ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Botha.
MR BOTHA: Thank you Mr Chairperson. For the record, Botha appearing on behalf of Snyders. Mr Chairperson, may I respectfully submit that it may be convenient to deal with all three of the applications of Snyders. Thank you Mr Chairperson. I call Mr Snyders then.
PETRUS CASPARIS SNYDERS: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha.
MR BOTHA: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: Mr Snyders, you are the applicant in this matter. You have also submitted your application and compiled it yourself.
MR SNYDERS: That is correct.
MR BOTHA: I refer you to the bundle which is also available to the Committee and that is on page 30 to 35. Do you confirm that this is your Amnesty application with regards to the incident, the attempted murder of Mdo?
MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.
MR BOTHA: Can I refer you to page 31 there, the last sentence on the page and can I just ask you, the actions that you had, was this in line of service, was it on an instruction, or was it independent action?
MR SNYDERS: It was an instruction that I executed Mr Chairperson.
MR BOTHA: At that time you were in the service of the police and you were stationed at Vlakplaas.
MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.
MR BOTHA: What was the reason why you participated in this type of action?
MR SNYDERS: I saw it as my duty, Mr Chairperson. In that time we wanted to resist the onslaught against South Africa and I saw it as my duty as a citizen of this country and also as a police officer of that time, that I had to execute all these instructions.
MR BOTHA: Then I would also like to take you to the last sentence on page 32 of the second paragraph, where you mention your memory.
MR SNYDERS: Mr Chairperson, I was treated for post-traumatic stress after I was released or resigned from the police and after this long period of time and I compiled my application, it may be that some of the details I cannot recall or may be confusing some of them and also those people who were involved, I may be confusing them with others.
MR BOTHA: Then I would like immediately to take you to the incident, the attempted murder of Mdo where you make mention of it. Can you maybe in your own words explain what you can recall of this incident?
MR SNYDERS: Mr Chairperson, I can recall that we were given instructions by Col de Kock who was then a Major in the police, to accompany him to Swaziland. In Swaziland we did the planning in an hotel room to eliminate Mdo because he planned operations from Swaziland and planted bombs in South Africa and also sent certain members across the border to commit crimes against the South African community.
MR BOTHA: If you could just stop there for a moment. Is this the same incident on which Mr Flores testified today?
MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct.
MR BOTHA: While we're dealing with that, do you agree with his evidence in so far your collection goes?
MR SNYDERS: Yes, I do agree with him.
MR BOTHA: You can continue.
MR SNYDERS: Thank you. What I can recall is that he was very late that evening. We drove around in one of the towns in Swaziland. I can recall that it was Manzini. At a later stage we saw a man corresponding with a photo from a photograph album as Mdo. Col de Kock did not want us to act at that stage. We drove back to the hotel and at a later stage we returned to the centre of town. There we saw this man again on the corner of a street next to a vehicle. Flores was ready to eliminate the person, but de Kock suspended the whole operation. We returned to the hotel.
MR BOTHA: Is that what you can recall from the incident?
MR SNYDERS: Yes.
MR MALAN: Just before you continue, were you with de Kock in the vehicle? You were not with Flores in the vehicle?
MR SNYDERS: As far as I can recall, I may be wrong Mr Chairperson, it was myself and Flores in the vehicle.
MR MALAN: Was de Kock in the same vehicle?
MR SNYDERS: What I can recall is that in the first incident before we returned, we saw Mdo first in the street and then we returned to the hotel. De Kock was with me then and I think it was Paul van Dyk as well. The second time, when we drove in to go and look for him, de Kock was in our vehicle.
MR MALAN: It does not correspond with the evidence of the previous applicant.
MR SNYDERS: I may be wrong Mr Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Very well.
ADV SANDI: Where was Mr Labuschagne at that stage?
MR SNYDERS: I did not see Lappies Labuschagne that evening. I saw him the next day and it was also very briefly. Lappies Labuschagne never mingled with us in Swaziland. We never had any connections with him in Swaziland.
MR BOTHA: Then you also stated in your amnesty application...(intervention)
MR MALAN: I'm sorry. I do not know how material this is but Mr Flores said that Labuschagne was with them in the vehicle, do you deny that or dispute that?
MR SNYDERS: I cannot recall that Mr Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Did you tell Mr Botha before that he was not with you in the vehicle, because he did not ask questions to Mr Flores concerning this.
MR SNYDERS: I cannot recall that Labuschagne accompanied us and was in the vehicle.
MR BOTHA: If I can just correct the record here, my instructions are that: "I can recall it so, but it is possible that I can be wrong." I do not want to make an applicant a liar, where my instructions are not very definite.
MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr Botha. You may continue.
MR BOTHA: Thank you Mr Chairperson. You also mentioned that as far as you can recall, you had a specific reason why this elimination would take place and you make mention of jealousy because this is also an aspect that Mr Flores mentioned in his application, what the reason was for the elimination and the suspension of the elimination.
MR SNYDERS: There was a lot of jealousy between the branches. Our group at Vlakplaas experienced jealousy from operators in Easter Transvaal and also from the various branches and there was a certain degree of jealousy. After I heard that the operation was halted, I heard that there was jealousy between the certain branches in the Eastern Transvaal in that the one group wanted to eliminate the others' informant to put them in a bad light and it seems as if a lot of good information came from Lappies Labuschagne, that Dan Greyling did not want it that way and that he wanted to eliminate the informer of Lappies Labuschagne.
MR BOTHA: Apart from the normal remuneration or salary that you received from the police, is there anything else that you received for this action?
MR SNYDERS: No, none at all.
MR BOTHA: You also then ask for amnesty for the conspiracy of murder as well as your involvement in an attempted murder on the so-called Mdo.
MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.
MR BOTHA: If I can refer you to the second bundle. Mr Chairperson I do not know if I'm correct and I'd like to find out what your attitude is concerning this, because of the nature of this application I would like him to confirm it. I do not know if you want him to confirm it or repeat it again. He's willing to do it. It will maybe save some time if we do it differently.
CHAIRPERSON: What incident are you referring to now?
MR BOTHA: Number 8 on the roll, it is the conspiracy to murder on ANC members in Swaziland as well as attempted murder and a possible incident at the Oshoek border post and this is on the Petrus Snyman application page 1 to 12.
CHAIRPERSON: I cannot see the necessity that you now must repeat all the details. Maybe you can just lay the groundwork for these incidents.
MR BOTHA: As it pleases. If we look at these two incidents that you've mentioned in the second bundle, do you confirm that what you've said concerning the first incident, the action, as well as the motive, that this is the same as the first applicants?
MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.
MR BOTHA: Apart from your normal remuneration, you did not receive any other remuneration for this?
MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.
MR BOTHA: And you also compiled it yourself and you also signed it. Do you confirm the contents thereof?
MR SNYDERS: Yes, I do.
MR BOTHA: Concerning the incident itself, conspiracy to murder in Swaziland, do you apply for amnesty concerning conspiracy to murder, is that correct?
MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.
MR BOTHA: As well as the incident where the ambush was established, do you also apply for amnesty concerning the offence, conspiracy to murder, in this incident?
MR SNYDERS: That is correct.
MR BOTHA: Thank you Mr Chairperson, this is all. I can just place on record once again that Mr Snyders is willing to answer any questions if there are certain unclarities.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Botha. Ms Coleridge any questions?
MS COLERIDGE: Yes thank you Chairperson.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: I want to refer to the Mdo incident. You state that the planning was done in the hotel. Can you tell us who was in the hotel when this operation was planned.
MR SNYDERS: There was never a formal planning it was only, what I can recall, it was me and de Kock and I think at some
stage Flores was in the room, but I can't remember if he was, the whole time if he was present.
MS COLERIDGE: And then you stated that at one stage Mdo was standing against his car. In your amnesty application you stated that. Now I want to know, can you remember what kind of car he drove?
MR SNYDERS: No, Chairperson, I cannot.
MS COLERIDGE: Okay and then just the next incident. The ANC members in Swaziland. You stated that van der Merwe and Schoon and de Kock later discussed that matter. Were you present when they discussed that matter?
MR SNYDERS: No we were never present after any of the operations when they discussed it, it was at higher level.
MS COLERIDGE: So how did you know that they discussed that incident?
MR SNYDERS: They came to Vlakplaas and de Kock, only afterwards, said to us that they discussed the matter ...(indistinct)
MS COLERIDGE: And the second incident as well, the ambush. You stated that Schoon and van der Merwe also knew about that incident. How do you know that?
MR SNYDERS: De Kock told us so, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Do you know the need to know principle?
MR SNYDERS: I beg your pardon Chairperson?
MR MALAN: The need to know principle, do you know of that?
MR SNYDERS: Yes.
MR MALAN: Why was it necessary for de Kock to tell you that he discussed it with Schoon and van der Merwe afterwards?
MR SNYDERS: It was in the discussion that it came out. It's not very often that Schoon and van der Merwe visited Vlakplaas. When he was there, when we spoke to de Kock because we did not know if there were new instructions given or if it was concerning previous discussions or instructions, then he would just mention what they discussed. He did not give us the details, but he would just say that the operations were discussed.
MR MALAN: What operations were discussed, as far as you can recall that de Kock told you he discussed it with Schoon and van der Merwe?
MR SNYDERS: Applicable for the cases today he discussed the operations in Swaziland, the Oshoek operation and afterwards he told us about it and then also he mentioned Mdo and that it was discussed with Brig Schoon.
MR MALAN: Thank you. I'd actually like to ask you this. How can you recall that so clearly if you can say that you've got a bad memory because of your post traumatic stress? Here you can recall things which are not very connected to the incident. Why are you saying this, because you are implying people directly or implicating people directly?
MR SNYDERS: Mr Chairperson, at that stage there was friction between myself and de Kock and afterwards I left Vlakplaas and I wanted to ensure that things in which I was involved in, the instructions came from the top.
MR MALAN: Afterwards, or ...?
MR SNYDERS: No at that stage, while I was still there, I wanted to ascertain that because the last few months there was some friction between myself and de Kock.
MR MALAN: But you do not say in here that the instructions came from the top, you said that this was discussed afterwards?
MR SNYDERS: Yes, it was discussed afterwards when Schoon or van der Merwe visited the farm.
MR MALAN: But when I asked you why did you recall that, you said you wanted to ensure that the instructions came from the top.
MR SNYDERS: What I'm saying Mr Chairperson is that I wanted to reconcile myself when Senior Members of Vlakplaas arrived at Vlakplaas, I wanted to find out why they visited Vlakplaas, was it to give me instructions or to receive a report-back.
MR MALAN: And de Kock will then still convey to you what the discussions were about?
MR SNYDERS: Yes, he did and he also took us with concerning certain instructions and he discussed it with us.
MR MALAN: Ms Coleridge, you can continue.
MS COLERIDGE: Thank you. The Komatipoort incident, who packed the explosives into the kombi?
MR SNYDERS: I was never present Mr Chairman, when the kombi was what we call rigged up for this incident, but I saw the kombi once at the technical department and I saw some photos of the kombi as well and then it was sent through to actually Mozambique, but it should have come back through Swaziland.
MS COLERIDGE: When did you see it at the technical department?
MR SNYDERS: Before the incident, before they sent it through to Mozambique.
MS COLERIDGE: And this Kellerman that you speak of, who is this Kellerman?
MR SNYDERS: I beg your pardon?
MS COLERIDGE: You speak of a Kellerman that knew of this incident. I just need to know from you, which Kellerman are you talking about?
MR SNYDERS: Kellerman, that was one of the offices involved in the, I don't know if he was present when the vehicle was packed with explosives, but he was the one who accompanied us to the border with ...(indistinct) and we came back later, on a later stage, to activate the explosives in the kombi. We didn't know if this kombi was still in Swaziland or if it was in Mozambique, so they were afraid that if the kombi comes back, there was a very faint chance that it might be activated with any radio signal, so they wanted to activate it while it was still outside of South Africa and we went back with him.
MS COLERIDGE: So could you activate the bomb from for instance from a distance, like for instance from Komatipoort?
MR SNYDERS: Ja. What happened Chairperson is that there was a receiver built into this kombi and it could have been activated from a distance, so that's why we took a chopper and late that night, we went up above Komatipoort onto a height that was suitable for us to have a clear view on Mozambique and Maputo and then they tried to activate this bomb and we would have been in a position to see if the bomb exploded in Maputo because we were very high and it was dark, so if there was an explosion, we could have seen it in the night, but nothing happened.
MS COLERIDGE: So according to your knowledge to date, you don't know whether the bomb had exploded?
MR SNYDERS: No, we never heard about the bomb ever again, Chairperson.
MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS COLERIDGE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Coleridge, Mr Cornelius have you got anything?
MR CORNELIUS: Only two matters, thank you Mr Chair.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: You will not dispute Mr Flores' evidence that Mr Labuschagne stopped him twice in carrying out the operation.
MR SNYDERS: I cannot dispute that, no.
MR CORNELIUS: And then the last aspect that I'd like to clarify and this is concerning the political motive, this whole issue concerning the jealousy between Greyling and Labuschagne, this only came out at a later stage, after the operation was suspended, so your motive when you planned to execute the operation, you believed that you were going to act against an active ANC member?
MR SNYDERS: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And that was your whole motive?
MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Has the Panel got any other questions before Mr ...
ADV SANDI: No questions from me, thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.
MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I've just got one question for the applicant in relation to his post-traumatic stress syndrome.
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly Ms Coleridge.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Mr Snyders, when were you diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome?
MR SNYDERS: I think the month was August 1993, Chairperson.
MS COLERIDGE: And do you recall your psychologist or psychiatrist's name?
MR SNYDERS: Yes, that was doctor Cheryl
MS COLERIDGE: Was he a psychiatrist or ...?
MR SNYDERS: Psychiatrist.
MS COLERIDGE: Then just a last question. Was your testing, was it done via testings, or was it done via consultation only?
MR SNYDERS: I visited my GP and he referred me to Dr Cheryl who did some tests on a three week period in the Sandton Clinic. They diagnosed it at first and then he put me on sleep therapy for about three weeks.
MS COLERIDGE: What I mean by testing is, there are certain forms that you complete, did you complete those forms or was it just via consultation that the analysis was ...
MR SNYDERS: I completed the forms, Chairperson.
MS COLERIDGE: And who is in possession of those forms?
MR SNYDERS: I think the Doctor might still have one of those and I think the police might also still have some of those forms.
MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS COLERIDGE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Botha, re-examination?
MR BOTHA: No re-examination, thank you Mr Chair.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Snyders, thank you. You are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Is that the case for the applicant, Mr Botha?
MR BOTHA: Indeed, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You're not presenting any evidence, Ms Coleridge?
MS COLERIDGE: No, thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Cornelius, then we'll come back to you. Will you deal with your matters?
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Chair.
MR CORNELIUS IN ARGUMENT: Chair, it is my submission that my client's application complies with Section 20(1)(a) of the Act in that it complied with all the formal requirements of the Act. Secondly, it is also my submission that he's an applicant in terms of Section 20(2)(b) and as far as any doubt that there might be regarding the Church arson, also an applicant in terms of Section 20(2)(f), for the implied authority.
He at all times acted as far as Section 20(2)(b) is concerned in the course and scope of his duties within his line of authority against a political struggle. There can be no doubt about that. He also acted bona fide as far as both incidents are concerned with the object of resisting the struggle, within his belief as a supporter of the National Party.
Furthermore it is clear that he did not act for personal gain, he only received his salary and there was no person malice, ill will, or spite.
There can be no doubt that he made a full disclosure as far as it was within his knowledge, so I submit that he's entitled to be granted amnesty as prayed in both incidents.
Just to elaborate on that, as far as the Mdo assassination amount, it would be a conspiracy to commit murder. I don't think I can take it further than that and as far as the Witbank Church is concerned, it will obviously be arson. It's quite clearly breaking and entering as well to a certain extent and then malicious damage to property and all delicts flowing from both instances out of the matters.
That is my full application. Is there anything specific Judge, Members, that you'd like to hear me on?
CHAIRPERSON: No, thank you Mr Cornelius. I'll go down the line. Mr Rossouw.
MR ROSSOUW IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, as far as the application of Mr Mosiane is concerned, relating to the Witbank Church hall, I submit that he's complied with all requirements of the Act, formal requirements, Section 20(1) and then Section 20(2)(b) would cover him as an employee of the State. In the course and scope of his duties you've heard that he was not in a position to question the instructions given to him and Mr Chairman, from your experience, I would submit that you know the askaris were not ever in the position to question instructions given by their masters. Mr Chairman, and
that under the circumstances they carried out those instructions against a member or supporter of an organisation or movement who was in opposition to the State and they were bona fide in carrying that out, so I submit that he would be covered by Section 20(2)(b), Mr Chairman, in respect of both applications.
Then Mr Chairman, as far as his full disclosure is concerned, I submit that in the Witbank Church incident, he has told you everything in detail as to what he's done and his part in the actual attack that took place. Mr Chairman, the two aspects on which, or rather only one aspect on which there could be some conflict with the testimony by Mr Flores relating to the petrol bombs and the plastic container, Mr Chairman, I would submit that that's no real conflict, especially if you take into consideration that there was a huge group involved and Mr Flores conceded that an applicant, Mosiane, might not have been involved in the planning and also the surveillance that was done, so how it was actually carried out, Flores would not know, because he was not present, so I would submit there's scope for both versions in that respect.
Mr Chairman, then he obviously did not act in personal malice. You heard that he didn't even know where this premises was and he only followed the Security Branch people who showed it to them.
So Mr Chairman, I would respect of that incident, this Committee can be satisfied that he's complied with all the requirements of the Act and I would ask that amnesty be granted to him for arson and malicious damage to property in respect of the Witbank Church hall.
Mr Chairman, relating to the arson attack on the house of the Trade Unionist, Mr Chairman, the same goes as far as the formal requirements of the Act are concerned. The only aspect which I need to deal with, two aspects, are the full disclosure and secondly the offences that he's applying for.
As far as full disclosure is concerned, Mr Chairman, this applicant is not in a position to give you the name. He's told you that he was not informed of that at the time when the attack took place, at specific questions by Adv Sandi.
Mr Chairman, I would submit that various identification to the extent that it was pin-pointed to a Trade Unionist, who actually had a specific car, of which he gave you the description. So Mr Chairman, I would submit that in your decision, should you favourably consider granting him amnesty, it can be identified to the point of that Trade Unionist who had that specific motor vehicle, Mr Chairman. He was also not placed in possession of the registration number of that vehicle.
Mr Chairman, the offences for which he would be applying for amnesty would be arson and then malicious damage to property, also in respect of the house. Mr Chairman, I considered asking for attempted murder, but I would submit that there is no evidence to support that. I think that was cleared up sufficiently. It might have been negligent of him not to foresee that there might have been people in the house, but that's a different question Mr Chairman, so I would submit that those two instances, you can be satisfied that he's satisfied all the requirements of the Act and I would ask the Committee to grant him amnesty for those offences.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rossouw. Mr Botha.
MR BOTHA IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Regarding the formal requirements of the Act, I respectfully submit that the application of Snyders complies with those formal requirements. Regarding the Mdo incident, I can just agree with my Learned Friend Cornelius's argument presented to this Committee. Then regarding all three of the applications of Mr Snyders, I respectfully submit that it's clear that he acted while in the employ of the State within the course and scope of his duties and also the instructions of his Commander at all relevant times. It's also clear from the application that it was not for any personal benefit or gain.
Mr Chairperson, regarding full disclosure, I would just like to mention that there may be certain contradictions between the evidence of Snyders and also the evidence of Flores, but I would submit that that's an indication that to the best of his ability, he's disclosing what he can remember of this incident. I submit that if he wanted to tell lies to this Amnesty Committee, it would have been very easy for him knowing what Flores said and not the specific information contained in his application in writing, it would have been easy for him to lie in order to corroborate Flores's evidence. He however decided to testify to the best of his memory and even if it contradicted, to a certain extent, the evidence of Flores. I respectfully submit that the case is made out on which amnesty may be granted on all three applications for Snyders and I would like to ask the Committee to consider giving amnesty on number five, the Mdo incident, on the charge of a conspiracy to commit murder and also attempted murder and also on the second incident, conspiracy to murder in Swaziland. Nine, I would also like to request amnesty on a charge of conspiracy to murder and also attempted murder. That will be my argument.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Botha. Ms Coleridge, have you got any submissions?
MS COLERIDGE IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson. I was only mandated to act on behalf of the Witbank Church
through Mr Rodrigues, Chairperson. As we have submitted, that we do not oppose the application, just one submission to make is just actually thanking Mr Flores for his willingness, in a spirit of reconciliation in resolving issues with the community in Witbank, Chairperson. We wish to thank his willingness in that regard and the rest of the other applications, Chairperson, I shall leave the decision in the Honourable Committee's hands. Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Coleridge. Yes, I can't see that you would have anything else you would want to add in the light of that submission.
MR CORNELIUS: I don't thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. That concludes the applications before us. The Committee will take time to consider the applications and to formulate their decision on these matters and will endeavour to produce a decision as soon as the circumstances permit us to do so, but for the moment the decisions will be reserved. Once they are available we will notify all of the parties with an interest in the matter.
Mr Cornelius does that take care of your matters before us?
MR CORNELIUS: I have concluded, thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And Mr Botha?
MR BOTHA: The same applies to me.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well we know Mr Rossouw is still around. Well we thank you for your assistance. We appreciate it and then you're excused.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Chair.
MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, that concludes the matters for today. We will commence tomorrow with the applications of Eugene Fourie, Isak Bosch, Willem Nortje and possibly Moerdyk, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. What time do you suggest we convene?
MS COLERIDGE: 9 o'clock or 9.30. I'm in your hands, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We'll adjourn the proceedings at this stage and we will reconvene here tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
