CHAIRMAN: Mr Visser, you were about to call Mr Van Dyk.
ADV VISSER: Van Dyk.
CHAIRMAN: Yes. We are trying to see whether we cannot finish taking evidence today of all the witnesses.
ADV VISSER: Yes. Mr Chairman, perhaps I should give you an indication. Mr Van Dyk will testify inter alia about the tape recorder, then we have Mr Dreyer and Mr Swarts who will testify in regard, specifically to the issue of the inquest and at that stage, we would have reached the point where none of the other witnesses would be able to contribute anything new.
As we told you at the outset Mr Chairman, we will then make those witnesses available, but bearing that in mind, it really is three witnesses to go during the course of the day, we may be able to finish early Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, the inquest in not a great violation. He could confirm his application.
ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, if you want to take that route, we certainly could save more time because that would cut out two further witnesses, then this would really be the last witness which can materially assist you as far as any of the facts are concerned.
ADV DE JAGER: I am not suggesting that they shouldn't come and confirm under oath, they must be available.
ADV VISSER: No, I accepted that that is what you meant, each of them will come and confirm under oath obviously, but the point being that it wouldn't be necessary for me to lead evidence from them fully as we have done so far, Mr Chairman.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Visser, I thought that that is the route you had already taken in view of the fact that indeed you have not led any evidence in respect of the two other incidents for which amnesty is being sought by Mr Erwee, in view of the fact that it is a non-gross violation of human rights and we don't need to really have evidence orally led before the Committee?
ADV VISSER: Indeed Mr Chairman, that is correct. There was a suggestion from my learned friend, Mr Rodney Black at one stage, that perhaps while Mr Erwee and some of the others perhaps may be here, may be present, that it may be as well to take evidence on that score as well. He later than informed us that apparently he had spoken to members of the Committee and who had felt that it wouldn't be necessary, but as you correctly point out, it is a matter which can be dealt with administratively and they can confirm.
The only point about that Mr Chairman is that Erwee hasn't confirmed his application in that regard and it may be necessary just to call him back to do that. If you want to deal with it administratively.
CHAIRMAN: I am not so sure that we should call him back. You see I must confess that Mr Black phoned me about those other matters and I think it was the end of last week and I said to him you know, if once we tried to hear evidence about those other applications, it is too late now, we are going to run into problems.
We haven't informed COSATU, we haven't informed other people who is also going to be brought in, once we bring that in, we are going to run into other difficulties, which may prevent the hearing from taking place and perhaps maybe we should just leave it there.
ADV VISSER: It certainly seems to be the pragmatic approach Mr Chairman, we agree with that. Mr Van Dyk, you have not been sworn in yet.
JOHANNES HENDRIK VAN DYK: (sworn states)
CHAIRMAN: Mr Visser, we have gone so many times, we have travelled so many times from Pietersburg to Alldays, we virtually know the road off by hard.
EXAMINATION BY ADV VISSER: I take that to be a suggestion that I must move it, Mr Chairman? Mr Van Dyk, you have heard that we must now push it a little bit.
You have also lodged an amnesty application for certain offences which you may have committed or which may be found that you have committed on the 10th of July, on the Beslau/Alldays road and you have the application form in front of you. Have you read it and is the information contained therein, correct?
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
ADV VISSER: You have incorporated into your application, a reference to the submission of the Foundation for Equality before the Law and of General Van der Velde Van der Merwe's submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
And you will also refer to Erwee's statement relating to the facts of the matter, do you agree in principle with those facts as set out in his application and as he testified about it here?
MR VAN DYK: Correct.
ADV VISSER: Also, additionally on page 96, in paragraph 9(a)(iv), the last sentence of that you say I also attested to the statement of Andries Erwee, knowing that he committed perjury.
Now, it is so that you administered the oath for an affidavit, made by Erwee and that is to be found on page 16 of C. We have already clarified that point with you that it is your signature, you may just confirm it again under oath.
MR VAN DYK: Yes, I confirm it is my signature.
ADV VISSER: And according to the oath administered at the bottom there, it was on the 11th of July 1986? What did you mean Mr Van Dyk when you said that you administered the oath knowing that he was committing perjury?
MR VAN DYK: When I wrote these words that he committed perjury, I didn't have the statement in front of me. I couldn't remember exactly what was said in the statement, I would rather say that I was aware of the fact that he had made a reasonably watered down version in the statement.
To use the word perjury, well I was unaware of exactly what was said in the statement, I would like to replace it with a more watered down statement which could possibly give rise to perjury.
ADV DE JAGER: It wasn't the full truth which he said in that statement?
MR VAN DYK: If I said that I remember the whole statement, I wouldn't be speaking the truth. At the time that I administered the oath, to say that it isn't the full truth, would be correct.
ADV VISSER: We have already received an indication from the Committee that we shouldn't lead evidence on that. Would you then immediately proceed and tell the members of the Committee about how you became involved in the events which took place on the 10th of July?
My Attorney tells me that I didn't understand what you have just said. Is the idea that we can leave the run up to the scene and just start with the actual incident?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
ADV VISSER: I am a bit slow this morning, pardon me. Mr Van Dyk, on the 10th of July, please tell us where were you on that day and what did you do?
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, if I could start with the specific scene. I wouldn't start with where we got up and got dressed and so on.
My position on that day was in the river bed, in a sandy ditch. Please could you refer to Exhibit C.
ADV VISSER: Would you please look at Exhibit C, it is a sketch, more or less to the points of a compass which indicates a road and two combi's and a sandy ditch.
Can you indicate on Exhibit C where you were placed?
MR VAN DYK: I was placed in the river bed. It is north on this map, there are three little dots there, about 30, 40 metres from where the path crosses the river bed and according to this map, in a northerly direction.
ADV VISSER: Who was with you in the river bed?
MR VAN DYK: Piet Dreyer, Joop Venter and I think Johan Bressler.
ADV VISSER: That is one of the people who did not apply for amnesty?
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
ADV VISSER: And what was the purpose why you were there?
MR VAN DYK: We were there for the eventuality, should the combi stop and people jumped out of the combi, to try and stop them to escape, because the only possible escape route would according to this map, be in a northerly direction into the river bed, because in front of them would be the casspir, to the right was a game fence which they couldn't penetrate, that is to the south, so if they tried to escape in that direction, we would arrest them.
ADV VISSER: What was your impression, or let me put it this way, according to your understanding of the instructions which you had to carry out on that day, relating to the people in the combi, how did you understand it?
MR VAN DYK: My understanding was that we had to arrest these people, but if they should resist and fire at us, that we should fire back.
ADV VISSER: Now, the combi arrived - can you tell us what you observed?
MR VAN DYK: If I could start with where the combi came to a halt in the sandy ditch. The combi as was already testified, didn't stop quite where it was supposed to, but a little bit onwards, I saw it stop.
And what I could see of the combi was only the rear part of it, I couldn't see the entire minibus. When I say bus or combi, it is the same thing.
ADV VISSER: How much of the rear part of the vehicle could you in fact see from where you were laying?
MR VAN DYK: If I have to estimate, it would be about the rear portion and nine or twelve inches forward.
ADV VISSER: So it is actually a small piece of the combi that you could see protruding from behind the bank?
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
ADV VISSER: So, after it stopped what happened?
MR VAN DYK: Well, before it stopped entirely, Matthews jumped out. I didn't see him jump out, but when the combi moved forward, I saw that Matthews appeared and he was still falling over his feet a bit, trying to regain his balance.
At that stage the Defence Force man ran passed him, or perhaps it was earlier on. He came passed there and threw the smoke or gas grenade into the combi.
Matthews, or the Defence Force man said to Matthews, he pushed him into the direction of the fence. He took Matthews and pushed him in the direction of the fence, he then ran back into the bush, this Defence Force man, back to where he had come from and where he was concealed, in a southerly direction.
I heard a shot, a single shot. Before the shot, I heard this cry or shout, which one of the witnesses referred, it was in a Black language and I don't understand any Black languages.
ADV VISSER: That is the swear word to which he referred?
MR VAN DYK: I understand that it is a swear word.
ADV VISSER: It was something like (indistinct)
MR VAN DYK: Yes, I remember the (indistinct), I don't quite know how you pronounce it and that was before the shot rang out, if I remember correctly.
Afterwards there was a short volley which I heard. I deduced that it came from the combi.
ADV VISSER: Why did you make that deduction?
MR VAN DYK: Because it was automatic gun fire and our instructions were very clear, not to use automatic gun fire, it would be too dangerous.
ADV VISSER: What were you armed with?
MR VAN DYK: I was armed with my official R1 issue and my pistol.
ADV VISSER: So you heard this volley, what happened next?
MR VAN DYK: Then there was a lot of shooting, fire fight took place for quite a while, seconds, not minutes.
And it then stopped.
ADV VISSER: Did you hear anybody shout seize fire or not?
MR VAN DYK: No, I didn't hear anybody do that.
ADV VISSER: Mr Van Dyk, did you fire a shot that day?
MR VAN DYK: No, I didn't fire a shot.
ADV VISSER: And the reason is because you couldn't see the combi?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct. I couldn't see the combi.
ADV VISSER: Now, who laid on the extreme right if you were looking at the combi?
MR VAN DYK: I laid on the extreme right.
ADV VISSER: So the people laying next to you towards the left, would be able to see even less of the combi, is that correct?
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
ADV VISSER: Do you know whether any of them fired any shots?
MR VAN DYK: I know that they fired no shots. Yes, that is correct.
ADV VISSER: The people in the casspir say that they can't say, but do you know whether the Defence Force people on the bank, whether they fired any shots or can't you tell us?
MR VAN DYK: I can't tell you.
ADV VISSER: I am afraid we can't place that evidence before you Chairperson, we don't know. Mr Van Dyk, after everything became quiet, there was gas and smoke, what did you do, did you run away?
MR VAN DYK: No, the gas didn't come in our direction, it went in an easterly or maybe north easterly direction. I saw that there was consternation and I ran into the bush in an easterly direction, because I heard people coughing and spluttering in the bush and I was worried, I was trying to find out what was going on.
After I moved east, I then turned south into the bush and emerged on the other side of the casspir in the road and I saw Colonel Erwee running down the road, the gas had overwhelmed him.
ADV VISSER: That is Erwee?
MR VAN DYK: Yes. I then returned to the bush, I saw Swarts where he was also struggling to breath.
ADV VISSER: Where was he?
MR VAN DYK: He was in the bush. From the casspir he ran into the bush in a northerly direction. I then returned to my position.
I saw the combi standing there and I approached or I walked in the direction of the combi, but along the bank in the river, as far as the road. That is to the west of the combi and that is where I stopped.
I then waited for the explosive experts to first secure the vehicle, because my instructions from Erwee at that date was, should there be any interrogation, I would have to do the interrogation, or at least be present during the questioning because I had to compile a written report about the whole incident afterwards and send it to Head Office.
ADV VISSER: Was that your instructions given to you prior to the incident?
MR VAN DYK: Yes. Yes, so I had to make sure exactly what had happened at the scene and especially during questioning. Should there be any questioning, I had to be present so that I could take down all the necessary information for my report.
ADV VISSER: So you waited there for a while and then Erwee and the other people came down and the people would have been taken out of the combi, could you take it from there please?
What did you do then?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct. When Colonel Erwee picked up the wounded from the ground, I immediately ran to go and assist him to carry the person into the river bed.
ADV VISSER: So you were the person who helped him, because he couldn't remember who it was?
MR VAN DYK: Yes. We carried him for about 20 metres in a northerly direction in the river bed, and as has already been testified, we placed him on his back.
Mr Erwee tried to make him as comfortable as possible. I went and sat at the person's head, between Erwee and Fuchs, I sat right at his head. If he was laying in front of me and this was his head, I sat right at his head. I think Mr Fuchs was on my right and Mr Erwee on my left.
There were other people standing around us during the interrogation and I saw that the person was severely injured, that he was full of blood and I had a tape recorder, the tape recording advice. I have an example here with me, it is about the same type of this, a very small machine which has a built in microphone.
We often use this to tape interviews with informers or did questioning to be able to get the information on tape for later use.
ADV VISSER: What was said there, was taped on this tape recorder?
MR VAN DYK: Yes. The tape recorder was also with me in the sand where I was. We dug a sand wall and I put this machine on top of the sand bank, I put it on a hat or a handkerchief during the incident. When the combi came driving along, my tape recorder was on from the first or the second whistle and the whole incident was recorded on the tape recorder, shots and everything would have been recorded on it and everything said during the conversation or the questioning, I also recorded on tape.
And I also saw the person receiving an injection, I can't remember where on his body.
ADV VISSER: Was it your impression that the person would survive if he got medical treatment or what was your impression?
MR VAN DYK: No, I thought the person was dying.
ADV VISSER: Now, the person stopped talking, that is according to Mr Fuchs and Mr Erwee and he was then carried to a vehicle to be transported to Alldays.
Do you know who carried him, did you help carrying him?
MR VAN DYK: No, I can't remember that I carried him again.
ADV VISSER: When he was carried away from the sand where he had been laying and where the questioning took place, was he still alive or had he already died?
MR VAN DYK: When he was picked up by Captain Erwee, he was still alive. I walked with them in the direction of the bakkie where they were going to load him into the bakkie.
I moved along with Mr Erwee for some of the distance, when he was picked up he was still alive, I don't know if he was still alive when he was put into the bakkie.
ADV VISSER: Did you see anybody harming this person after the shooting and after you had carried him to this point in the river bed, 20 metres in a northerly direction from the road? Did you see anybody harming him in any way?
MR VAN DYK: No Chairperson, I saw nobody harming him in any way.
ADV VISSER: Did you see more specifically See Tokkie Fuchs shooting him with a pistol in the chest?
MR VAN DYK: No Chairperson.
ADV VISSER: Mr Van Dyk, you were an Officer at that time, what was your rank?
MR VAN DYK: I was a Lieutenant.
ADV VISSER: If such a thing had happened, what would you have done? If Mr Fuchs had shot the man right in front of you, what would you have done?
MR VAN DYK: I would have been extremely shocked.
ADV VISSER: Yes, and afterwards, would you have left the matter there?
MR VAN DYK: No, I wouldn't have left it there. No definitely not. I would firstly have asked him why did he do it.
ADV VISSER: Yes, but after that, officially?
MR VAN DYK: I would have reported it to my seniors.
ADV VISSER: And you never made such a report to your seniors?
MR VAN DYK: No.
ADV DE JAGER: Wouldn't you have rather thought that you should protect him?
MR VAN DYK: No, I wouldn't have thought that.
ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't there a good relationship, a brotherhood between all of you as Security men and that you felt that you should protect each other?
MR VAN DYK: At that stage I had only been at Pietersburg for 18 months. I knew Fuchs fairly well, but I didn't know him that well. We didn't work in the same Unit. I doubt if there was any fraternal feelings.
ADV DE JAGER: Let me put it very directly, we have had a lot of evidence from Security police as to how they protected each other, how they for instance prevented some of their members being prosecuted and charged.
Was this not the case here at all, why would it be different here than in other Security Branches?
MR VAN DYK: I was never involved in such a case where I had to protect somebody. On the contrary, in this incident I would not have considered it at all.
CHAIRMAN: But perhaps you should be careful about that, earlier on you had just testified as to how you certified a document, knowing that your colleague was lying? You didn't report him to your seniors, you protected him, didn't you?
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, he hadn't killed anybody.
CHAIRMAN: It doesn't matter, but the fact is you knew that he was making an affidavit in which he was laying and you didn't go to your seniors and say Erwee asked me to certify an affidavit where he knows that he is laying, you didn't do it?
Isn't that so?
MR VAN DYK: I don't deny that. I did attest to that statement, do you expect me to give an explanation?
CHAIRMAN: Yes, I am just putting this question to you, because to an answer raised by Mr De Jager, you say or you give the impression that you would never have colluded with your colleagues to cover them or something like that.
And I am saying to you, you should be careful with that answer of yours because you have already a few minutes ago confessed to us that you did in fact collaborate with one of your colleagues, and you didn't report him to your seniors.
MR VAN DYK: May I comment?
CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes, certainly.
MR VAN DYK: If it pleases your Chairperson, I think the reason as set out by Captain Erwee in his application, I think he gave a written explanation to you and I associate myself with that.
I don't think we can really link up these two incidents. The one the conspiracy, the collusion between myself and Erwee was to protect other colleagues' lives, it is not to keep them out of prison.
CHAIRMAN: Just repeat your answer.
MR VAN DYK: The collusion between Erwee and myself to which you refer, was to save the lives or protect the lives of our other colleagues and an informer, it wasn't to conceal crime or to keep somebody out of prison.
CHAIRMAN: The difference is the matter of the protection Mr Van Dyk, but at any rate you have made your point. Mr Visser?
ADV VISSER: The one case there was the administering of the oath with the statement and in the other case there was murder?
MR VAN DYK: Correct.
ADV VISSER: Mr Van Dyk, let us turn to this tape recorder or the tape recording. You are currently still in the police, is that correct?
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
ADV VISSER: What is your rank?
MR VAN DYK: I am a Superintendent.
ADV VISSER: And what is the scope of your duties?
MR VAN DYK: I am the Project Administrator of the Detective Branch for this Province.
ADV VISSER: Adv De Jager put an example to Mr Fuchs as to what would happen, or what would you do with a tape recorder if you have taken down a confession from somebody and you have recorded it on tape. This person is for instance accused of murder and he says, yes, I have done it and he pleads guilty and this is recorded on tape, what would the procedure then be in such a case?
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, just cut me short if I elaborate too much. We have a component in the police which we call the Technical Support Services, it has had various names in the past, but they deal with technical things such as equipment, tape recorders, electronic equipment and cassettes and when you wanted to preserve such a tape, it would be sealed by these people, and numbered, it would be written down in a register and they would store it and protect it.
ADV VISSER: Now, if you knew beforehand that you were going to have an interview which would later have to be used as evidential material in a court, how would you then proceed with your tape recorder and what about the cassette itself?
MR VAN DYK: If you refer to the cassette, the instruction would be that you would have to take a brand new tape and that there should be nothing else on that tape, other than that which you want to record on it.
In other words you mustn't tape that interview and then other things, that must be the only thing on the tape and then afterwards you would hand over the tape and the procedure as I've mentioned would take place, it would be sealed and kept in safe custody.
ADV VISSER: Now, what was the circumstances surrounding the tape recording you made on that day?
MR VAN DYK: The purpose of the tape recording was to refresh my memory later when I had to write my report for Head Office.
I could then perhaps listen to the tape again, refresh my memory and then have all the facts proper and correct on the report.
ADV VISSER: Or if the people were arrested, what then?
MR VAN DYK: Well, if they were arrested, we would have interrogated each one of them, especially the Commanders to be able to extract tactical information as soon as possible.
ADV VISSER: And you would have taped that?
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
ADV VISSER: And you would have played that back later and placed the information in your report for Head Office?
MR VAN DYK: Correct.
ADV VISSER: You did listen to this tape later?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct. I think I listened to it twice or three times.
ADV VISSER: Was there a sensational element attached to this tape?
MR VAN DYK: No, there was no sensation attached to it at all. Other members found the tape sensational and there were other members who also listened to the tape? I can't remember who, I think quite a number of them listened to the tape.
And I know some of them made copies of the tape, I don't know who they were, but there were people who came to me and said they wanted copies of the tape. Why they did that, I don't know. Most probably because they found it sensational. I didn't find it sensational.
ADV VISSER: After the events of the 10th of July 1986, how long did you keep this cassette in tact, if I may put it that way? Not sealed and in a safe, but how long did you keep it in safe custody yourself without re-taping something else over it?
MR VAN DYK: I would have to speculate here as far as specific periods of time are concerned, but it would have been a couple of months.
ADV VISSER: I am sorry I didn't hear your last answer?
MR VAN DYK: I can't give a specific time, because I would speculate, but a couple of months definitely.
ADV VISSER: I am trying to check something here - did you destroy the tape by taping over it before or after the inquest had been finalised?
Can you perhaps remember?
MR VAN DYK: No, not at all. I don't know how long these inquests took, I really wouldn't be able to say.
ADV VISSER: As far as the sound which was on the tape, apart from the so-called sensational element thereof, I see Chairperson on page 13, that the inquest was finalised on the 26th of September 1986, and according to the signature Magistrate Swart, would you have kept this tape after September 1986 or for a shorter period of time?
MR VAN DYK: I can't remember.
ADV VISSER: What exactly was on this tape which would have caused anybody to want to hang onto this tape, apart from what you mentioned, the sensational aspect of it?
MR VAN DYK: Nothing.
ADV VISSER: It could be put to you that there was a shot audible on that tape when Tokkie Fuchs shot this wounded person. Would that be true if such a suggestion was to be made to you?
MR VAN DYK: No, no, that would not be true.
ADV VISSER: You then drafted a report for Head Office?
MR VAN DYK: Correct.
ADV VISSER: In that report facts were watered down as Mr Erwee said in respect of the inquest or what was the position?
MR VAN DYK: No, it was a full and complete report. It was also my task to number the bodies at the Alldays police station and to check the identity books etc, found on the bodies and also go through and make lists of all the clothes and bags and everything which they had in their possession, except for the explosives.
That was given to the explosives experts, but all the other clothing and apparel which they had with them, I made a list of. And as far as I could connect it with a specific body, it was done.
If I could say, each body was numbered and each body - there were five of these identity books and each ID book which was found at a particular body, was then linked with that body. I don't remember whether some of the ID books were found in the pockets or found on the bodies and I can't remember all the equipment, but there was a complete list which I compiled and I sent it along with my report to Security Head Quarters.
ADV VISSER: Was there any reaction from the Security Head Quarters to your report which gave rise to any further requests to give attention to the matter?
MR VAN DYK: Nothing, no.
ADV VISSER: Was it necessary for you to use your tape recording for purposes of drafting your report?
MR VAN DYK: I believe that I would have listened to the tape recording before writing the report. I know I listened to it twice or three times, not more than that, just to make sure of what had been said on the tape and to make sure that nothing had slipped my memory.
It is very likely that I listened to it before writing the report.
ADV VISSER: Now, the six insurgents were killed, the inquest was held at some stage. Was there any reason why you would then thereafter keep the tape?
MR VAN DYK: No.
ADV VISSER: If that tape was here today and it could be played here, what would you say would appear from it? Would anything appear from it which would be in conflict with what these applicants have told the Committee or do you think it would have been in line with what they have said?
MR VAN DYK: I believe the tape would have been a very good version of what was said here. In fact over the past couple of days I have taken trouble to find out whether there isn't perhaps a copy of this tape available, but I couldn't find one.
If one could be played, I think it would corroborate what was said here, especially what was said by Mr Erwee.
ADV VISSER: During tea time you mentioned to us that there is also something else which you've now remembered and you want to make a further enquiry to see whether you can find a copy of the tape and you are still intending to do that?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct.
ADV VISSER: Did you keep a copy of this report which you sent to Head Office?
MR VAN DYK: I didn't keep a copy in my own possession. The procedure at the time was that reports were filed in files and I can't keep copies of all my files with me, so it was simply filed as was proper procedure, I don't know where it is now.
ADV VISSER: Is that report possibly still available somewhere?
MR VAN DYK: I really don't know. I really don't know where that file could be found. And if it could be found, the report would be in it.
ADV DE JAGER: Didn't you receive instructions to destroy all the files at some stage?
MR VAN DYK: I heard that there were such instructions, I don't know whether I was still a member of the Security Branch, I personally didn't destroy any files.
ADV VISSER: Apart from the attestation of the affidavit of Mr Erwee, is it your view that you did anything wrong during events of the 10th of July 1986?
MR VAN DYK: In respect of the 10th of July Mr Visser, I didn't do anything wrong.
ADV VISSER: Would you motivate why you nevertheless decided to apply for amnesty?
MR VAN DYK: After Colonel Erwee phoned me in November last year and told me that he had become aware of an investigation which had been launched by the Attorney General into this incident, even then I said to him that I hadn't done anything wrong and I couldn't see why I should apply for amnesty.
He then told me that I should be aware of the fact that they also were investigating the fact that I administered the oath when he made a statement in front of me and that the statement wasn't entirely true and that that could amount to defeating the ends of justice.
I spoke to many people about this and I received advice and also arising from press statements and things said by Bishop Tutu, namely that should there be any doubt as to whether we had committed any offence, we should apply for amnesty, and that made me feel that I should apply for amnesty for any offence which I might have committed in the execution of our orders.
ADV VISSER: Mr Van Dyk, in consultation with you I didn't cover this aspect with you, but in view of the fact that we possibly will not call Mr Dreyer or Mr Swarts, I just want to ask you do you know anything about the following up of the identity books and what the results of that were?
MR VAN DYK: I didn't personally follow it up. I think that Swarts or Dreyer did it. I know that those ID books, although they contained photographs of the deceased, were falsified books, they were forgeries.
ADV VISSER: Yes. So, that would be the explanation as to why only three could be identified at the end of the day and that was on the basis of finger prints?
MR VAN DYK: Correct yes. The ID books had no identification value.
ADV VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV VISSER: .
CHAIRMAN: Mr Rossouw?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van Dyk, I have only one question. You listened to Mr Sehlwana's evidence that a shot was indeed fired by Mr Fuchs. Can you possibly give any explanation why he would have fabricated such a story?
MR VAN DYK: I really don't know, because it did not happen?
MR ROSSOUW: The question is can you think of any reason why he did so?
MR VAN DYK: I can't think of any reason.
MR ROSSOUW: I have nothing further Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW: .
CHAIRMAN: Mr Black?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Thank you. Just to start off, after the hand grenade you say you saw, you clearly saw the hand grenade being thrown into the vehicle. Not - sorry, the teargas grenade, being thrown into the vehicle, is that correct?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct Chairperson.
MR BLACK: And subsequent to that, you actually heard and you saw how it effected Mr Erwee and I think you said Swarts who were outside the combi vehicle. They in fact were so badly effected that they were running away and coughing?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct.
MR BLACK: How long after the grenade being thrown in, did you see them, was it a matter of seconds, minutes did you see them running?
MR VAN DYK: About a minute I would guess. A minute and a half.
MR BLACK: Okay. Can I deduce from that that these grenades are very effective within a very short space of time?
MR VAN DYK: I would accept that.
MR BLACK: So the occupants of the combi must have been obviously more severely effected and with almost within seconds of the grenade landing in the combi, would you agree with that?
MR VAN DYK: No, not in total. The teargas has a different effect on different people. I have seen in my career people walking up to a teargas grenade, where they have picked it up and thrown it back to the police.
I myself are heavily effected by teargas, but some people are not that severely effected. It is a burning thing, it is a powder that burns and you would have people actually picking it up and throwing it back at the police not effected at all.
MR BLACK: Okay, without getting into the medical aspects of it, would you agree with me, you must agree with me obviously that the occupants of the combi, would have been, should they been susceptible to being effected by teargas, would have been effected within seconds of the grenade being thrown into the combi?
MR VAN DYK: That was the purpose of the gas grenade.
CHAIRMAN: They were not like somebody who is standing in the street, a tear gas canister is thrown at him and he picks it up and throws it back. Here we are talking about six people who were inside a combi.
MR VAN DYK: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN: With only one window open, so surely it must have effected them, it is a very enclosed area.
MR VAN DYK: You are correct when you are saying that it was in the combi, but the one window was open, the one door was open, both front doors were open and the side door was also opened.
So one can't say that the combi was entirely closed.
CHAIRMAN: Even so, surely even so, I mean if it could effect adversely people who were some metres away, what about people who are sitting in a combi? Surely it must have effected them?
MR VAN DYK: It must have effected them.
MR BLACK: If I may just return to this tape recording. Before I get to that, could you please just tell us who did you consider to be your senior or seniors to whom you had to report, your immediate seniors to whom you had to report what the results were of the tasks which you had been assigned and that task I refer to as being information gathering, and activating the information system, I think it is referred to as that?
MR VAN DYK: Are you referring to this specific incident or in general?
MR BLACK: No, to this specific incident.
MR VAN DYK: Colonel Coetsee and Colonel Van der Merwe.
MR BLACK: Right. I assume that immediately or shortly after this incident, you would have told them that you have taken these notes or let's put it this way, did you actually take down written notes at the scene?
MR VAN DYK: I made notes at the Alldays police station of the clothes, objects, bodies and the bags.
MR BLACK: That is after the shooting?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct, yes.
MR BLACK: Before you went out there, your primary function was to ensure that all relevant information surrounding that operation would be gathered I understand.
MR VAN DYK: I don't quite understand the question?
MR BLACK: Before this operation took place, your primary task which was assigned to you, was to ensure that you would observe and gather all relevant information which related to the actual carrying out of the operation, is that correct?
MR VAN DYK: Not quite, Chairperson. I don't we should play with words here. My task was to write a report afterwards, about the facts of what had happened.
There was no information surrounding the operation which I had to write down somewhere or had to take note of. There was no information surrounding the operation. The only information which came from the operation was the questioning.
MR BLACK: No, let's put it this way. You felt it necessary that even before the shooting started, when the operation was set into action by the blowing of a whistle, you taped, you found it necessary to tape record that, you found it necessary to tape record what took place during the shooting and subsequent to that, you tape recorded the interview of the wounded man.
So in other words I am putting it to you that your function, one of your functions was to ensure that you gathered all possible information relating to activities which were taking place during the carrying out of the operation because you had to write a report?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, I had to write a report about what had happened, yes.
MR BLACK: Now, did you actually observe or make notes of where various bodies were and people were laying immediately after the shooting?
MR VAN DYK: No, it wasn't necessary to do that because I didn't have to include it in my report.
MR BLACK: You mean you didn't have to describe the scene of the shooting in your report?
MR VAN DYK: No, I didn't think it necessary to make a sketch of the whole scene.
MR BLACK: Mr Van Dyk, when you returned and you made your report, when I say report, I mean when you accounted to Colonel Van der Merwe or Brigadier Coetzee, afterwards, did you tell them look I've managed to gather this information and I will file my formal report at a later stage. I have got notes of what happened, I've got a tape recording even of an interview with one of the wounded people and I will compile a formal report for you at a later stage?
Your immediate report back, let's put it that way?
MR VAN DYK: The reporting back of what had happened to Colonel Willem and Coetzee, was done by Colonel Erwee. The report which was to be written, that was done by me.
So I didn't report back to them orally, just to repeat what Colonel Erwee had said.
MR BLACK: They never came to you and said listen what information, you are the information man, what information - have you managed to gather immediate information for us?
MR VAN DYK: Mr Chairman, there was no such information as the question is suggesting that could have been important for them. Information which arose on the scene and for instance that which came out during the questioning was already reported to them by Colonel Erwee.
I didn't think it necessary to go back to them and say that what Colonel Erwee told you, I can now confirm. That didn't happen and I didn't think it necessary.
MR BLACK: How do you know what Colonel Erwee told them?
MR VAN DYK: I don't know what Colonel Erwee had told them, but I had full trust in him that he would have told them everything that had happened.
MR BLACK: Because you see, this tape recording which you say is of no significance, I submit it is of crucial significance, because if the evidence of Mr Fuchs is correct, it would tend to suggest that you in fact did act in self defence.
It would help you case, because according to Fuchs, he said you can clearly hear one shot and then a volley of fire. And that first shot did not come, so it would clearly bolster your case. And it would be of crucial importance. It is not an insignificant tape recording.
MR VAN DYK: I agree completely that this tape recording is very important at this stage, but you will excuse me if I say that at that stage, let's take it in 1988 or 1989, that I couldn't not have foreseen in my wildest dreams that I would sit here today and that this situation would arise ever and in any forum, so at that stage I didn't think that that would happen ever again.
The importance which the tape now seems to have, wasn't present then. The importance of that tape just disappeared.
CHAIRMAN: But even then, at that stage already, the injured person was removed and he left you at the scene. He might have survived and he might have come before court to be trailed and for all we know, and you should correct me if I am wrong, you didn't take the measurements. You might have written a report later on at Alldays, but your report could not have had for example the following information, the distance from the combi and the casspir was so many metres.
The position of the combi at the time when the first shot was fired, was the following and I was at this distance when the second set of shots were fired. All that information you did not have. You didn't take those particulars.
MR VAN DYK: If I may explain and that is why I didn't understand the question put to me. It wasn't my task and perhaps that is what was suggested in the question, it wasn't my task to gather that kind of information to do surveys and measurements afterwards.
My task was to gather the tactical information, if I can call it that. To gather the tactical information which arose from this incident, such as for instance the questioning of the wounded man, that is tactical information which can be acted upon immediately.
CHAIRMAN: I am satisfied with your explanation that it was not your task. I mean if it was not your task, it was not your task, whose task was it?
MR VAN DYK: It was not my task. In such a case Chairperson, it would have been the task of the Investigating Officer, in other words the person who had to deal with the inquest. It was not my task.
MR BLACK: And in this instance, it was Mr Swarts?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, in this case it was Mr Swarts.
MR BLACK: And did you make this tape recording and your notes available to Mr Swarts for purposes of his investigation?
MR VAN DYK: No, I didn't make the tape recording available to him because in my view there was no information contained on the tape that could possibly help him.
The notes to which you refer and the report which I wrote, that was made available to him.
MR BLACK: But I don't want to labour this too much, but this tape recording seem to be as you used the words, a bit of a sensation amongst the members of that particular Security Branch in Pietersburg?
MR VAN DYK: I think I said that certain persons found it sensational.
MR BLACK: Yes, you think that some of them may have even made recordings for themselves?
MR VAN DYK: I know that some of them did.
MR BLACK: So I put it to you that the existence of this tape recording within the Pietersburg Security Branch was widely and well-known, the fact that it existed and that in fact possibly more than one version was circulating?
MR VAN DYK: I believe so, yes.
MR BLACK: Would I be correct in saying so?
ADV DE JAGER: If there had been a shot after the questioning, would that shot also have been recorded on the tape recording?
MR VAN DYK: I believe so, it is difficult to say, but I believe so.
ADV DE JAGER: And if it had been heard by everybody and played over and over again, everybody would have known that after the fight, there had been another shot fired?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, everybody who would have listened to the tape, would have heard that.
ADV DE JAGER: If that shot was recorded?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Can you remember when you switched off the tape recorder?
MR VAN DYK: I switched it off when Mr Erwee picked up the person.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Van Dyk, in that case, were you present when Mr Erwee gave instructions to someone to pick up the injured person and load him onto the bakkie?
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, if I remember correctly, Mr Erwee picked him up himself. I know that someone helped him to carry the person, because the person couldn't walk. I can't remember who helped him, but I think he picked him up himself.
MS KHAMPEPE: And were you present when he gave an instruction to a Mr Gerber to transport the injured person to Alldays?
MR VAN DYK: If I said that I was present when he spoke to Gerber, I would be speculating. I know he gave an order to somebody. Later in discussion it came out that it could possibly have been Gerber, that is possible, but I can't say for sure that I remember that he told Gerber to take the man away, but I was present until the time when the person was loaded onto the bakkie. But then I didn't know whether he was still alive.
MS KHAMPEPE: So you wouldn't say whether that person was still alive when he was loaded onto the bakkie?
MR VAN DYK: No.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
MR BLACK: Can you remember, thinking back, because I am sure this is while you have been sitting here, have realised that the contents of that tape recording could be of some significance, what do you remember was recorded. You heard the whistling, there was shooting, that is common cause.
What part or section of the interview to the best of your recollection, can you remember was recorded? The speaking section, what was recorded while the wounded man was being spoken to? What came out on the tape?
MR VAN DYK: The whole questioning is on that tape. Everything is there which was said to this person. What exactly was asked and what was answered, I can't remember.
MR BLACK: Was there any recording - when did it stop, when did this tape recording stop?
MR VAN DYK: The tape recording stopped the moment when Mr Erwee picked the person up.
MR BLACK: Was anything recorded about a medical man there and anything to that effect?
MR VAN DYK: I can't remember whether the medical person was spoken to there and the person who injected the wounded person, didn't say a word as far as I can remember.
MR BLACK: And Erwee?
MR VAN DYK: I can't remember what he said.
MR BLACK: Okay. This tape recording, this is a manually operated tape recording and you switch it on and off when so required is that so?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct, yes.
MR BLACK: I have no further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLACK: .
CHAIRMAN: Mr Visser?
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. I am not quite sure whether I have dealt with this issue with this particular witness. You have confirmed the contents of your statement, have I asked you to do that, I can't remember.
In case I have forgotten to do so, you have filled in a form in which you applied for amnesty and you've read it through and it contains the correct facts?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.
ADV VISSER: And you confirm that, and you are also confirming the political objectives and motives with which you've acted as set out in your statement?
MR VAN DYK: Correct, yes.
ADV VISSER: Now, I have asked this of everybody so far, so I am going to ask you to. You said that you did not do anything wrong at the scene. You may later have done something wrong in the eyes of the law, by the attestation of Erwee's statement, but why - I am getting confused with the witnesses, I am sorry. I think he has already testified to that. I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV VISSER: .
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, you are excused.
MR VAN DYK: Thank you Mr Chairman.
MS KHAMPEPE: I think Mr Visser, you probably need a break.
ADV VISSER: I think so.
