ANDRIES JOHANNES VAN HEERDEN: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius.
EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Chair.
Mr van Heerden, you've applied for amnesty and you've given your full co-operation to the investigative team of the TRC.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Your amnesty application appears on page 18 up to page 41, including the supplementary affidavit.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: You confirm your background, your police background as it appears on page 23, 24 and up to the middle of page 25.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, yes.
MR CORNELIUS: And to shorten your evidence a little bit, you also confirm your political objectives as they appear on page 29.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, yes.
MR CORNELIUS: Before we continue with the merits of this specific application, what was your rank in the Security Police during the Why Not incident?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I was a Constable.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you work under the direct command of Capt Zeelie, the previous applicant?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And he had the rank of a Captain?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: I refer you specifically to the statement that appears on page 34 of the documents, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Just before you proceed Mr Cornelius.
Mr van Heerden you say that you worked under the orders of Capt Zeelie, you were in the Investigation Unit were you, or division?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Investigation Unit.
CHAIRPERSON: And Capt Zeelie was in the explosives unit or whatever it was called.
MR VAN HEERDEN: He was in the explosives but also part of the Investigation Unit.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, so who was your actual Commander of the Investigative Unit?
MR VAN HEERDEN: If I'm not mistaken I think it was Col Victor or Col At van Niekerk.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Mr Cornelius?
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.
The statement that appears on page 34, I see at the end of the statement it states that you signed it on the 26th of April 1994 in Copenhagen in Denmark. This is on page 41.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, yes.
MR CORNELIUS: So it is not a statement that you made to the Attorney-General?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: I beg your pardon, did the Attorney-General send somebody to Denmark to take this statement?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, as I testified in Col de Kock's application, the person who took the statements was a Eugene van Vuuren, who did not have any knowledge of the taking of statements although it went through as a statement. I also said in court that I see it as a summary of events over this period of time in questions, because it was not in specific detail, specific statements about specific incidents.
MR CORNELIUS: But it is also common cause from all the hearings that Nortje and Kloppers revealed certain evidence and you were also approached to make a statement.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: It's also an evidence statement, as you called it.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, yes.
MR CORNELIUS: In this statement did you have a lot of time to prepare it?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, I had about two hours that evening where I had to write down my whole life history and I had to present it to the Goldstone Commission and according to that then this statement was then taken.
MR CORNELIUS: I see, so is it a shorter, more cryptic statement?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, yes.
MR CORNELIUS: On page 37 you deal with the Why Not incident.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Can you tell me, did you work on a need-to-know basis as far as your Commanders go?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, most of the operations or the incidents in which I was involved were seen as need-to-know operations.
MR CORNELIUS: Were you an explosives expert?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No.
MR CORNELIUS: I will take you back to your amnesty application that appears on page 27. Why did this attack take place at the Why Not Club?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, that was because of two bomb explosions that took place at Vanderbijl Square.
MR CORNELIUS: I see. Can you in short tell the Committee how you became involved in this incident.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, that evening of the second explosion I was at the scene together with Capt Zeelie, where he did the bomb disposal at the scene. At the scene was Du Toit and Erasmus. I think Gen Malherbe was also at the scene. During the bomb disposal at the scene, Erasmus then told Zeelie who was with me, he made a comment and said that we had to take action against them. And in the same light I'd also like to say to you Mr Chairperson, it was a general feeling of a lot of members, I do not want to isolate it and say it was a specific feeling that only Erasmus had, it was a general feeling of all the members of the Security Branch that things cannot continue as they did.
MR CORNELIUS: It was a question of an eye for an eye?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that's how I personally felt as well.
After the disposal of the scene I then went home and later that evening at approximately 9 o'clock, it could be before nine or maybe just after nine, Capt Zeelie arrived at my house and said that he must accompany me and he told me we had work to do.
MR CORNELIUS: Did he say to you what you had to do?
MR VAN HEERDEN: After we drove away he told me that the Generals told him that we had to go and bomb a place.
MR CORNELIUS: Did he then say the Why Not?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, he then mentioned it was the Why Not Club, it was the target because in previous investigations, especially of Peter Dlamini, it showed from this investigation that the Why Not Night-club was visited by him frequently and he was also there during the Zurich Cafe bombing and he also observed the Cafe Zurich from the Why Not Club.
MR CORNELIUS: The Cafe Zurich is opposite the Why Not Club?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, yes.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you then go and pick up members of Vlakplaas or other police members?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, we then went to Randfontein where Zeelie wanted to go and address the members of Vlakplaas, so that they can act as a backup group for us and to assist us.
MR CORNELIUS: Very well. According to your knowledge, who went with?
MR VAN HEERDEN: It was Capt Paul van Dyk, W/O Snor Vermeulen and Douw Willemse who accompanied us.
MR CORNELIUS: You then went to Hillbrow.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, yes. I would just like to add that all three members of Vlakplaas, after Capt Zeelie spoke to them when we arrived there, when he told them what the circumstances were and what we were going to do, all three members said that they're not interested in participating in this exercise because Eugene de Kock did not give personal, or did not have personal knowledge about it or gave the command for it.
MR CORNELIUS: When you went to the night-club, what happened there?
MR VAN HEERDEN: When we arrived there, Capt Zeelie, Paul, Douw Willemse and myself entered the night-club to go and see what it looks like inside.
MR CORNELIUS: Is it correct that Mr Vermeulen then did not associate himself with it?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Right from the beginning he did not associate himself with it and he remained outside.
MR CORNELIUS: You now entered the night-club, what happened then?
MR VAN HEERDEN: We arrived there, we bought a beer, we stood at the counter while we looked around to see what the set-up was inside.
MR CORNELIUS: Very well, and what happened afterwards?
MR VAN HEERDEN: We then went to Capt Zeelie's vehicle that was parked outside, we then took out the two mini limpet mines that were attached to each other with tape and I placed them in the back of my trousers, in my pocket.
MR CORNELIUS: These mini limpet mines have got magnets on them and they were attached to each other.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Were they attached to each other with tape?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, it was masking tape.
MR CORNELIUS: The limpet mine, was it disguised or was the whole thing covered with masking tape?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, the were just attached to each other so that they couldn't be separated.
MR CORNELIUS: What did you do with it?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I placed it in the back of my trousers in my pocket.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you then move into the night-club again?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, Capt Zeelie kept the detonator and we went back to the night-club.
MR CORNELIUS: Do you know where Capt Zeelie got these limpet mines from or were you not with him when he got it?
MR VAN HEERDEN: According to my knowledge and in my experience in working with them, he always had a certain amount of explosives with him or in his vehicle that he used at bomb disposals and he also had explosives in a safe at the John Vorster Square.
MR CORNELIUS: But you were not there when he placed it in the trunk of the vehicle?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No.
MR CORNELIUS: Was there access control at the club?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Who then entered the club again?
MR VAN HEERDEN: It was myself, Paul van Dyk and Douw Willemse.
MR CORNELIUS: Were the others searched?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, they walked behind me and the bouncer approached me to search me, I immediately spoke Tswana to him and just walked past him.
MR CORNELIUS: What happened then?
MR VAN HEERDEN: We entered again and we stood at the counter where we again bought ourselves a beer and we stood around, from there Capt Zeelie handed over the detonator. At a certain stage I went to the toilet in the back to see if I can place the limpet mines there. It did not work, there were people in the toilets. I then came back to Capt Zeelie and told him I cannot place it there and I do not feel comfortable in working with the detonator of the limpet mine.
MR CORNELIUS: Why not?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Because it had two safety pins that had to be pulled and I was unhappy, or to put it this way, I was scared to activate it and that it would explode while I was setting it.
MR CORNELIUS: I see. Now in your amnesty application, on page 28 you say that you struggled to attach the detonator to the two limpet mines, or insert it into the two limpet mines.
MR VAN HEERDEN: What I mean there is that I struggled to pull out the two pins while I was alone.
MR CORNELIUS: And then you say that
"Zeelie who is an explosives expert assisted me and after the detonator was placed in the correct way I placed the limpet mines under the seat."
MR VAN HEERDEN: This statement that I made, or that I placed the limpet mines under the bench is wrong, Capt Zeelie came to sit next to me and he placed the detonator into the limpet mines and placed it underneath the bench.
MR CORNELIUS: In consultation with me you referred me to page 38 of the statement that you made in Denmark and there I see you say that
"Zeelie first wanted to give me the detonator to plant the bomb but I refused and handed over the limpet mines to him, in order for him to put the detonator in himself."
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Then you say
"(I did not trust the detonator)"
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Are those the facts?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes.
MR CORNELIUS: Then you said that
"Zeelie inserted the detonator and then left the limpet mines under a bench where people were sitting."
MR VAN HEERDEN: If I say people were sitting there, I mean that I was sitting on this side, Zeelie was on my left-hand side, the bench was on his left-hand side, people were walking around, sitting down, getting up towards the dance floor, etcetera.
MR CORNELIUS: You've the evidence earlier on, were the two detonators or one detonator? I see you use the plural on page 38.
MR VAN HEERDEN: There was only one detonator, it had two rings that had to be pulled to activate it.
MR CORNELIUS: And you will be asked why the differences in the statement you made in Denmark in '94 and the amnesty application you made in '97, have you got an answer?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Well in my statement overseas we were under a lot of pressure and it was my version of what had happened that evening, the way in which I could recall it. With out arrival here there were other versions like, "You did that or you did this", and on that version I then changed it that I placed the limpet mine. With my consultation with Mr Cornelius I then told him again that it was the second version in my amnesty application and it was wrong and that my first version was the right one.
MR CORNELIUS: The first version was the Denmark version?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: While we're at the version that you, or the statement that you made in Denmark, on page 37 of the statement under paragraph 12.3.2 you say that
"A few evenings after the second explosion at Vanderbijl, Zeelie came to pick me up at my house and told me we had work to do."
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is wrong, that was the specific evening after the explosion.
MR CORNELIUS: So you do accept what the Chairperson said, it was the same evening as the Vanderbijl Square second explosion?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: After the limpet mines were activated, what did you do?
MR VAN HEERDEN: We left where we went back to the police station, we went to go and pick up Zeelie's vehicle. I cannot recall the street name but we waited there until the bomb exploded.
MR CORNELIUS: What was the period?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I would say approximately 30 minutes, maybe a little bit more, but approximately 30 minutes.
MR CORNELIUS: Were people injured from what you could see?
MR VAN HEERDEN: What I could see was, and heard, was that there were people who were lightly injured.
MR CORNELIUS: What happened then?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I remained in the vehicle while the other members of the John Vorster Square investigative team and accompanied Zeelie to the scene. A while later Piet du Toit arrived at the vehicle and asked me where Capt Zeelie was, I informed him that he was busy in Cafe Zurich with the other people to take statements and that he was at the scene in the Why Not.
MR CORNELIUS: You've heard the cross-examination around the question of Brig du Toit, did he say anything else to you?
MR VAN HEERDEN: He told me to remain seated in the vehicle.
MR CORNELIUS: Did anybody say that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Just before you proceed Mr Cornelius, I just want to clear up one thing.
You say you left the Why Not and you waited plus-minus 30 minutes for the explosion.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you then go to the police station?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, that was before the explosion. We went back to collect the car and then we came back and then the explosion ...
CHAIRPERSON: So in that 30 minutes ...(intervention)
MR VAN HEERDEN: Ja, we went back to collect Capt Zeelie's car.
CHAIRPERSON: ... you went back to John Vorster Square, then came back.
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Hillbrow Police Station.
CHAIRPERSON: I mean Hillbrow Police Station, then came back and then the explosion took place and you stayed in the car.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And did you come back with Mr Zeelie?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Zeelie's car.
CHAIRPERSON: With him?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Ja.
CHAIRPERSON: And was there any radio communication at all?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Capt Zeelie had a radio with him. At one stage he got out of the car, I don't know whether it was then when they - immediately after the explosion I then moved away and Capt Zeelie then got out of the car, when we got - no, I'm confused got. When the bomb was planted we went back to the Hillbrow Police Station to take the Vlakplaas members back to their vehicle. We then proceeded back to the premise. During that time they must have contacted Capt Zeelie. I cannot at this stage remember whether he was contacted while we were still ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: But when you got back the explosion hadn't taken place yet?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Not yet.
CHAIRPERSON: So then the explosion goes off and you're all sitting in the car, you and Capt Zeelie are sitting in the car?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And you stayed in the car?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I stayed in the car, I remained in the car.
CHAIRPERSON: And this radio what is it?
MR VAN HEERDEN: It's a walkie-talkie radio.
CHAIRPERSON: And how long did Capt Zeelie and you stay there before ...(intervention)
MR VAN HEERDEN: Capt Zeelie then moved out of the car, that's why I say I cannot remember people calling him while he was in my presence. He then moved out of the car after the explosion.
CHAIRPERSON: Because one would imagine that if Capt Zeelie was called to say: "Okay, you're on standby, there's been an explosion at the Why Not bar" and he arrives at the bar 20 seconds after the call, wouldn't that be a bit funny?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I would not say it would have been funny, Mr Chair, because we were always on radio contact and working in certain specific areas, so if it was that we were in the Hillbrow vicinity and that exploded, it would have been accepted.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Cornelius.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.
You see on page 39 of your Copenhagen statement you say that:
"Piet du Toit approached me where I was seated in the vehicle and gave me the instruction to remain seated in the vehicle, because he knew who was responsible for the explosion and he wanted to prevent me from being identified by someone at the scene."
Have you got any comment on that?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, I can just say that the statement that I made there could be from the fact that Capt Zeelie told us that the instructions came from Erasmus and Du Toit and that we had to do it, and Gen du Toit never told me that he knew that I planted the bomb. I never mentioned it to him that I planted the bomb. It could be interpreted in the wrong way, it was only a perception that I assumed or accepted, that he knew that I planted the bomb.
MR CORNELIUS: Because there's another issue that's bothering me and I'd like to clarify it. On page 30 of your amnesty application you say that
"After the bomb explosion Gen du Toit was also at the scene and that he personally told me to remain seated in the vehicle, not get out and to immediately grow a beard so that I cannot be identified in any identification parade."
Do you have any comment on that?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I do. The statement that I made there that Gen du Toit said that I must grow a beard is wrong, the next morning at the office, I think it was Col Victor who told me I had to grow a beard, it was not Gen du Toit who told me that evening, he just told me to remain seated in the vehicle.
MR CORNELIUS: The inference that I can make from this is that because Mr Zeelie was in disguise you just went as you were.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I was not disguised at all, I was just like I am now.
MR CORNELIUS: So it would make sense then to grow a beard?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: How long does it take for you to grow a beard?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Well within a week.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Depending on when the identification parade would be then, when you had to be prepared for that.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I believe that at the time when the identification parade would take place my beard would have been long enough.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Did you have any personal feelings of revenge or malice towards the victims?
MR VAN HEERDEN: None.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you receive any remuneration for your act that evening?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, none at all.
MR CORNELIUS: And you also revealed all the facts as far as your recollection goes.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: You therefore apply for amnesty for attempted murder, damaging of property, transgression of the Act of Explosives, defeating the ends of justice because you kept quiet and all delicts that may result from the actions that you committed.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Mr Visser, do you have any questions that you would like to put to Mr van Heerden?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: I do Chairperson, thank you.
Mr van Heerden, I've now listened to your evidence and I'd like to ask you, in principle what you say is that your Copenhagen statement is largely correct, with the exception of some amendments that you made to it and that the other statement, the second statement that you made is not right or correct. Is that your evidence? Did I understand you correctly or am I oversimplifying it?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I'm just going to put the earphones on, I cannot hear you.
MR VISSER: Do you have earphones there?
CHAIRPERSON: I think if you can just repeat yourself Mr Visser, he's got the earphones on now, he can hear better.
MR VISSER: If you want to hear the direct language spoken, it would be channel 0, Mr van Heerden. Can you hear me?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I can.
MR VISSER: I heard that you said when your legal representative led you in evidence, that after you returned from Copenhagen versions were put to you but you say that the Copenhagen statement, with the exception of certain amendments, are the correct facts. Did I understand you correctly?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, of the events of that evening, that is correct yes.
MR VISSER: Then concerning the second statement on page 30, the top paragraph where you mention Erasmus and Du Toit, where does this fit in? Do you say that this is also correct or do you say this is wrong?
MR VAN HEERDEN: This is correct.
MR VISSER: Very well. Now this section on page 30, is this one of the other versions that you spoke about that came under your attention after you returned from Denmark?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Mr Chairperson, the version to which I'm referring was the placing of the bomb, if I placed the bomb or if Capt Zeelie placed the bomb.
MR VISSER: The only thing now is that nowhere in your Denmark statement you mentioned Erasmus and Du Toit. Do you agree with me?
MR VAN HEERDEN: With regard to what statement?
MR VISSER: With regard to anything.
MR VAN HEERDEN: On page 39 I did make mention of it.
MR VISSER: I beg your pardon, I confused you, I'm now not talking about where you remained seated in the car, I'm talking about the instructions given. Nowhere in your Denmark statement did you talk about an instruction that you received from Erasmus and Du Toit.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I never said that Erasmus gave me an instruction in any statement.
MR VISSER: Very well. And in the second statement if I understand your evidence correctly, you still do not say that anyone of those two gave you an instruction.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Not to me, no.
MR VISSER: Then I do understand your evidence correctly. Is it your evidence that at the bomb disposal at Vanderbijl Square scene, that you heard there that Gen Erasmus expressed his dissatisfaction concerning the bomb explosion?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I testified about it, yes, and I also testified that various other members had the same dissatisfaction.
MR VISSER: Yes, I do understand that, because if I recall his evidence, Gen Erasmus said that he could not recall you at that scene but that you could have been there, but he had the impression that he spoke to Zeelie alone when he expressed this sentiment.
Now I'd like to put it to you that either he is wrong and that he forgot about you being at the scene, or that you are wrong in that you were not present when this discussion took place and that Zeelie told you. What would you say is the most likely version?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, I was at the scene, I was with Capt Zeelie, I was with him when Gen Erasmus made this statement that he's now sick and tired of this whole story. There were also various other members of the Security Police at the specific scene, who were also busy with the disposal.
MR VISSER: Well let us accept for the purposes of this argument that Gen Erasmus was mistaken or is mistaken, it will not take it any further, but now Zeelie arrived at your house that same evening as you stated, and he told you you had work to do, did you then in your own mind connect the statement that Erasmus made with what Zeelie just told you regarding what you were going to do, the attack on the club?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, I cannot say with honesty that I linked it, I accepted it as an order from Capt Zeelie that he gave me, I cannot say that on that specific evening I thought about what Gen Erasmus had said. I cannot say that.
MR VISSER: You see, then perhaps I have misread the first paragraph on page 30, because the way that I read it, and please assist me if I am mistaken, you stated that
"After the second limpet mine explosion at the Vanderbijl bus terminus, Gens Erasmus and Piet du Toit made the remark during the disposal that something had to be done."
and in the next sentence you state:
"When Charles Zeelie told me that a revenge attack had to be launched against the ANC, I believed that this was the objective with the attack."
and I linked this to the first sentence, was I mistaken in that?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That was my objective, I felt precisely the same as Gen Erasmus, so I didn't say that I accepted that this was what they had spoken about.
MR VISSER: So you didn't really attach the two, it was the general sentiment?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I would have done it, if Capt Zeelie had come to me and said that we were supposed to do it without Gen Erasmus having had made this statement, I would have accepted it as a general order.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But then I don't really understand the last paragraph on page 30.
"An order was received from the Commanders of the Security Branch at John Vorster Square."
That is your response to the question regarding who gave you the order.
MR VAN HEERDEN: My immediate Commander, Capt Zeelie.
JUDGE DE JAGER
"I was informed of the order by Charles Zeelie. I believed that Gens Erasmus and Piet du Toit were involved with it."
And then you continue and say:
"I do not have any further information about it."
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is why I stated, Chairperson, that I received the order from Capt Zeelie and that Capt Zeelie told me that the order came from Gens Erasmus and Du Toit.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But then you did have further information because Zeelie told you this and then you didn't just believe it, you heard it from him.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I heard it from him, Chairperson, but it boiled down to the point that further information regarding other persons, in the sense that Gen Erasmus or Gen du Toit never gave me the order directly, I got it from Zeelie. How it arrived at him, how the decision was taken and so forth, I didn't know.
MR VISSER: Very well. You see, the problem that one has when one reads what you have said in your Denmark affidavit - and what did you call the other affidavit, I think it was the Pretoria affidavit. The second affidavit, your legal counsel termed it something.
MR CORNELIUS: The amnesty application.
MR VISSER: The one on page 27, is that the amnesty application?
MR CORNELIUS: Yes.
MR VISSER: And in your amnesty application one comes to the conclusion that something happened in-between the two, and Mr van Heerden, you say that you were confronted by other versions after you returned from Denmark, do you recall that evidence?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes.
MR VISSER: Who put these other versions to you?
MR VAN HEERDEN: It was during the investigations by the members of the A-G's office in Pretoria, where they interrogated us regarding who knew about the explosion, what took place and that is where the matter arose that I wasn't certain whether I planted the bomb or whether Capt Zeelie planted the bomb. But that was during the questioning which was conducted by the investigative team of the A-G.
MR VISSER: Who compiled the affidavit on page 27 for the purposes of your amnesty application?
MR VAN HEERDEN: It was Mr Fanie Rossouw, when he was still my legal representative.
MR VISSER: I see. Were you then told what Mr Zeelie had said regarding the attack?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No.
MR VISSER: Because you see I looked at your affidavit on page 27 and I compared this with the statement given by Mr Zeelie which appears on page 9, and then particularly page 11, and it would appear as if these two statement are actually identical regarding the aspect of why the attack took place at the Why Not Night-club, would you agree?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, at the time of my amnesty application I was only with Mr Rossouw, Capt Zeelie was not with Mr Rossouw, I did not discuss it with him, it was version and my application for amnesty.
MR VISSER: Yes, and then naturally in your affidavit for your amnesty application you mentioned for the first time, as Judge de Jager has just pointed out to you, the question of Erasmus and Du Toit. Then I would just like to achieve certainty regarding this, you see Gen du Toit isn't trying to hide anything, in actual fact it has been suggested to him that he hasn't really made himself guilty of anything further than defeating the ends of justice, but he goes further than that and he associates himself with this offence and he requests amnesty for his involvement by association with this explosion. He tells the Committee, and you heard him, that he wasn't at the cleanup of the explosion at the Vanderbijl Square incident. Now is it possible that you may be mistaken in placing him there?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I may be mistaken. If I could just get back to you regarding my affidavit which was deposed in Denmark and the night with the Goldstone Commission. That evening I was under tremendous pressure which was exerted on me by the Goldstone Commission, and in a question of a few hours I had to list all the offences in which I had been involved, I didn't have any opportunity to consult or to have access to documents or to speak to any of my colleagues regarding what took place on specific days with specific incidents, therefore I may have been mistaken. All that I stated in my affidavits was what I could remember or how I viewed what had taken place.
MR VISSER: Yes I see, but you also repeated this on page 30 of your amnesty application where you also place Piet du Toit at the same scene, is the same explanation applicable for page 30 and for your Denmark statement?
MR VAN HEERDEN: As I've stated, I gave my version of how I viewed the incident, how it took place and so forth. If I am mistaken then so be it and I will accept this before the Commission. I will not fight about any kind of incident that I am not one hundred percent certain of. This is my experience, this is my recollection and I will stand by that.
MR VISSER: You see then there is just one aspect remaining regarding which I will be fighting with you, Mr van Heerden, and that is, Mr du Toit states that he was indeed present at the scene after the explosion of the Why Not Club, but at that stage, according to him, he was not aware that you had been involved in that explosion and Mr Zeelie's evidence corroborates this. Are you perhaps mistaken with the person of Piet du Toit who told you to remain seated in the car there at the Why Not Club?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, as I've stated my memory tells me that Gen du Toit was there, if Gen du Toit maintains that he was not there I will accept that, but my recollection tells me that he was there. I will not fight with him.
MR VISSER: I just want us to be clear regarding our dispute with each other. Gen du Toit says that he was there, there is no dispute regarding that, it is simply about your evidence on page 30 and page 38, that he told you to remain seated in the car, apparently with the objective to ensure that you would not be identified. He says that he didn't tell you this because he didn't know of your involvement. Is it possible that you may be mistaken regarding that matter?
MR VAN HEERDEN: It is possible, Chairperson, I cannot argue about that. I was seated in the car, Gen du Toit came to me, my recollection tells me that he told me to remain in the car. I am not saying that Gen du Toit is a liar, I won't say that he never told me that, my recollection however, says that he said that to me.
MR VISSER: Yes, but you see in the light of all his admissions he might as well also have admitted to that and it wouldn't have taken it any further, don't you agree?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I agree completely, it wouldn't have changed anything about the fact that we planted the bomb.
MR VISSER: Yes, that is entirely correct, but the fact of the matter is that this took place a long time ago. Did anybody else also speak to you that night there at the Why Not Club, while you were seated in the vehicle?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No.
MR VISSER: Well Zeelie is one of the persons who had to have spoken to you.
MR VAN HEERDEN: After the explosion, yes, but not while I was seated in the car and he was busy at the scene. I was alone in the car.
MR VISSER: Why did you remain in the car at that stage, why didn't you traverse the scene with Zeelie?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I was afraid that people would recognise me because I hadn't worn any disguise when I was in the club previously.
MR VISSER: And did Zeelie tell you to remain in the car or did you decide that on your own?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I think Zeelie told me to stay in the car, or we decided together that I should remain in the car, that that was preferable.
MR VISSER: You see Mr van Heerden, that is what I have been wanting to ask you. You and Mr Zeelie, you drove together from Hillbrow Police Station, is that correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Isn't it simply logical if one would have to speculate today, that Zeelie would have said to you: "Listen, I think that you had better stay in the car because you were with me inside when the bomb was planted and you weren't wearing any disguise"? Isn't it logical to accept that?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I think that I'm big enough to be able to draw that logical inference that I wouldn't be able to go there after I had been on the scene of an incident openly and people had been injured there.
MR VISSER: You see Mr van Heerden, it would not have been necessary for Erasmus or Du Toit or anybody else to come to you and tell you: "Stay in the car", if they had known that you were involved. There would not have been any sense to it because you were in the car anyway, isn't that so?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, whereabouts was the car parked in relation to the Why Not bar when you were sitting in it?
Was it around the corner or was it directly in front or ...?
MR VAN HEERDEN: It was just on the corner ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Was it cordoned off, was the area cordoned off?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Ja, just in front of where the explosion was. I'm not sure if it's to - I think Kotze Street going this way, the Why Not is here and I was standing on this corner - the next street, I was standing on that corner.
CHAIRPERSON: In the next street. And there were a lot of cars around?
MR VAN HEERDEN: There were thousands of people walking around there. I mean, not thousands, hundreds of people going to see what happened at the explosion and people driving up and down.
CHAIRPERSON: And was it an unmarked car or was it a police car with a blue light on top?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, it was an unmarked car.
CHAIRPERSON: So would you have known, or were you surprised - you say Gen du Toit came to the car, how would he have found the vehicle?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I was standing right on the corner.
CHAIRPERSON: Well you mean the car was on the corner?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Parked right on the corner, so I could still see from where I was sitting in the car what was going on.
CHAIRPERSON: But there were hundreds of people all around ...(intervention)
MR VAN HEERDEN: There were people moving around and cars and everything, to see what has happened.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Visser.
MR VISSER: I have no further questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Rossouw, do you have any questions that you would like to put to the applicant?
MR ROSSOUW: No Mr Chairman, I have no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza, do you have any question you would like to put?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: A few, Chairperson.
Mr van Heerden, when you were approached by Capt Zeelie to go and bomb the Why Not Club, ...(intervention)
MR VAN HEERDEN: Do I understand you right, was I approached by Capt Zeelie?
CHAIRPERSON: When you were approached. This is at 9 o'clock at his home you are talking about?
MR NYAWUZA: Yes, 9 o'clock at his home.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes.
MR NYAWUZA: Did you at any stage know about this Why Not Club before you went there?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MR NYAWUZA: What is it that you knew about this Why Not Club?
MR VAN HEERDEN: The investigation on the Cafe Zurich bombing. Like testified before that members, or family members of Peter Dlamini that was arrested and convicted, gave evidence to the fact that they visited the club frequently and that was also a place where Mr Dlamini frequently used to go.
MR NYAWUZA: So family members of - are you saying family members of Mr Dlamini, or fellow comrades of Mr Dlamini?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Family members that were fellow comrades of him, that assisted him.
MR NYAWUZA: That assisted him in what?
MR VAN HEERDEN: In planting the bomb, the handgrenade at Cafe Zurich. Or they were aware of the fact that he was a trained ANC member and that he was in possession of explosives and that he did place the bomb at Cafe Zurich.
MR NYAWUZA: And how many of these people were they? How many were they?
MR VAN HEERDEN: It was his wife and two sisters or cousins, or whatever you call them, and the waiter at Cafe Zurich.
MR NYAWUZA: So did these people - in fact to rephrase my question, when you went out to attack the Why Not Club, were you attacking Mr Peter Dlamini as a person, or you were attacking everybody that was attending, you know who was a patron at the Why Not Club?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, we attacked the Why Not Club due to the fact that members of the ANC that was planting bombs, made use of the facility at the Why Not Club.
MR NYAWUZA: Irrespective of how many innocent people were to be injured in this bomb, you went ahead with it?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Sir, the very same as what the ANC did in the past, if they believed that the members of the Security Forces made use of a certain restaurant or a place, immaterial of the thousands of innocent civilians, I will regard it as the very same factor, that he made use of that place and that is why we targeted it.
MR NYAWUZA: So you wanted Mr Dlamini?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Not Mr Dlamini, that was a place where he used to visit and made use of his targets, he planned it from there and he watched there while he did an attack.
MR NYAWUZA: Mr van Heerden, isn't it correct that according what the family members of Mr Dlamini told you, wasn't the Cafe Zurich plan that was done from the Why Not Club? In fact, let me rephrase my question. Is it your testimony that you attacked the Why Not Club because Mr Dlamini attacked Cafe Zurich from the Why Not Club?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Sir, I'll repeat it for you again. Mr Dlamini was a member of the ANC and to our information members of the ANC, they made use of that specific club, which included Mr Dlamini as one of them and that's why the Why Not Club was targeted.
MR NYAWUZA: Made use of it for planning or they went out to have fun?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Socially, or whatever they wanted to do they made use of that club.
MR NYAWUZA: But was it brought to your attention after the attack that only innocent people were injured and no ANC member was attacked?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That I cannot reply on, I'm not aware of that.
ADV SIGODI: Sorry Mr Nyawuza.
Tell me, was this fact that the Why Not Club was used by the ANC, a commonly known fact amongst the members of the Security Branch? Was it a generally known fact?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I cannot reply to other members, Mr Chair, but I can reply to the investigation that we did on the Cafe Zurich bombing, was that members of the ANC did make use, or did go to visit and attend that specific club.
ADV SIGODI: Yes, I understand that you were in the Investigative Unit and most probably would have reported to your seniors, like Mr Zeelie, you would have told him that: "Look this is the information that we have received from the investigation that we are conducting about the Cafe Zurich", is that it?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Zeelie was the senior investigating about the Cafe Zurich, I assisted him in investigations, so he was fully aware of the information that I obtained from people about ANC members going to the club.
ADV SIGODI: So you are not in a position to know who else could have possibly known about the Why Not Club being used as a base by the ANC?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't know if Mr Zeelie had reported it higher up, it was not my function to report higher up.
ADV SIGODI: Thanks.
MR NYAWUZA: Mr van Heerden, I believe that you are aware that when Capt Zeelie gave testimony he advised that if he knew that ANC members gathered at the Why Not Club, it would have been much easier for him to go and arrest those people.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Sir, it might be easy for you to say that now, but in real theory it's not so easy as what you're saying it is.
MR NYAWUZA: But isn't it, it was easy for him to say as well?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Easy to say what?
MR NYAWUZA: That if ...(intervention)
MR VAN HEERDEN: If we would have known that Peter Dlamini was in the night-club a specific night, we would have arrested him there, by no chance we would have let him go, but it was common knowledge that he did frequently visit that place.
MR NYAWUZA: And if we take Peter Dlamini out of the picture and say, "Look, your attack was based on the fact that ANC members and their supporters and "ondersteuners" visited the Why Not Club", so in essence what I can infer from what you're saying is that you attacked the Why Not Club because either ANC members, its militants, the MK Commander, as Peter Dlamini, attended thereto and its supporters attended, so you attacked it because it was used mainly by ANC affiliated people. Is that so?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Ja, ANC members did go to that club, Sir.
MR NYAWUZA: Knowing, from your testimony, having known that ANC members attended there, wouldn't it have been easy for you as a member of the Investigative Unit of John Vorster Square, to go there on a particular day and arrest people that you knew were ANC members?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Sir, there's a difference between an ANC supporter, and I'm sure you are fully of it ...(intervention)
MR NYAWUZA: Yes, I am.
MR VAN HEERDEN: ... of an ANC supporter and an ANC member, or a trained MK members, there's a big difference in that. If there was an ANC trained MK member in there and we knew that at a specific night he was in there, we would have arrested him, but it's not so easy to say as to who is an MK member, who is an ANC member and who is an ANC supporter, because in the same light as you want to rephrase it to me now on why not, then we could have just as well have arrested the whole Cosatu, because they were all ANC members.
MR NYAWUZA: So your attack on this night was based on, we hope that an ANC member is there and he gets hurt?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Sir, the point was, and I stated it before, that the Why Not was frequently visited by ANC members according to our information. The other information was that Mr Peter Dlamini who had planted the bomb did make use of that specific facility and that's why it was targeted.
MR NYAWUZA: Okay, no further questions thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NYAWUZA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nyawuza. Ms Coleridge, do you have any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Yes thank you, Chairperson.
Mr van Heerden, were you with Mr Zeelie when he consulted with the Vlakplaas members?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MS COLERIDGE: And what did Mr Zeelie inform the Vlakplaas members of?
MR VAN HEERDEN: He informed them that he had received instructions from Gen Erasmus and Du Toit that a night-club in Hillbrow had to be attacked.
MS COLERIDGE: And you can clearly remember that, or ...?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Ja.
MS COLERIDGE: And then just in relation to Mr Piet du Toit, you were quite consistent in your Denmark statement as well as in your amnesty application that he was the person that came to you whilst you were sitting in the car, is that correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct and the same as I've testified now. As far as my memory serves me right and as far as I can remember, Gen du Toit came to the car and told me that.
MS COLERIDGE: Right. Now did Gen du Toit know that you were part of that unit?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That I cannot answer you, I don't know. I've never reported it to him that I was part of the unit or that I participated in the bomb explosion at a specific time.
MS COLERIDGE: So would it be unusual for him to come to you at the car if he didn't know you at all? Did he know you?
MR VAN HEERDEN: He knows me.
MS COLERIDGE: Did he know that you were working with Capt Zeelie at the time?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: When you were sitting in the car, the reason why you were there was because you didn't want to be identified.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: For obvious reasons, because you had just been in the very same place where the bomb went off and you would been a suspect. Because I believe, is it correct, perhaps you can just confirm it, you were the only group of white people there.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, we were the only four white people in there.
CHAIRPERSON: So you stuck out a bit there and possibly could have been identified. Were you just sitting in the car or were you covering your face up or leaning down to make yourself ...
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I just sat in the car, I just sat in the car.
CHAIRPERSON: Unrecognisable?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Ja.
CHAIRPERSON: I mean why not just stand next to the car then?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I think it would have been more obvious standing outside in the street than what the visibility of the lights in the car, you will have some shade in the car.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Coleridge?
MS COLERIDGE: Mr du Toit did he know Mr Zeelie's car, the unmarked car?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I'm sure everybody and most of even the public knew Capt Zeelie's car, because on every bomb explosion you would have seen his blue Sierra XR6 standing there.
MS COLERIDGE: So it wouldn't have been unusual for him to come up to Capt Zeelie's car, is that correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I wouldn't say so, it wouldn't have been, yes.
MS COLERIDGE: And if he had seen you sitting in the car, wouldn't his next question to you probably be, that's if we take your version now that he came up to you and said you must grow a beard for instance, okay, that's your consistent version in your Denmark statement and in your amnesty application, I'm just for argument's sake let's just ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: But Chairperson, you can't take an argument on evidence that this witness has retracted, he's retracted the question of the beard, he says ...(inaudible), so you can't use that as an argument any longer. You can use something else, but not that anymore.
MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I'm coming to that, I mean he has stated under oath in his amnesty application as well as in his statement in Denmark, that Gen du Toit was the person who came up to him and I'm saying let's take your version and let's just work - I have to question that version, Chairperson, it was taken under oath. I just lost my train of thought there, Chairperson, just let me get back into the swing of it.
MR VISSER: Can I help you, you put it to him that it was consistently his version that he spoke about, Du Toit spoke to him about growing a beard and then I objected, I said he's retracted that.
MS COLERIDGE: My next question to you would have been, if that is your version and Gen du Toit, knowing that you worked with Capt Zeelie, knowing that you're supposed to be on the scene to investigate this matter, was it unusual for you to be sitting in the car instead of being part of the action? Let's put it that way. Wouldn't it be actually unusual for him to come and say to you: "What are you doing sitting in the car?"
CHAIRPERSON: "Get out of the car and go and do your work."
MR VAN HEERDEN: Your Honour, it was most unusual for me to sit in a car after a bomb explosion because ninety nine percent I would have been on the site with Capt Zeelie.
CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you find it strange that Gen du Toit didn't tell you to get out of the car and go and do your work? After all you are in the investigator.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Your Honour, may I refrain from commenting on that question please?
MS COLERIDGE: So then just to take it a little bit further, so if Mr Zeelie's version is correct that Mr du Toit actually knew about this whole conspiracy and the bomb blast, that it's possible that he was actually the person that came to you and realised that you were working with Capt Zeelie, because he knew the unmarked car, he knew of the whole conspiracy, that it would actually be likely to tell you, just to cover up the unit and not to embarrass the unit, to say: "Wait a minute, stay in the car and grow a beard because of the ID parade, etcetera", wouldn't that be possible?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That could be possible, Mr Chair.
MS COLERIDGE: And then coming back to - we asked you who your Commander was and you said it was Mr Victor or At van Niekerk.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's right.
MS COLERIDGE: Now with your memory you said that it's possible that the person the following day was ...(inaudible) a beard.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MS COLERIDGE: So we can take it that Victor was your Commander at the time.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Ja, he was one of the senior Commanders in the Investigation Unit.
MS COLERIDGE: So did you inform him of the incident?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I never spoke to nobody ever after that incident regarding the incident.
CHAIRPERSON: Just on that - sorry, Ms Coleridge.
If you take a look at Exhibit B, paragraph 18:
"To the best of my recollection (okay that's qualified) Capt Zeelie and Sgt van Heerden visited me on the 23rd in my office to report back to me."
What do you say to that?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I was never in Gen Erasmus' office, I've never ever spoken to Gen Erasmus or Gen du Toit afterwards, due to the fact that I did a job I did not need to go to his office to get a handshake for the job that I had done, and I never expected him neither to do that. My point on Gen Erasmus is that he could have been mistaken that Capt Zeelie had briefed him that morning as it would have been normal procedure for an officer to brief a senior officer and not for a Constable to brief a senior officer.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because Gen Erasmus does say to the best of his knowledge, he qualifies it, he doesn't say it as a hard fact. But you deny that you were ever in his office?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I was never in Gen Erasmus' office.
CHAIRPERSON: And you say that he, by mentioning your name there, he's mistaken?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is definitely so.
MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson.
So Mr van Heerden, if you say you never discussed this matter with your Commander, with Erasmus or Du Toit, then it would actually be unlikely for Victor to tell you to grow a beard because he obviously wouldn't know that you were involved in the matter, isn't that so?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MS COLERIDGE: So that possibility we can cancel, that is not even a possibility, is that what you're saying?
MR VAN HEERDEN: How Victor came to it that I must grow a bear, I cannot answer you. It might have come out in the officers meeting that morning, which I was not present and I don't know what was discussed there.
MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS COLERIDGE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Cornelius, do you have any re-examination?
MR CORNELIUS: I have none, thank you Mr Chair.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager, any questions?
JUDGE DE JAGER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Adv Sigodi, any questions?
ADV SIGODI: I have none.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr van Heerden, thank you, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down now.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Mr Chair.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair. I beg leave to call Mr Vermeulen if possible.
