavit it is according to the best of your recollection even though your recollection is weak, that is what you remember?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.
MR VISSER: And not for any other reason to get them into trouble or anything like that?
MR SCHOON: No, I have done this so that I can make a full disclosure of relevant facts.
MR VISSER: Just to put paragraph 24 somewhat clearer, you say that the person who gave the order was Major General Hans Gloy? He was a captain then?
MR SCHOON: No he was either a major or a lieutenant, I think he was a lieutenant.
MR VISSER: But he didn't give you the order?
MR SCHOON: No he couldn't give me the order. He was reasonably serious that this was the only plan to be followed and that would be to kill them.
MR VISSER: But on the question of Commissioner de Jager, you understood that the ultimate authorisation came from Brooderyk?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is how I interpreted it because he sat in and he heard what was happening.
MR VISSER: Brooderyk, was he your senior?
MR SCHOON: Yes he was my senior.
MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson, that's the evidence. Oh, I'm sorry, my attention has been drawn to a mistake which I personally made which has been repeated throughout Mr Schoon's statements and that is where reference is made to the amnesty applications in Volume 1, I referred to pages 10 to 12, well that is incorrect. What I intended doing, Chairperson, was to refer you to page 10 and 11 which - no it's correct. Chairperson, I'm happy to tell you that I didn't make a mistake, it is in fact correct but my attorney will argue with me on the way back to Pretoria, he will convince me that I was wrong. Chairperson, that is the evidence that we wish to present, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Schoon, did you contact Mr Gloy telephonically?
MR SCHOON: Yes Chairperson, I did.
CHAIRPERSON: At which stage was this?
MR SCHOON: This was before I went to the TRC on the 19th November in 1996, the previous evening.
CHAIRPERSON: And in what relation did you contact him?
MR SCHOON: I asked him to give me the names of the two persons, the two PAC persons because I believed that those were the persons to whom Dirk Coetzee referred in his affidavit.
CHAIRPERSON: And what was his reaction?
MR SCHOON: He told me that he did not know about them and that he had no knowledge.
CHAIRPERSON: So did he deny his involvement, any involvement whatsoever?
MR SCHOON: Yes he denied any knowledge of that whatsoever.
And might I add that later I was with Director Barkhuizen in his office and we called Brigadier Brooderyk in, he arrived and I put the same to him and he also denied any knowledge of the incident, he said that he didn't know anything.
ADV GCABASHE: If you could just help me with that. Barkhuizen or Brooderyk who said he knew nothing?
MR SCHOON: I beg your pardon?
ADV GCABASHE: Was that Barkhuizen or Brooderyk who said he knew nothing?
MR SCHOON: Brooderyk.
ADV GCABASHE: Brooderyk. Thank you.
MR VISSER: Just for the sake of clarity, Barkhuizen is a person who at the time worked as a legal advisor for the police and this witnesses evidence is that he approached him to find out if he couldn't lay his hands on documentation with regard to the incident and Barkhuizen then called Brooderyk and Brooderyk apparently denied.
CHAIRPERSON: So both Gloy and Brooderyk have denied knowledge of the incident? How good is your recollection regarding this incident?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I'm not uncertain about this incident, I am one hundred percent certain of the facts here regarding Brooderyk and Gloy's involvement because they were the persons who administered the detentions. The detention orders and the release orders and so on came through them.
CHAIRPERSON: And Brooderyk, where is he today, is he still alive?
MR SCHOON: Yes he is still alive and living in Pretoria.
CHAIRPERSON: You are not certain or at least you don't have any first hand knowledge whether these persons were indeed killed?
MR SCHOON: No.
CHAIRPERSON: And when you refer in paragraph 22 to the C-Section member, is that one of the persons who you can no longer recall?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, that is the person to whom I referred who was with me when we were tasked to do this.
CHAIRPERSON: Initially you thought it was Dirk Coetzee?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct, initially I thought it was Dirk Coetzee and then later I thought it was Cronje.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you have absolutely no idea who that person was?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, after I established that it had definitely not been Coetzee, I was definitely under the impression that it was Cronje. I asked him and he told me that he didn't know anything.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you then accept that your memory was incorrect?
MR SCHOON: I didn't know what to think because I didn't want to implicate people any further and I couldn't think of who else it may have been because I was half convinced that it was Cronje.
CHAIRPERSON: Would Gloy and Brooderyk according to your knowledge know whether or not these people were killed?
MR SCHOON: No I don't think so, they would have the same knowledge as I have. They would not have any first hand knowledge.
ADV DE JAGER: The person who would have executed the order, would he have reported to them or to you?
MR SCHOON: He would have reported to both of us.
CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you hear anything further about these persons who you did not know or about the person whose name you cannot recall saying that he could not persuade the two PAC operatives to join the security branch.
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I hoped that somebody would come forward who would also have an application in this regard and then I would have had some certainty.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes so you were also uncertain as to whether or not these persons were actually killed?
MR SCHOON: That is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Could it be established that these persons were detained under Section 6 and if so, would there be any record of that remaining?
MR SCHOON: That is why I went to Barkhuizen, Chairperson, and he could not assist me with anything.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you have Mr Brooderyk's address?
MR SCHOON: Yes Chairperson, I think it's in the telephone directory because that's where we found his number.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well.
ADV DE JAGER: He has been notified, has he? Was he given notice Ms Thabethe?
MS THABETHE: Yes Mr de Jager, I'm just checking his address here.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, if I may use the moment of silence, the problem here is that Brigadier Schoon is the only applicant in this incident so there's nothing that one can check his recollection by. The other problem is that he doesn't know who the names of these people were so that no enquiries could be made in that regard either. He has tried but without success.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes I assume we could try as well and that's why perhaps if we hear whether we've got an address because we don't seem to have a response from Mr Brooderyk. We know what Mr Gloy's position is.
MR VISSER: Well Brooderyk's position is precisely the same, he says he knows nothing about this.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
MR VISSER: Oh I see, yes. Yes.
ADV GCABASHE: Just for clarity Mr Schoon, are you saying you are still convinced that Mr Gloy was there or are you saying you said that your memory is faulty and he may not have been there, I'm just not clear on that aspect?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, in certain instances my mind wanders and my memory isn't what it ought to be and it is very troublesome to reorientate oneself especially when somebody comes along with correct and clear facts which you cannot recall and that is why I was asking these people for information.
MR VISSER: No but the question if I might put it is as you sit here today are you convinced that Gloy was indeed involved?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, that is one aspect regarding which I have no doubt.
MR VISSER: And can we ask you the same question with regard to Brooderyk?
MR SCHOON: With regard to him as well, I also asked him to come to the office and I put it to him and he simply said that he didn't know anything about this.
MR VISSER: But the member that you spoke of, you cannot remember this person?
MR SCHOON: No, I cannot remember him at all.
ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, just to tidy that up and you're saying in relation to Brooderyk, you are convinced today that he was involved? Just to clear that for me as well?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, he was present in the office where this discussion with Gloy took place. He did not participate in the discussion but he must have heard what it was about and he must have known.
CHAIRPERSON: I would just like to determine, we know when you spoke to Gloy. Can you tell us when you spoke to Brooderyk?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I spoke to Brooderyk before I made my formal submission to the Committee and that would have been about a week or two before that.
CHAIRPERSON: So both of them were aware, Gloy and Brooderyk were aware that you were applying for amnesty specifically with regard to this incident?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: That was before the cut-off date?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that was before the cut-off date.
ADV DE JAGER: And that was before the first cut-off date and after that we had an extension in the cut-off date?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Thabethe, have you got any questions?
MS THABETHE: Sorry Mr Chair?
CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any questions for this witness?
MS THABETHE: Just one Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Mr Schoon, how were these people identified as PAC members, how did you know they were PAC members?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, they infiltrated the country as formerly trained PAC cadres, they made statements and it was unequivocal fact that they were PAC terrorists.
MS THABETHE: No further questions, Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabethe.
ADV GCABASHE: Just to again finish that off? Is your evidence that as far as you understand it they were killed because they would not become informants. Well, two things, because they were PAC members who would not become informants?
MR SCHOON: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Visser, have you got any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Just one question just to add to the question that Commissioner Gcabashe has just asked, with your leave Chairperson.
But also gave evidence that it was your conviction that they'd entered the country to commit acts of terrorism?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct. They were armed and they had been in the country for a few hours before they were captured.
MR VISSER: That is all I have for the witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Visser.
MR VISSER: Chairman, we don't have any further witnesses, he is the only applicant in this particular incident, is Brigadier Schoon.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe has there been any response from Mr Brooderyk?
MS THABETHE: No Mr Chair, I would need to follow it up with the Witness Protection because all the implicated persons were traced through them.
CHAIRPERSON: You don't have at hand immediately as an indication as to the service of the notice on him and the possible response and so on?
MS THABETHE: No Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, are you going to be able to follow that up?
MS THABETHE: Yes Mr Chair, I will have to do it through Section 30 I think.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS THABETHE: Yes. But I will get in touch immediately with the Witness Protection just to find out what his response was but I don't have any report on it except that he was served.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, you've got a report that they served a notice on him?
MS THABETHE: According to Shamrad Gold who was the evidence analyst on this, all the implicated persons were served.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh I see so it's a general report from the evidence analyst?
MS THABETHE: Yes so that's a general report. Yes and the next report was that out of the implicated persons who were served, Gloy and Mr van Niekerk responded, so I'm not sure about Mr Brooderyk.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes well from your side you have concluded your case. I got the feeling that in terms of submissions you wouldn't have anything substantially different from the previous ones?
MR VISSER: No Chairperson, there's just one aspect which I think I have to lift out and that is that in the present case, Brigadier Schoon was senior, the senior officer to Gloy so we must just not get confused here to think that what Schoon is saying is that Gloy ordered him. Gloy didn't order him, Gloy gave the order lower down but he, although he was a higher ranking officer, was aware of it. That's the basis of his application and what he says is that as far as he is concerned, Brooderyk must have given permission because Brooderyk and Gloy were working with the release of difficult prisoners at the time and he must have known about that.
ADV DE JAGER: And you were called to Brooderyk's office?
MR SCHOON: Where he was present?
ADV DE JAGER: Yes.
MR SCHOON: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Can you recall who asked you to go to Brooderyk's office?
MR SCHOON: Gloy approached me and asked whether this other person and I would accompany him to Brooderyk's office to discuss the matter.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes I assume that that has concluded what you wanted to say as well?
MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Thabethe, you will follow up this situation around Mr Brooderyk and see whether you can find out anything further about what the situation is, would you?
MS THABETHE: Yes Mr Chair, I will right away.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright now, apart from that fact have you got any submissions in any one of these incidents?
MS THABETHE: No Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Visser, your client is going to be present at these proceedings in any event. We are going to let this matter stand down until Monday to allow us an opportunity to just follow up the issue that I've raised with the evidence leader and if anything turns on that then of course you would be able to deal with it and your client as well before we actually finalise the matter. So under those circumstances we're going to let it stand down until Monday to see if we receive any further information and then we'll take a further decision as to how we deal with it.
Yes, I assume that concludes what we have on the roll for today? Under those circumstances we'll adjourn until Monday at this venue and we'll reconvene at 10 o'clock on Monday morning. We're adjourned.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
