Amnesty Hearings

ERIC TAYLOR: (s.u.o.)

MR BOOYENS: M’Lord, just before my learned friend starts ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible]

MR BOOYENS: If I may just refer you to page 24 of the bundle. You will see that there’s a reference in the second paragraph, to an Annexure to Mr van Rensburg’s and I believe that that Annexure hasn’t been attached to your papers. I’ve got it here, can I hand it in? I don’t know whether my learned friend has got it. Probably if you haven’t got it, he wouldn’t have it either. May I just ask leave to hand that in please.

CHAIRPERSON: What would be the annexure number here?

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible], the bundle. If we make it a separate exhibit then we can refer to it by page number if necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: EE.

MR BIZOS: EE, yes. FF would be the - FF.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Booyens, you say this is the alleged G Plan,

MR BOOYENS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Mr Taylor, yesterday we were dealing with ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Taylor, you are still under oath to speak the truth.

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct.

MR BIZOS: Yesterday we were dealing with a statement on page 3 of your application and compared it with Mr van Zyl’s statement on page 48 of the applications file in relation to the initial number of people that were identified as victims to be killed, do you recall that?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct. I just want to have a look at it quickly.

MR BIZOS: And you said that you disagreed with Mr van Zyl’s statement and that your statement was correct?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct.

MR BIZOS: And after reflection overnight you still persist in that version, that your statement was correct and that of van Zyl was incorrect.

MR TAYLOR: There are some differences Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Yes, we know there are some differences. The question is, do you still persist that your version is correct and van Zyl’s version is incorrect?

MR TAYLOR: My version is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Now would you please turn to page 5 of your additional or alternative application? Would you read it aloud please?

MR TAYLOR: Which paragraph Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: Right at the beginning.

MR TAYLOR

"Approximately two to three weeks before 27th June 1985 I received instructions to"

...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: A little slower to give the interpreters an opportunity please.

"from Captain van Zyl to monitor intensively the three activists from Cradock and this was giving a spiralling increase to the chaos and archaic activity in Cradock and Port Elizabeth’s black townships. During this time the close relationship between Goniwe and his cohorts came to the fore. It was decided that last named would be part of this operation"

MR BIZOS: Do you agree that as far as the initial instruction was concerned, this statement of your accords with Mr van Zyl’s statement and contradicts your statement on page 3 of your application?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson, what is being referred to on page 3, which paragraph?

MR BIZOS: Yes, we dealt with it yesterday. I have it marked, I’ll assist you. Page 3, the last paragraph.

MR TAYLOR: The one that starts with during 1984?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR TAYLOR: During 1984 - do I have to read the paragraph Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: No, you read it into the record yesterday. The question is, that what you say in your amended application accords with Mr van Zyl’s version and contradicts your original version.

MR TAYLOR: On page 3 I just give a background on my activities in the police force.

MR BIZOS: It’s the big 3

"Apparently 2 to 3 weeks before 27 June"

on page 3.

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now if you were telling the truth or Mr van Zyl was telling the truth, how do you first of all account for your own - for your self contradiction between page 3 of your original application and page 5 of your amended application? Can you explain how you came to contradict yourself?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson, this was an interim statement and afterwards I went into detail with Mr Macadams and that’s why there is a second statement.

MR BIZOS: Mr Taylor, you swore in your first application to tell the truth, there can be no provisional truth. Can there be provisional truth Mr Taylor, when you try and excuse yourself on the basis that this was a provisional application? Is the truth provisional?

MR TAYLOR: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And if you take an oath do you cross your finger and say, that I will - if I say something different in the future also under oath, it’s okay?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson, facts came to the fore the more we concentrated on this investigation.

MR BIZOS: You knew the facts Mr Taylor. You deposed to the facts in your original application and you contradicted yourself in your second application at a time you had the benefit of legal advice, reflection and time to do what you had to do. Does the oath not mean enough to you not to make contradictory statements on oath?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson, I would just like to say, the first statement was done very quickly and it was a preliminary statement.

MR BIZOS: But on this vital question as to whether you were given an order to kill three people or four people, how could the relative speed with which your application had to be put in, be an excuse about such a fundamental error?

MR TAYLOR: I just want to say again Mr Chairperson, it was the pressure that was on me to get this application done.

MR BIZOS: I’m sorry, you - I have to compete with the person translating at the back, would you mind repeating that answer.

MR TAYLOR: As I’ve said, the first statement, it was a short time and there was pressure on me.

MR BIZOS: The questions was, a simple question of the number of people that you were ordered to kill, three or four, is that the sort of detail that you might have made a mistake about because you had to complete your application in a hurry?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: I’m going to suggest to you that that is an unacceptable explanation Mr Taylor and that the reason why you made a statement in relation to four in your original application was because you regarded, as the rest of the application indicates, the Cradock 4 and that is why you just mentioned four without paying any attention to Mr Mhlawuli as Mr van Zyl has done.

MR TAYLOR: With regard to my application, just four people was necessary, there’s just a mention of four persons.

MR BIZOS: I’ll take it no further for what speaks for itself Mr Taylor. Can we please turn to page 5 of your amended application? Let me ask you this in relation to it, when you were asked two or three weeks before the death, on or about the date that the request was made for the death warrant in the signal, were you asked to enquire whether Mr Goniwe and his cohorts were to be killed, or were you asked to make a plan as to how they should be killed?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson, can you just repeat the question please?

MR BIZOS: Of course. Were you ordered to determine, as Judges, whether Mr Goniwe and his cohorts should be killed or were you ordered to find ways in which they could be killed?

MR TAYLOR: No, I was not given instructions to do with the manner of the elimination, I was just given the instruction to gather information during those three weeks about these people.

MR BIZOS: Information to what end? To whether Mr Goniwe and his cohorts were to be victims of your murder or to gather information as to how best to kill them?

MR TAYLOR: No, information specifically to the execution of this operation, especially in respect of their movement.

MR BIZOS: So that what you were really busy trying to find out during the period of three weeks after you were given the order, which was the most efficient manner in which you kill Mr Goniwe and his companions or his associates.

MR TAYLOR: Not the method but the fact that we had to know their movement, when - as to ascertain when we could intercept them.

MR BIZOS: So your enquiry for the period of three weeks was: "Follow them so that you may be able to stop them and put the plan to kill them into operation".

MR TAYLOR: No, it was never specifically referred to following them. Their movement was established through the pattern Mr Goniwe had at that stage. He visited Port Elizabeth weekly.

MR BIZOS: So that, let us just make it clear, you were busy gathering information as to Mr Goniwe and his companions movements in order to determine when the time would be right to put the killing plan into operation?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct.

MR BIZOS: So you were not concerned during that period as to whether they - Mr Goniwe and the others were sufficiently dangerous to deserve death according to the values of the security police.

MR TAYLOR: This was decided before that.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And on your evidence, on page 3, that was decided before in relation to all four?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct, and the other persons that were involved in this.

MR BIZOS: So that during the period from the beginning of June to the 27th of June when you killed them, you didn’t indulge in any gathering of information as to precisely what they were doing. The decision to kill them was already made for all four of them.

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct. I just want to add that the normal flow of information continued, in other words the information with regard to the movements of the four.

MR BIZOS: Yes. But that would have just been filed, in relation to their activities. The decision to kill all four of them had already been taken.

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct but I looked at the information that came in during that time.

MR BIZOS: Now remember what we drew your attention to. You said in your amended application Mr Taylor, that you said that originally there were only three and then you say in the middle of the 1st paragraph on page 5

"During this monitoring process there was close linking and liaison with Goniwe and Mhlawuli"

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct, but early in my statement on page 4, I said that - but before that three weeks we had information in respect of Mr Mhlawuli.

MR BIZOS: I heard what you are saying but let me read you the next sentence before I ask you the next question

"It was decided [open bracket] I’m not sure who made this decision that last names person would be part of this operation"

That’s correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now, that can’t be correct if your previous evidence was that there was already, by the beginning of June, a decision made and communicated to you as an order that the four should be killed.

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson, this was just a confirmation. I mentioned earlier that the time - the first meeting with Mr van Zyl, there was already six or seven names.

MR BIZOS: Mr Taylor, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Taylor, was there a correction on the intial instruction?

MR TAYLOR: There was more confirmation because there was more intensive ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Then your application does not make sense. It reads here

"During the monitoring process the name Mhlawuli came to the fore pertinently"

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct Mr Chairman, in other words ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: And in brackets because of, as I understand your application, it was decided, and we’re not sure who made the decision, that Mhlawuli was also part of the intial plan.

MR TAYLOR: That’s true but previously in my statement I said that initially he was identified.

CHAIRPERSON: But the point is that this piece of your application tells me that this is the first time that Mr Mhlawuli’s death was discussed.

MR TAYLOR: No. No, I’m not saying that you’re wrong, I said the context in which I wrote my application, previously I referred to Mr Mhlawuli - I just need to add that Mr Mhlawuli’s name was already discussed the first time when I spoke to Mr van Zyl.

CHAIRPERSON: I do not argue with this point, the point is his death came after the monitoring process started.

MR TAYLOR: This was just confirmed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: The excuse that you gave for speaking about four was that it was hurriedly done and that may or may not be a valid excuse but your amended application Sir, must have been an amendment, a carefully considered matter because here you read your first application and you say: no, I must change this and then you change it and changes are not made in a flippant manner surely especially with the competent legal representation that you have, an experienced legal representation.

The amendment is made in a deliberate manner in order to accord with the truth. And now we are told that it doesn’t express the truth as you knew it.

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson, the second application, I did not change it myself, it was changed because of questions that Mr Macadams asked me to get certain details about certain facts and clear up certain facts for himself.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I have just noticed that although the document is signed by a Commissioner of Oaths, it does not appear on my copy to have been signed by the witness. Are we to understand that a Commissioner of Oaths signed this document without it being signed by the applicant? I will appreciate it if the attorney for the applicant does not speak to him when I have asked him a question Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, the attorney was speaking to me, not to the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Man, I will deal with it now.

MR BIZOS: Well then Mr Chairman, the proximity of the attorney’s head to the witnesses head misled me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, I think we already raised the issue with the counsel and the attorney. On my copy as well, similarly the deponent’s or the place where the deponent was supposed to have signed has not been filled in.

MR BIZOS: Well Mr Chairman, I would appeal that an inquiry be instituted as to whether a Commissioner of Oaths did not act in accordance with his duty having signed that he administered the oath to an applicant who confirmed the correctness of the matter. Who is this Commissioner of Oaths?

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, can I get clarity about this. I’ve got a completely unsigned one, neither by a Commissioner of Oaths or some ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Well, then I want ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, Mr Booyens, you handed up this document.

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: As Mr Bizos points out, my copy similarly ...[intervention]

MR BOOYENS: Has that also got a signature on it?

CHAIRPERSON: It’s also not signed by the deponent.

MR BOOYENS: No, mine also.

CHAIRPERSON: It’s been pointed out to me that there may be an irregularity.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, no Mr Chairman, I would - I didn’t know about it being signed because my information was the original of this, and I think I’ve in fact placed it on record earlier on, is in the position of Mr Chris Macadam.

These are copies that my attorney had, and I think I said it two, three days ago when I handed this up. I distinctly recall that I said it, I think Mr Potgieter recalls that as well.

CHAIRPERSON: You are correct. The point of the matter is, there’s reason to believe that there’s been some irregularity, the original may prove differently.

MR BOOYENS: Yes. Mr Chairman, can we just - can I ask for an adjournment, I would like to investigate what is going on here because I’m not sure what copies are now in the possession of Mr Bizos because it’s different from mine.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold on.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, I don’t think it’s necessary to adjourn, the original is in the possession of the Commission. We will make attempts to get hold of the original, if not today then as soon as we can.

MR BOOYENS: Fine.

CHAIRPERSON: And the inquiry will be held, not because it’s been requested but because I think we’re duty bound to investigate.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, no I can live with that.

MR BIZOS: Mr Taylor, can we assume that despite the absence of your signature in the copy of the document that was handed in to the Committee, that this is your statement? It has been drawn by your attorney, it is handed in in your presence by your attorney, can we assume that despite your - the absence of your signature on the copies that have been supplied to us, that this is your statement?

MR TAYLOR: That is my statement. As I’ve said the second statement was in the presence of Mr Macadams.

MR BIZOS: And can we assume that the information contained in the second application is information that was given by you to your attorney?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Right, let’s proceed on that basis then and leave other matters in abeyance for the time being.

Here we have a direct contradiction between your original application and the second application. Can you explain this contradiction in any other manner than the one you attempted to do in answer to the Judge, the Chairman of the Committee?

MR TAYLOR: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Then we can proceed. Tell us please if there is any truth in the statement that during the course of this investigation, that is to say during the two or three weeks, information came to the fore that Mr Mhlawuli was involved.

MR TAYLOR: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Now would you please tell us whether this information was transmitted by you, whether from your informers of any other, to either Mr van Zyl or Mr du Plessis or General van Rensburg or Mr Snyman? Can you tell us whether that information was transmitted by you?

MR TAYLOR: As I’ve said, during those three weeks there was liaison with van Zyl and Lotz in respect of those who were involved at that time.

MR BIZOS: We have also heard from you that this was not the first time that you as the person in charge of receipt of information at the security police headquarters, that you had in relation to Mr Mhlawuli, you told us that from way back in 1984 you had information and you had index cards and a photograph and everything else.

MR TAYLOR: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: That by the time permission was sought from Mr van Zyl, I beg your pardon, from Mr Snyman, you already had sufficient information in order to make Mr Mhlawuli a candidate for murder.

MR TAYLOR: That is correct Chairperson. As I have said I’m not the only one who had information regarding him, he was already under the attention of Captain van Zyl as well as Sergeant Lotz and from the beginning his name was already known.

MR BIZOS: So he was already a marked man, from 1984 as a dangerous activist?

MR TAYLOR: No, Chairperson, not from 1984. I don’t know at what stage a decision was made that he would be one of these persons, from 1984 until the day of the elimination.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And you also told us that you sent the information that came to you and you put it into the index cards, you conveyed that to Oudtshoorn and also to the head office.

MR TAYLOR: I didn’t speak of the information on the index cards, I said that I did possess information where Mr Mhlawuli’s name appeared and that I channelled to the head office and I made copies of the information for Oudtshoorn.

MR BIZOS: And you sent it off to Oudtshoorn?

MR TAYLOR: Yes, I sent it to Oudtshoorn.

MR BIZOS: Now please try - let me ask you, did you tell them in Oudtshoorn that this is a person that was going to put the G Plan into operation in Oudtshoorn?

MR TAYLOR: Yes, Chairperson, definitely.

MR BIZOS: Sorry, did you want to finish?

MR TAYLOR: No, no.

MR BIZOS: And also the very important information that you had, that you said you heard that he was actually recruiting people to undergo military training.

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct, that is how I said.

MR BIZOS: Did you convey that to the head office and did you convey it to Oudtshoorn?

MR TAYLOR: I cannot say that with certainty. As a result of the fact that when one couldn’t correctly evaluate information, one couldn’t send such information to head office because it wasn’t confirmed.

MR BIZOS: So you would not have sent this information, this unconfirmed information, but the confirmed information about the G Plan and that Oudtshoorn must be careful because the G Plan was to be put into operation by Mr Mhlawuli, you sent to Oudtshoorn.

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct Chairperson, although I must add that I didn’t issue any orders in those specific reports, I merely sent this information to head office and for Oudtshoorn it was only for information.

MR BIZOS: Yes, obviously you couldn’t give any orders to Oudtshoorn, it was outside your jurisdiction. But, how many reports would you say you sent to Oudtshoorn?

MR TAYLOR: It would be difficult to assess.

MR BIZOS: Well, over the months, from ‘84 beginning of ‘85 right up till June, just give us an estimate please of how many reports you sent to Oudtshoorn about Mr Mhlawuli.

MR TAYLOR: It’s very difficult, I can’t remember at all.

MR BIZOS: Please give us an estimate.

MR TAYLOR: I just have to explain Chairperson. In many of the reports dealing with Mr Goniwe’s activities copies were not sent to Oudtshoorn because Mr Mhlawuli was not involved on an everyday basis with Mr Goniwe. And at this stage to determine how many reports I sent through to Oudtshoorn, I’d have to speculate and run the risk of not telling the truth and I can’t speculate on this.

MR BIZOS: We’re not going to hold you to a number, just give us more or less how many.

MR TAYLOR: Approximately five or six times.

MR BIZOS: Five or six yes, we’ll accept that for the time being. Now, and also Mr Mhlawuli was known, you told us, to Mr van Zyl, Mr Lotz, Mr du Plessis, must have been to General van Rensburg, Colonel van Rensburg at the time, and Mr Snyman because he was a person who came to the fore particularly during the period of three weeks.

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson, I can’t comment on the information that Mr Snyman and van Rensburg had at that time. As I’ve said, the names were discussed when Captain van Zyl and I first entered into discussion regarding this, and other names were also included.

MR BIZOS: Yes, but now let us just ask you this. Was Mr Mhlawuli’s name specifically authorised for elimination by Colonel Snyman?

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson, I heard a this hearing what Colonel Snyman’s role was. All that I can comment on and confirm is that when I first discussed this with Mr van Zyl, about seven names were mentioned and Mr Mhlawuli’s name had already been discussed at that stage.

MR BIZOS: Well, let us just - because we may not have an opportunity to ask Mr Snyman any questions, let us just ask you whether you would accept, for the purposes of this, that on page 37

"On a certain date which I can no longer recall Mr du Plessis and Captain van Zyl came to see me in my office and they provided me with the latest information regarding the activities of the above-mentioned four activists and indicated to me that the security situation in the Eastern Cape was getting completely out of hand"

We will - we can assume can we not, that the name of Mr Mhlawuli had been brought to the attention of Mr Snyman.

MR TAYLOR: If I look at that extract, yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes, and you have no reason to doubt it’s correctness?

MR TAYLOR: I cannot stand in for the person who made the statement but I will accept it as it stands there.

MR BIZOS: And you also heard the evidence of Mr van Zyl, that the name of Mr Mhlawuli was carried forward at some time or another to Mr Snyman for the purpose of getting his approval for his elimination?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct, I can’t recall the exact words of Mr van Zyl but I do recall something similar to that.

MR BIZOS: And after the death of the four there was no reason in the security police headquarters to remain silent about who the four were.

MR TAYLOR: At the security police headquarters in Pretoria?

MR BIZOS: Yes. No, no, no, in Port Elizabeth.

MR TAYLOR: There was no reason ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Let me repeat the question. After the death which you knew you had performed and which you gave out and pretended that AZAPO had done, there must have been discussion at the security police headquarters that for those who knew who had killed, "well, good riddance". For those who were misled and thought that AZAPO had done it, it must also have been good riddance.

MR TAYLOR: I never discussed this incident after it happened, there were never any discussions where I was present. We just simply never discussed it again. I heard later from Captain van Zyl that he had reported it to his senior officials.

MR BIZOS: Reported it to whom?

MR TAYLOR: His seniors.

MR BIZOS: Which senior officials did he tell you he had reported it to?

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson, I’ve only recently come to know of it with this amnesty application.

MR BIZOS: That he, Mr van Zyl says that he reported precisely what happened to the four?

MR TAYLOR: Four Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: The four people that had died. Mr van Zyl, according to you, reported to his seniors that the four had been killed.

MR TAYLOR: I can’t precisely - I can’t remember ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Well, what report from Mr van Zyl are you referring to?

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson, I became aware only subsequent to the incident that Mr van Zyl had reported to his seniors, I don’t know exactly what report he submitted, I wasn’t present.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Was there any reason for you to keep as a secret the high profile of Mr Mhlawuli from your senior officers?

MR TAYLOR: No, not at all Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: If anything, you would have reported to them in your daily or weekly meetings that Mhlawuli was coming to the fore?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct, as well as the fact that the reports that were compiled by the channels were first sent to Colonel du Plessis.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR TAYLOR: So he must also have identified that in reading the reports.

MR BIZOS: If the information, this vital information that you had, even though it was unconfirmed, I would have thought that at your daily or weekly meetings you would have reported that to your seniors so that if they came across young people under suspicious circumstances, they must be questioned as to who recruited them and Mhlawuli’s name may possibly crop up. That’s the sort of way in which the security police worked.

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson, I did not say that all information regarding Mr Mhlawuli was unconfirmed ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: No, I accept that ...[intervention]

MR TAYLOR: I beg your pardon Chairperson, I did not go to my senior everyday and tell him this and that has happened. We compiled reports which landed on his desk and we had daily meetings, the entire section, where information was exchanged among all the field workers and that is where these things were discussed. I wouldn’t go to my commanding officer on a daily basis as such.

MR BIZOS: If anyone were to suggest that Mr Mhlawuli was unknown to the security police in Port Elizabeth, what would you say to that?

MR TAYLOR: I would have differed with that.

MR BIZOS: You would say that he was well-known as a leading activist in close contact with Goniwe and others and a dangerous person?

MR BIZOS: What would you say to that?

MR TAYLOR: I would have differed with that.

MR BIZOS: You would say that he was well-known as a leading activist in close contact with Goniwe and others and a dangerous person?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Now Mr Taylor, it is my sad duty to tell you that the documents emanating from your office and from Oudtshoorn clearly indicate that you are deliberately committing perjury.

I ask for leave to hand in Mr Chairman, a report made by the South African police in Port Elizabeth to the head office, it appears to be on the 2nd of July, as Exhibit GG. It will be handed out Mr Chairman.

Now you see this, that it comes from Port Elizabeth and it’s sent to COMPO, do you see that, in Pretoria?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct.

MR BIZOS: And this is a: "druk telegram", a telex, before we go into any further details let’s just go to the heart of the matter Mr Taylor. Have a look at paragraph 4

"On 85.06.28 during, at a disco in Cradock Gladwell Makahula announced that subject, Ford Calata, black man (4/63442), Sparrow Thomas Umkhonto (S4/66386 as well as Sekelo Mhlawuli (unknown)"

If this is true, a pack of lies has been told to this Committee.

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson, I do not Brigadier Swart who compiled this report, this does not come from the security police, it comes from the uniform police.

MR BIZOS: I would have - I expected that answer from you as an excuse. Please read the last paragraph of the document, the top page, the last paragraph, the page that paragraph 4 is on. Read it aloud in order to who how false your explanation was.

MR TAYLOR

"This was compiled in consultation with the security branch"

MR BIZOS: Therefore even your last answer was a lie.

MR TAYLOR: This is the first time that I’ve seen this document.

MR BIZOS: I know that, you wouldn’t have lied as you have, you and you colleagues, all of you, if you had this document and it is our good fortune to have got it over night.

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson, I cannot comment on this document. I can read what stands here. I don’t know who in the security branch organised this information.

MR BIZOS: Do you agree Sir, that if this document speaks the truth, your applications in relation to Mr Mhlawuli contain a bit pack of lies?

MR TAYLOR: If the question of this unknown is so, then it would appear as such.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now let us deal with your lots of information that you gave to Oudtshoorn, to see how much of a liar you are Sir.

May I hand in document HH Sir? Let us see how much information you sent to Oudtshoorn.

Before we refer specifically to the contents of Exhibit HH, will you please have a look at the last paragraph of GG. This is a note, do you see that?

"See (1) for information. It is known whether Sekelo Mhlawuli is a teacher in Oudtshoorn and what his organisational connections are. Would you informed the addressed (B) commensurate ...[intervention]

The document HH says the following about this person that you had sent so many reports about - you see this is from, who is it from?

MR TAYLOR: From Division SWD.

MR BIZOS: Yes, and from Colonel?

MR TAYLOR: Colonel Roeland(?) ...[indistinct]

MR BIZOS: And if you tell us - if you told us the truth that you sent six reports about the activities of the G Plan and other activities of Mr Mhlawuli, the person concerned would be Colonel Roeland, he would have the overall responsibility?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct.

MR BIZOS: And he is asked to report what he knows about Mr Mhlawuli because he was unknown to the Port Elizabeth and this is what he says: he gives his date of birth and he gives his address and that he was the principal of a school in Oudtshoorn, that Mhlawuli did not have a file in Oudtshoorn.

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: And that Mr Mhlawuli had left Oudtshoorn together with his wife when the schools closed on the 7th of June 1985 for the school holidays in Cradock.

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: And he says the only that they had on him at his place, this dangerous revolutionary, an unregistered informer G3 mentioned him on the 22nd of March 1985 that Mr Mhlawuli who didn’t have a file, who didn’t even possess a file in those efficient quarters is a supporter of the Bonguletu Youth Organisation, which apparently like other organisations including the legal resources centre for which we work, had a number in Oudtshoorn and an affiliate of the United Democratic Front, which also had a numbers.

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct.

MR BIZOS: And Mhlawuli was in regular contact with one Reginald Oliphant who also had a number, the chairman and regional organiser of the UDF. Well, it looks as if either you are lying when you said you sent six reports to be included in Mr Mhlawuli’s file or Colonel Roeland didn’t do his job properly.

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson, I cannot explain this, I will stand by what I’ve said.

MR BIZOS: Yes, I know that you do but we only have your word for it and a contemporary document suggest that you are not telling the truth Sir. And corroborated you see, that Colonel Roeland didn’t know anything about it is because we have a document from your own security police that Mhlawuli was "onbekend", unknown.

MR TAYLOR: That is so but I can’t explain it. This is the first time that I have set eyes on these documents.

MR BIZOS: Well, have you any reason to believe that these documents are genuine documents Sir?

MR TAYLOR: It would appear to be genuine.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And I am sure that if documents were destroyed the copying machine was used before the shredder fortunately.

MR TAYLOR: I cannot comment on that.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Well, what do you say? If these documents are genuine and they paint a picture which shows you to be a liar, please explain to the Committee why you should be believed.

MR TAYLOR: I can see what is stated in the documents, I cannot explain why this information is contained in these documents. I told the truth when I delivered my testimony and I will stand by that.

MR BIZOS: Yes. But now let us deal with the probabilities in order to show, which are usually a good guide as to whether a person is telling the truth or not. The burning issue Mr Taylor, in the Eastern Province was what was happening in the Eastern Province and that was the burning issue that the security police in Port Elizabeth had to deal with, is that correct?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct.

MR BIZOS: Why should the security police in Port Elizabeth and in the Eastern Cape concern themselves, in their own language, an agitator, hundreds of kilometres away where there was apparently no serious trouble and why should they mark him in Port Elizabeth for elimination when yesterday we had a list of almost 30 people who were active and creating the situation that you wanted to put an end to? Can you explain that, yes or no?

MR TAYLOR: I don’t follow the question.

MR BIZOS: Well let me try and explain it. You were under pressure to pacify the Eastern Province, your area.

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Mr le Grange, Mr Volk, the GBS, was putting pressure on you, how would you have solved the problems in the Eastern Cape by killing the principal of a school in Oudtshoorn, that came from Oudtshoorn?

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson, when I think about the issue surrounding Mr Mhlawuli had to do with the continuation of the G Plan and he was identified by means of his liaison and his visits with P.E. and that is the information that I had.

MR BIZOS: No, the question was that you were not short of candidates to eliminate in the Eastern Cape in order to quieten the Eastern Cape.

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman I’ve said earlier that the information I had indicated that Mr Mhlawuli, because the SWD was quiet, that he was going to implement the G Plan there.

MR BIZOS: Well I can’t do any better than to ask you to give an explanation of that improbability, but let’s go to the next one. You have made a big issue of this G Plan. Now, what you call the G Plan, was that anything more than the organisation of the people in the residential areas into street committees?

MR TAYLOR: There was much more involved. The G Plan had to do with the establishment ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: We’ll come to more. Was it the street committee structure that you are referring to as the G Plan?

MR TAYLOR: That was part of it Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And the street committee "stelsel" system - sometimes one remembers the things that one has read in the language, the street committee system was in operation by the UDF openly, discussed in the newspapers, discussed in newspaper articles, "Form Street Committees, conscientise the people to seek liberation, Do not accept the 1983 Constitution which is a constitution for slaves".

All these things were being said about the UDF. I don’t want to make a UDF speech here but it was generally known that the street committee system was really a basis for UDF organisation.

MR TAYLOR: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: So now what - that wasn’t a secret was it?

MR TAYLOR: No, Mr Chairman it was not a secret ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: It was not a secret.

MR TAYLOR: But the result of these street committees changes the pattern.

MR BIZOS: Just a moment, we can have the results later. Your evidence is that you made Mr Mhlawuli a candidate for death because he was going to put the G Plan into operation in Oudtshoorn and what I am saying to you is that this was not a secret plan, this was a street committee plan, was generally known, advertised, people went about saying: "Have you formed your street committee"?.

There was no secret in it that Mr Goniwe had to impart to Mr Mhlawuli to go and put it into operation in Oudtshoorn. Mr Oliphant, Cheryl Carolus, the other leaders of the UDF whose names we mentioned yesterday, they all knew about it. What was this importance of the G Plan?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, everybody knew about this G Plan. The purpose of the G Plan was not fully explained. The purpose was to overthrow the present state structures, the enforcement of law and to replace them with alternative structures. That was the reason why the street committees were established

It was never mentioned in public that that was the ultimate goal, to use this structure to replace the present dispensation with an alternative one.

MR BIZOS: Didn’t the UDF publicly declare that the existing structure were, which they called: "run by puppets", do you remember the words?, run by people who were in the pocket of the apartheid regime, do you remember those words? , they must be boycotted, you mustn’t buy from their shops, you mustn’t give them support, you mustn’t vote for them when they have elections, you must distance yourself altogether.

That was the propaganda of the UDF at the time. Why was it necessary for Mr Goniwe, on your version, to come and whisper words into Mr Mhlawuli’s ear?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, those statements were made but it was never referred to openly, publicly that black councillors should be taken away, there was never recognition given that there should was intimidation, that black policemen had to leave the townships, that was all part of the G Plan.

MR BIZOS: And this information you had from two informers in Adelaide and Somerset East?

MR TAYLOR: I did not only have two informers Mr Chairman, there were two informers in the Cradock control area but there were other informers as well.

MR BIZOS: Now, this system of informers, didn’t the security police in a particular area have it’s own informers? Why should a comparatively junior police officer in Port Elizabeth had informers in Adelaide and Somerset East and Cradock where there were security police officers, the Port Elizabeth person has informers hundreds of kilometres away?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, it’s very easy to explain that. If you recruit informers you are always geared to the fact that you should recruit people, and people who came to this area came from Port Elizabeth, I had contact with them when they were recruited. If you have an opportunity to recruit somebody you did that.

Another principle of the handling of informers, you never hand over an informers to another person.

MR BIZOS: Here we have another improbability. Goniwe is in Cradock, Mhlawuli is in Cradock, he regularly visits Cradock, the head of the security police doesn’t know Mr Mhlawuli, the head office the security police reports to the head office in Pretoria, just like Mr Winter, that Mhlawuli is not known, there is no informer from Cradock that has given you any information.

I am going to suggest to you that that, taken together with the absence of any reports to Oudtshoorn, that this information that you speak about is complete fabrication.

MR TAYLOR: No, Mr Chairman. I stand by what I said, I stand by the information that I had.

MR BIZOS: Yes, well. You say irrespective of what evidence we bring here, you are going to stick to your story?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Very well.

MR TAYLOR: I decided on this before I came to this hearing, that that which I’m going to say here is the truth.

MR BIZOS: Now I want to ask you this, if we understand your evidence correctly, that you alone with three dangerous people, even though they may have been handcuffed, four dangerous people, even though they may have been handcuffed, in the dark in the middle of the night, stand next to them in the bush, you alone whilst your colleagues go elsewhere.

MR TAYLOR: No Mr Chairman, those are not correct facts. I did not stand in the bush, I was sitting in the car with these four people and that is a true fact. I’m putting it to you as a true fact. As that stage my service pistol was lying on my lap in case problems would arise, if somebody tried to escape or attack me.

It was a question of about 10, 15 minutes that I was alone with them. I was sitting with them in one car, I can remember that because it was a very dangerous situation.

MR BIZOS: Of course I would have thought that it must have occurred to you, unless there was someone else there with you, that being there with four such dangerous people, if they simultaneously open the doors and run into the bush in the middle of the night in the dark, there was a high degree of probability that two or three, if not all four of them, would escape.

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, this is speculation but I want to come back to the facts of the matter. Those persons were under the impression that they were being picked up to be interrogated. At that stage regarding that aspect I felt comfortable.

I was careful, I was bit frightened but the behaviour of those people at all times, from the first time we stopped them along the road, they were calm at all times.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Taylor, did you know that you’re going to stop alongside the beach in a bushy area at that time of night?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct Mr Chairman, we discussed that beforehand.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were going to be the only one to look after these arrested people?

MR TAYLOR: No, I did not know that beforehand, it happened like that that evening. It was not arranged like that beforehand, it just happened like that because Captain van Zyl and Lotz took the vehicles of these people away.

If the people saw that their cars were being set alight, the situation would have changed.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, tell me, while you were sitting there for 15 minutes or so with them, did they not ask you, seeing they’d been arrested and probably for interrogation purposes, why are they parked off near the beach?

MR TAYLOR: No, that’s not what happened, they did not ask me about that but they asked me, when we took the vehicles away, they asked me why were we taking those vehicles away. I explained to them that they would not be detained and interrogated in Port Elizabeth but they were to be taken to another place and the vehicles were being taken away to Algoa Park to be kept there.

CHAIRPERSON: And then when the first person was taken away by van Zyl ...[intervention]

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did the remaining people not question that?

MR TAYLOR: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And they were not getting worried or getting agitated by the fact that they were being held near the beach and one by one their colleagues were being taken away to somewhere special where they were going to be interrogated?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, I noticed that but I don’t know what went through their minds but what I saw was that they were quiet all the time, they just answered me when I addressed them. And up till the end they remained calm, quiet and calm, they remained quiet and calm.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we take the adjournment now.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

ERIC TAYLOR: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, I just want to deal with some matter first before we proceed.

Mr Booyens, we have been informed by the office of the Commission that the original document of the amended application has not been signed by the austensible deponent.

MR BOOYENS: The original of the replacing application?

CHAIRPERSON: Of the amended document, yes. We need to know who the Commissioner of Oaths was.

MR BOOYENS: What I can tell you, what my instructions are, and I’m going to ask that if I say anything wrong my attorney draw attention to it because I’m giving you hearsay now as a matter of fact.

Mr Macadam was apparently down here, Mr Chris Macadam, when the document ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t intend to have any inquiry on the matter today or here, I just need to know ...[intervention]

MR BOOYENS: Just the name?

CHAIRPERSON: The name, because I can’t make out the signature on the document itself.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I cannot just give you a name, I’ll have to give you an explanation of what happened here unfortunately. My ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I’ll take your word for that. Carry on.

MR BOOYENS: Sorry Mr Chairman, I don’t understand exactly what you’re saying to me.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, all I needed to know is ...[intervention]

MR BOOYENS: Okay, let me give you an explanation. Mr van der Merwe tells me that he phoned Mr Macadam and asked him what the date of the original document was on some previous occasion, not recently. Mr van der Merwe told him that it was dated the 7th of May I think, Macadam told van der Merwe that it was the 7th of May and thereafter when these copies just came up on my attorney’s computer, that we handed in now because - we noticed that the replacing document wasn’t there.

Mr Macadam will have in his possession - he took a document with him at one stage when Mr Taylor’s hand was broken and he couldn’t sign. Subsequent to that the document was signed and Mr van der Merwe signed it as Commissioner of Oaths and that was taken by - the envelope was taken by Mr Benato, I think it’s the witness protection unit, it was taken to Cape Town, he was down here.

What the intention was with the signature on there I’m told is, because it was a copy but in order to identify it for the one of the 7th and so, the attorney put the date in, he put his signature on it, you will notice his date stamp as a Commissioner of Oaths is not on it. That in a nutshell, so in other words the answer to the question of the document - the signature appearing on Mr Bizos’s document is my instructing attorney, Mr van der Merwe’s signature.

I don’t know whether yours has got the same on it Mr Chairman? In other words, the intention was not to sign it as a Commissioner of Oaths, I’m sorry if it created that impression for Mr Bizos.

CHAIRPERSON: We have not decided what to do about the matter.

MR BOOYENS: No, obviously Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It signed as a - by the way, as a Commissioner of Oaths.

MR BOOYENS: It is signed in the place allocated for the Commissioner.

CHAIRPERSON: It’s signed in the capacity of a Commissioner of Oaths.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, yes. Mr Chairman, that’s the explanation.

CHAIRPERSON: But that’s besides the point, all I needed was to identify the signature.

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.

MR BIZOS: Mr Taylor, we were dealing with you being alone with the four people that were murdered whilst your other colleagues went off and I want to suggest to you that as Mr van Zyl told Mr de Kock, there must have been at least one other person there and that you were not alone and that that person was who Mr van Zyl told Mr de Kock was and that was Colonel Winter.

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, that is absolutely not true. I have no doubt that I was absolutely alone in that car.

MR BIZOS: Let’s just deal with one aspect. I want to refer you to page 37. Brigadier C.A. Swart took part in the GBS structures according to Mr Snyman, on page 37. Have you got any reason to doubt that?

MR TAYLOR: Which paragraph is that?

MR BIZOS: It’s the 2nd paragraph.

MR BOOYENS: I would suggest my learned friend just read the paragraph again.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

"Persons present at this meeting was amongst others, the Minister of Police Mr le Grange, the Minister of Co-operation and Development, Mr du Plessis, Deputy Minister Doctor Morrison, the Commissioner of the South African police General Johan Coetzee, the Divisional Commissioner of the Eastern Province Brigadier C.A. Swart"

MR BOOYENS: I don’t want to claim superior knowledge Mr Chairman, but I really think that - I’m Afrikaans speaking and maybe my Afrikaans is not that good, I do not think that what this really said is that Swart was a member of the GBS stelsel, I don’t think it says that.

I think it says that Swart took place and a variety of other persons from the Cradock community who were involved with the JMC system. That’s my interpretation, I think that we are fortunate that we’ve got three Commissioners who speak very good Afrikaans, that’s my interpretation of this.

CHAIRPERSON: Well let’s see what the deponent intended to say?

Whose application is this? Snyman? Oh, I’m terribly sorry.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, if we look at the paragraph itself in the context, Mr Swart was at this meeting at which these people were present, that’s all I ask the witness. I don’t know what the objection relates to.

MR BOOYENS: No, the initial question was, maybe that’s not what my learned friend - he asked whether Swart was a member of the GBS, that’s why I suggested he should - if the question is, if Swart was at the meeting, then I’ve got no objection whatsoever.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that seems to be the question.

MR BIZOS: I read it out Mr Chairman, I read it out and asked him whether he would accept the correctness of this if it was said by Mr Snyman, that’s all.

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, this is the first time I’ve seen this statement. I have no doubt that this statement is correct but the facts and the persons being referred to, I can’t comment on that.

MR BIZOS: Yes, obviously, that’s all, that you have no reason to believe that Mr Snyman would have said anything other than what was correct in relation to this.

MR TAYLOR: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: Although the security police was autonomous in a sense, the Regional Commissioner, Brigadier Swart, was the nominal head of all the police including the security police in Port Elizabeth.

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman no, that is not how I saw the situation. The security branch resorted under the command of security branch head office, all aspects were handled by our head office. In other words it means that we acted autonomously.

MR BIZOS: And didn’t Mr Snyman report regularly to the police as a whole?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct, yes.

MR BIZOS: We will leave it at that, thank you. The question of preparing the motor cars that were going to be used, the number plates, the steel pipes, the knives, when were these arrangements discussed and who was present when these discussions took place?

MR TAYLOR: Only van Zyl and myself and Lotz were involved in these discussions. It was during those three weeks, I can’t remember at which stage we already decided on the method but the day of the operation Captain van Zyl told us again that we had to take knives with us.

MR BIZOS: And who was responsible for taking the false number plates away from a disused car used by the security police?

MR TAYLOR: It was not my responsibility Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You didn’t do it.

MR TAYLOR: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: You don’t know who did it?

MR TAYLOR: I’ve heard here that, if I remember correctly, it came from van Zyl’s vehicle.

MR BIZOS: Van Zyl’s vehicle, the vehicle that he used or do you mean that number plates were in his vehicle?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct.

MR BIZOS: I understand that yes, thank you. Did you believe that those number plates could not be traced to the security police?

MR TAYLOR: Not at that stage Mr Chairman. I did not know beforehand that those registration plates were there. I did not know what the registration number was. We had a few false number plates at our office and these number plates were usually chosen in such a way that it would be taken from cars which did not exist anymore.

MR BIZOS: Did the white members of the security police have knives?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, I did not carry, I did not take a knife.

MR BIZOS: Were you asked to take a knife?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: Why didn’t you take it?

MR TAYLOR: I did take it.

MR BIZOS: Oh, you did have a knife, I’m sorry I didn’t’ hear you. Was the original plan that black members of the force should not be involved?

MR TAYLOR: ...[No English translation]

MR BIZOS: When you were doing the planning as to who was going to do the unconventional killing, was it envisaged that you would ask black members of the security police to become involved?

MR TAYLOR: No, Mr Chairman, it was initially only I, van Zyl and Lotz.

MR BIZOS: Were the black member of the police asked to come along without any prior discussion or decision to which you were a party?MR TAYLOR: I was not involved at any occasion when this operation was discussed with them, Captain van Zyl had to handle that.

MR BIZOS: Was Mr Lotz in any way involved in gathering information?

MR TAYLOR: Definitely yes, Mr Chairman. We both were instruction to gather information.

MR BIZOS: And what did you do with the information that he gathered?

MR TAYLOR: All the information we gathered was conveyed to van Zyl.

MR BIZOS: And it corresponded to your information?

MR TAYLOR: Yes, in most cases.

MR BIZOS: And the information that Mr Lotz had you incorporated in reports to the head office and to Oudtshoorn?

MR TAYLOR: No, Mr Chairman, Lotz and I worked at various desks. He was involved in the terrorist desk and I was involved at the UDF desk, I wouldn’t know what he reported to Oudtshoorn.

MR BIZOS: Well this raises an interesting question because Oudtshoorn as we know says that they didn’t have, by clear implication, that they didn’t have any information from you or Mr Lotz or anyone else about the things you spoke about. But you say that Mr Lotz was in the anti-terrorist unit?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: And so was Mr van Zyl?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: Why did you take an order from Mr van Zyl that was not in your unit without discussing it with your commander?

MR TAYLOR: I’ve said previously that I’ve accepted that this was cleared with my immediate commander, I’ve also said that in my statement. In other words ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Why did you not once the order was given to you by a person who was not in your line of function and under the same command as yourself, why did you not ask either Mr du Plessis or Mr van Rensburg or anyone else: "Why is somebody who is stranger to our unit giving me orders to go and commit murder"?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, I just want to explain the whole situation. Captain van Zyl and myself were under the command of Colonel du Plessis, he, Colonel du Plessis was the immediate commanding officer of the black section, Captain van Zyl was also under the command of du Plessis.

To answer the second part of your question, I have nor reason and I’ve said that previously, I had no reason to doubt Captain van Zyl’s integrity and the question that he would not do something like that on his own, I never doubted that.

MR BIZOS: Where did the steel pipes come from?

MR TAYLOR: I don’t know. All I know was that Lotz gave me that pipe that evening before I hit the person with the pipe.

MR BIZOS: What sort of knife did you have?

MR TAYLOR: I had a bayonet.

MR BIZOS: A bayonet?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, he said earlier on that he had a bayonet, I think everybody heard it except my learned friend.

CHAIRPERSON: So

MR BOOYENS: My learned friend is now asking as if he didn’t say he had a bayonet.

CHAIRPERSON: No, the question was, what did he want a bayonet for, isn’t it?

MR BIZOS: Yes. I think the objection is really the emphasis: "a bayonet"?, it doesn’t "klink" right in the ears of the person who used it and his counsel Mr Chairman but be that as it may.

What did you have a bayonet for?

MR TAYLOR: As I’ve already said the planning was that the persons were to be stabbed to death and we were asked to take knives with us.

MR BIZOS: But where did you get the bayonet from, why did you have a bayonet?

MR TAYLOR: It was issued to me and I - it was issued to me in the college together with an R1 weapon and I’ve used that later to do certain exercises in the college. Amongst others, we passed out with bayonets and other weapons at the college. It was part of a personal issue to me and it was handed back to the police when I left the police force, there would be a record of that.

MR BIZOS: And why should a scribe like yourself in the security police still keep a rifle and a bayonet?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson, it was normal to me, many person kept their rifles.

MR BIZOS: You all had two-way radios?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct.

MR BIZOS: One would have expected a sophisticated killing such as this was under the command of Mr van Zyl, that before you decided to stop this car you would have had informers along the way to tell you when the vehicle left, how many people there were inside, whether they were heading for Cradock or went on to someone else, so that you didn’t wait for nothing at night. Why didn’t you establish a chain of communication with your two-way radios?

MR TAYLOR: Excuse me, I don’t understand but I’ll try to answer.

MR TAYLOR: We took the radios ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps the question must be repeated then. Mr Bizos, can you ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: I don’t want you to answer questions that you say you do not understand. Please tell us why such a well-planned operation would not have had people along the way following the car, reporting to you what direction it took, reporting how near it had come to your particular waiting point. Why not have this elementary communications system?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson, we did not want to involve any other person in this operation besides those who were involved with the operation.

MR BIZOS: Well, the other alternative of course is that you did use them including Mr Eric Winter, as Mr van Zyl told Mr de Kock and possibly others and the reason why you say you didn’t take these elementary precautions is because you do not want to involve all the people that were there.

MR TAYLOR: I deny this strongly.

MR BIZOS: Please tell us precisely what role you say Mr Lotz played in this, to your knowledge.

MR TAYLOR: Are you talking about the elimination itself?

MR BIZOS: From the planning to the elimination.

MR TAYLOR: Mr Lotz was approached about the same day from the beginning three weeks before the time, same as I because myself and Mr Lotz, in the following three weeks we had discussions with each other. He was involved from the beginning stages.

MR BIZOS: Right from the beginning, did you and he know that there were six candidates for elimination including Mr Mhlawuli?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson no, that is not correct. We did not know three weeks before the time how many people would be in the car. Six names were discussed as possibilities.

MR BIZOS: Yes. This is what I mean, I’m not talking about the happenings of the day, when the instructions were already given, was Mr Lotz informed that there were six candidates, one of whom was Mr Mhlawuli?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson, I was not present when Captain van Zyl spoke the first time to Lotz but the time afterwards that we spoke these six names were discussed.

MR BIZOS: When you spoke to Mr Lotz, you spoke to him about six names?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: So right from the beginning Mr Lotz knew that Mr Mhlawuli was a candidate for death and he was monitoring Mr Mhlawuli to find out when best he can be found in the company of others to be eliminated rather than trying to discover whether or not he should be a candidate for death.

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: And did you exchange information about Mr Lotz about Mr Mhlawuli and was Mr Mhlawuli as well known to Mr Lotz as he was to you?

MR TAYLOR: We discussed Mr Mhlawuli, I don’t believe he had as much information about Mr Mhlawuli as myself but he did have information with regard to Mr Mhlawuli and I do not know the finer details of this information.

MR BIZOS: And did you report to him that you sent regular reports about Mr Mhlawuli to Oudtshoorn?

MR TAYLOR: I cannot remember if I did it, I mean Mr Lotz knew exactly what I worked with and which information I worked with.

MR BIZOS: Did Mr Lotz tell you whether he had in any way communicated with Mr Winter?

MR TAYLOR: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Did he tell you whether he had in any way communicated with the security police at Oudtshoorn?

MR TAYLOR: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Would you have expected him to have given you any specific information of importance that he may have gained either from Mr Winter in Cradock or from any security policeman in Oudtshoorn?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, I just expected that if he had information with regard to this person he would give it me, it doesn’t matter where it came from.

MR BIZOS: But he never gave you any information which he claimed to have heard either from Mr Winter or anyone in Cradock or from any security policeman in Oudtshoorn?

MR TAYLOR: We never discussed the source of this information, we just discussed the information itself.

MR BIZOS: But surely, you told us that part of the process of evaluation of information was also of importance. It’s no good getting information without having a source, how can you possibly evaluate it?

MR TAYLOR: I did not talk about sources, I speak of the origin of the places of this information, this was not discussed, where the information came from.

MR BIZOS: Bear with me for a moment Mr Chairman.

Who did you get the photograph from, of Mr Mhlawuli?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson was already on the index card when I saw it, I cannot tell you who put that photograph there. As I’ve said there were several people who did field work and it could have been any of those persons who placed that picture there.

MR BIZOS: Was it a passport size or was it a postcard size or larger than that?

MR TAYLOR: It was a small photo, the same size approximately of a passport photo but it was not a passport photo. The impression that I had was that it was cut out from a larger picture, just the face part of Mr Mhlawuli was cut out from a larger picture.

MR BIZOS: Would you agree with the other evidence given and the statements made that the death of Mr Goniwe was envisaged long before the beginning of June 1985?

MR TAYLOR: I cannot comment of this. The first time when I heard of this elimination was three weeks before the time when Captain van Zyl informed me of it.

MR BIZOS: Now, Exhibit FF was handed in, do you know where this comes from?

MR TAYLOR: It’s from Sishaba.

MR BIZOS: From Sishaba. The official organ of the African National Congress.

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And when was it published?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson I can’t find a date on here.

MR BIZOS: Well, it’s rather important isn’t it as to whether it was published before or after the death of Mr Goniwe?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson I don’t know when it was published.

CHAIRPERSON: Who, according to this document, is the author of the G Plan.

MR TAYLOR: I haven’ read this document yet Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Well if we look at page 169 you see that it actually refers to another article written by one, comrade Alex Maschinini, Sishaba, April 1986.

MR TAYLOR: On which page is this?

MR BIZOS: The one marked 169. So that we can infer from that that this was published some time after April 1986?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct.

MR BIZOS: But we don’t know how much later.

MR TAYLOR: No.

MR BIZOS: And what is described in this article may be of historical interest or may be what happened before Mr Goniwe’s death or after Mr Goniwe’s death.

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson, I cannot comment before I haven’t read the whole document.

MR BIZOS: Well, once we know the dates we can infer but anyway it was you who put this document in as the G Plan.

MR BOOYENS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: No?

MR BOOYENS: I said this morning that it was an annexure that was missed out.

MR BIZOS: Oh I beg your pardon, yes it was an annexure that was left out.

CHAIRPERSON: Missed out from where?

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I told you this morning it was left of Mr van - it was Mr van Rensburg’s statement and I realised that the annexure has not been attached.

CHAIRPERSON: Van Rensburg.

MR BIZOS: Yes, and this is - was put in as a document which would show what the G Plan is about or was about?

MR TAYLOR: I don’t know.

MR BIZOS: You don’t know?

MR TAYLOR: No.

MR BIZOS: Anyway, your motive for killing Mr Goniwe was to restore peace in the Eastern Cape.

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Was peace restored?

MR TAYLOR: No.

MR BIZOS: Did matters become much worse?

MR TAYLOR: If I remember correctly that’s correct.

MR BIZOS: Very much worse, would you agree?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: That there was, after Mr Goniwe’s death, an increase in violence and one of the fruits that you reaped as a result of his murder, you in the country reaped, was the declaration of a state of emergency in July 1985.

MR TAYLOR: Yes, a state of emergency was declared yes.

MR BIZOS: Which lasted a number of years?

MR TAYLOR: I know there was one declared and it was lifted and after that there was another state of emergency declared.

MR BIZOS: Yes. During which some 30 000 people were detained and many were killed.

MR TAYLOR: I don’t remember the amount and I don’t remember any instances where they were killed.

MR BIZOS: And far from restoring peace it helped in that situation during - that caused the state of emergency and the emergency continued. Would you agree with that?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: So your prediction that the killing of Mr Goniwe would bring peace brought exactly the opposite result?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct.

MR BIZOS: Is that one of the reasons why you stopped killing the other people that had been identified?

MR TAYLOR: I don’t know what the reason was, why it was not continued. The decision whether it would be continued was not mine to make.

MR BIZOS: Will you please have a look at Exhibit X? Have you seen this document before?

MR TAYLOR: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Well you see, the picture that you painted of Mr Goniwe is quite a false one if we are to believe this report contained in Exhibit X. Let’s read paragraph 1.3. Can you make out - have you got Exhibit X in front of you?

MR TAYLOR: I’m just busy reading it.

MR BIZOS: Yes, 1.3, we can’t make out the third word.

MR TAYLOR: I think there’s a spelling mistake, it must be a B instead of an x.

MR BIZOS: "Bewus", aware.

MR TAYLOR: "Bewus".

MR BIZOS: Oh yes, thank you. Thank you for your help.

"He was just aware that Goniwe S4"

it gives his number

"the meeting"

Would that be correct?

MR TAYLOR: That’s correct.

MR BIZOS: "addressed the meeting"

and what does OA stand for?

MR TAYLOR: Onder andere.

MR BIZOS

"and he said amongst others that youth was doing good work through establishing organisations"

Is that a bad thing or a - for a teacher to say?

MR TAYLOR: As it stands here, no.

MR BIZOS: No. Well that’s what he said, that’s what he’s quoted to have said.

MR TAYLOR: You see, when I look at the context in which this sentenced is managed it was a general thing, it was about the organisation of these people and it was good that they were with this organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is, was it a good thing or a bad thing?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson, I have to give you my own opinion to this. At that time for us it was not a good thing, definitely not.

MR BIZOS: For young people to be organised was not a good thing, alright. Let’s go on

"Schools should not be burnt down"

This is what Mr Goniwe said to the youth of Oudtshoorn. Was that a good thing or a bad thing?

MR TAYLOR: Yes, that was a good thing.

MR BIZOS: I’m glad we agree about that.

"Demands should be made"

and apparently the - anyway, in brackets:

"(human rights)"

Demands must be made for the human rights, was that a bad thing?

MR TAYLOR: If I look at it in the context of that time, I honestly have to admit that it did not suit us. I think it’s definitely the opposite of our politics at that time.

MR BIZOS: Oh you thought that for young people to demand their human rights was a bad thing?

MR TAYLOR: I just wish to place it in the context of 1985. I want to place it in the - the struggle for liberation did not suit us, that the documents were discussed at that time. If we look at 1986, it was in a totally different context.

MR POTGIETER: Do you say it was then wrong but now it’s right?

MR TAYLOR: No, I do not say that it was then wrong and now it’s right. In that time we believed that it was part of the struggle, in other words it was a threat to us but if I put in the context of how we’re living now and how we feel now, then I believe ...[intervention]

MR POTGIETER: You admit it’s right but it did not suit you?

MR TAYLOR: To me it was wrong.

MR POTGIETER: Oh, oh.

MR TAYLOR: Yes. In 1985 it was wrong for me.

MR POTGIETER: Was it wrong if black people demanded human rights?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson, if you can give the opportunity to answer the question fully. It wasn’t a question of the whole black population of South Africa, it was about the activation of radicals and mass activities and this demand for human rights was about the question of housing, schools, accommodation, books, to vote etc., etc. In other words it was part of the whole liberation struggle, yes. And I wish to reiterate that is how I thought and believed in 1985.

MR POTGIETER: And you thought it was wrong?

MR TAYLOR: Yes.

MR POTGIETER: But now you think it’s right?

MR TAYLOR: Of course.

MR POTGIETER: In other words what you’re saying is that you had the wrong attitude in 1985?

MR TAYLOR: Not the wrong attitude but the wrong conviction. In other words, at that time all these activities was about the cause and now I understand, my conviction today is that there was a reason to go for these things. In 1985 I did not believe in it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Taylor, the lack of human rights must rank at the heart of that struggle, why did you think it was wrong for people to want it?

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson, you must remember that if I have to admit, at that time I had been indoctrinated, I was politicised and for me all of these things were part of the struggle to overthrow the government and at time I thought that way and I felt that way.

The circumstances and the climate of that time, the feelings among the people, all these things have changed and we can see it now in 1998 that everything has changed.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Taylor, I don’t want to speak for you but you’re actually trying to say is that at that stage there wasn’t any place for human rights in the political ...[indistinct] of that time, is that correct.

MR TAYLOR: Yes, that is correct, we believed that and I will concede that.

MR POTGIETER: I beg your pardon. What I think is essential here, what you’re trying to say is that you are conceding that if Mr Goniwe in 1985 had the attitude that black people were entitled to voting and human rights, he would not have been wrong.

MR TAYLOR: As I see it now in 1998, yes I concede.

MR POTGIETER: So there was actually nothing wrong with that attitude of his?

MR TAYLOR: Well, if I look back in retrospect, yes.

MR BIZOS: You see, let’s go on.

"The youth organisation"

youth unit - to form a youth unit - let me read them all because I think that:

"The youth Hanover residence organisation HANORA were given instructions and were told to obey the instructions of the organisations. He Goniwe went to De Aar where he had an appointment with the youth. The meeting was concluded with a prayer by the Reverend ...

who’s only got a file number but apparently no name.

"After the meeting the audience ran outside the hall and began singing and his associates rode away with a Volkswagen"

Now, what I want to ask you is this, are you able to deny that not a single window pane was damaged in Cradock as a result of Goniwe’s influence?

MR TAYLOR: I cannot deny this.

MR BIZOS: Can you deny that as soon as he was appointing acting principal and before, a the instance of the security police he was transferred, the school at Cradock was a model school where there was no boycott, there was no disruption of classes?

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson if I remember correctly there were definitely boycotts.

MR BIZOS: After you interfered with the education department and transferred him to Graaff Reinet there was a boycott, before you interfered, are you able to deny that the Cradock school was a model school?

MR TAYLOR: I cannot comment on that, I cannot deny it but I cannot comment on it either ....[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Well let me just give you further details so that you know something more about the man that you killed. That he, Mr Goniwe stopped school children from coming late to school, from smoking, from frequenting shabeens and under his leadership they took their school work very, very seriously.

MR TAYLOR: I can’t comment on that Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: You didn’t know? And that wherever he went during the period that he was addressing the youth throughout the country he was stressing the importance of education, can you deny that?

MR TAYLOR: No, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: And that it would not help to destroy school property, can you deny that?

MR TAYLOR: No, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: If need be, witnesses will be called in order to establish this. If those were the facts it would tend to show that you actually had blinkers on. If you did not know those facts you must have had blinkers on.

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson, I focused on other political activities such as the issue of the establishment of the organisation at Cradock, with his arrival there, the structures in the rural areas and this document is a typical example thereof, that the instruction that are being referred to here is an example of this, which instructions are actually being referred to. These are the typical instructions of which we were speaking.

MR BIZOS: We’re not talking about instructions, we’re talking about information. If you didn’t have blinkers on you would have known that Mr Goniwe actually united the people, young and old of Cradock and the school was running well.

He was a highly competent mathematics and science teacher and you the security police couldn’t take that and you transferred him to Graaff Reinet and that is when the school children of Cradock boycotted their school and they said that they would not go back until their headmaster had come back.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I think I follow the gist of my learned friend’s question but there are a number of questions, but one of the aspects mentioned by - is it suggested, do I understand correctly, it suggested that the security police transferred Mr Goniwe because he was a competent teacher because that is what was put.

MR BIZOS: No, no, he was transferred because you couldn’t stand a person who had that sort of influence in the community for the good of the community.

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson, I assume that it was like that but the reason why he was transferred was because of his other activities in Cradock, the other side of Mr Goniwe.

MR BIZOS: Do you ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What is this other side?

MR TAYLOR: The establishment of alternative structures and the replacement of existing structures like city councils.

MR BIZOS: Do you deny that the evidence in the Geldenhuys report, that he was transferred as a result of interference by the security police?

MR TAYLOR: I don’t know what that document refers to.

MR BIZOS: It’s already in evidence so it doesn’t matter Mr Chairman.

Now, did you see Mr Winter at the security police’s offices on the 27th of June at all?

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson I cannot give you an answer unless I speculate it. He was regularly there and I cannot remember that he was there on that specific morning.

MR BIZOS: And if there is evidence that as soon as it was reported to him that Goniwe left Cradock for Port Elizabeth very early on the morning of the 27th, he disappeared for the rest of the day and that he came to Port Elizabeth, will you be able to admit or deny that evidence?

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson, as I’ve already said I cannot remember that I ever saw him that day in Port Elizabeth. I can’t deny that he was not in his office but I can’t tell you where exactly he was either. Mr Winter travelled around a lot.

MR BIZOS: When did you for the last time, prior to the morning of the 27th, did you speak to Mr Winter about anything?

MR TAYLOR: That is impossible for me to answer. I spoke to him on various accasions.

MR BIZOS: And how many times about Goniwe during this period of three weeks?

MR TAYLOR: I cannot answer again. I spoke to him regularly and to other branches in the Eastern Cape area, I also spoke to his staff quite often.

MR BIZOS: And how many times about Goniwe during this period of three weeks?

MR TAYLOR: I cannot answer again. I spoke to him regularly and to other branches in the Eastern Cape area and I also spoke to his staff quite often.

MR BIZOS: When did you first about the signal signed by - sent by Brigadier van der Westhuizen to General van Rensburg?

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson, I can't recall, I know that I heard of it but I can't remember where exactly I heard of it, I can't even remember on what date was sent. I am aware however that such a signal was sent but I merely heard of it.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you hear, before or after the murders?

MR TAYLOR: I wouldn't be able to say.

MR BIZOS: But now, that signal recommends the death of Goniwe, Calata and Mbulelo Goniwe, were they three of the six that you were ordered to seek out and kill?

MR TAYLOR: I would just like to make sure the names that are mentioned is Goniwe, Calata ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Goniwe, Calata and Mbulelo Goniwe?

MR TAYLOR: Was that - were they part of our six?

MR BIZOS: You tell me.

MR TAYLOR: As I've said before I knew six names and I said that the possible seventh could have been Mr Mbulelo Goniwe but as I have said I cannot testify here that he was actually part of our group, but two of those names - to answer your question, were part of our group of names.

MR BIZOS: Two plus possibly Mr Mbulelo Goniwe?

MR TAYLOR: Possibly.

MR BIZOS: So that we have a concurrence of names, two for certain and a third possible.

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: Have you got any doubt that whoever gave you the order must also - there must have been some interaction between the persons that sent the signal and the person that gave you the order?

MR TAYLOR: I can't comment on that. It was a military document if I'm not mistaken. The sginal was a military document.

MR BIZOS: You must have wanted to know during the period of your transformation who gave the order, who - were the order came from and I'm not talking to you from Mr van Zyl as you say, but where from the top did it come?

MR TAYLOR: I have wondered about that Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Well, didn't it occur to you to look into the circumstances of the signal and try to find out for yourself?

MR TAYLOR: I didn't have access to that document.

MR BIZOS: Even late - much later when it was published all over the place?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct, I didn't have access to that document and I wouldn't be able to say what the military source of the information would have been regarding the document.

MR BIZOS: You said to the Chairman that you can't remember if you heard about it before or after the death of Goniwe. Try and remember carefully from whom you might have heard, before the death of Goniwe, about the signal.

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson, once again I do reserve some doubt, but I think that it was after the death of Goniwe but I would not like to place that as a true fact.

MR BIZOS: Now please have a look at paragraph 11 of Exhibit K1. Did you attend some GIS meetings, G-I-S and VEIKOM? Did you attend such meetings?

MR TAYLOR: On a JMC level, yes Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Regularly?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: How often were these meetings held?

MR TAYLOR: In 1985 it was on a weekly basis and as I've said earlier the JIC met on a daily basis but I am now speaking of the mini JMC.

MR BIZOS: Was that - did that meet on a daily basis as well? The GIS, did that meet daily?

MR TAYLOR: No, the GIC met on a daily basis.

MR BIZOS: And GIS?

MR TAYLOR: We have to distinguish between the letters, C refers to Centre and the other refers to Committee so if there was a meeting, it would have been the Joint Information Centre and would be those who would be involved in the operational team and who would be dealing with information as it was received.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Did that meet daily, the one that you were on, the one that you attended regularly, did that meet daily?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: And what was that called?

MR TAYLOR: The Joint Information Committee.

MR BIZOS: Just give the Afrikaans "verkorting" for it please, the one that you were on.

MR TAYLOR: "Die Gemeerskaplike(?) Inligtings Komitee.

MR BIZOS: Is that GIS?

MR TAYLOR: GIC. I think Mr Bizos ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: GIK.

MR BIZOS: GIK?

MR TAYLOR: Dis die Afrikaans.

MR BIZOS: And what was GIS in Afrikaans?

MR TAYLOR: "Gemeenskaplike Inligtings Sentrum".

MR BIZOS: Were you on that?

MR TAYLOR: Sometimes. If there was an emergency we had a certain type of plan which we executed in the black neighbourhoods of Port Elizabeth and it was actually expected of me to be there on a full time basis at times.

So, to make it clear, it was actually when the JIC went over to the JIS it was going into an operational function. ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Please, you know I don't want to become drowned with these abbreviations. The GIS, was that a body which you attended from time to time?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: Thank you. And VEIKOM, V-E-I-K-O-M? Was that body that you sat on?

MR TAYLOR: As I've said before, I will reiterate, it was a dominent body. The GIS was a sub-division and the JOC was also another sub-division and I sat on various bodies.

MR BIZOS: Did you sit on the two bodies that I have mentioned to you, yes or no?

MR TAYLOR: Yes, I did.

MR BIZOS: Yes thank you, now we can read paragraph 11. "Various teachers, scholars and residents were under his influence in these activities and that is how they became involved in these activities. Among others, to collect funds for a possible legal matter with the unrest climate which was building up in the area. It was decided on JMC and VEIKOM level that the situation was alarming in the area and it was requested that Goniwe, Goniwe's elimination - Goniwe's removal be considered"

MR TAYLOR: I connot comment on this document, it is not a mini JMC document, it's a regional document if my inference is correct. This did not come from the mini JMC.

MR BIZOS: This ...[inaudible] to the Geldenhuys Report, where would the Commissioner have got that information from?

MR TAYLOR: I don't know but if he received it from the JMC it would not have been from the mini JMC, it would have been from the regional JMC. So in other words there were levels of the JMC on which it operated and the mini JMC was on ground level, it wasn't on a managerial level.

MR BIZOS: Was the word: "verwydering" often used in the committees that you sat on?

MR TAYLOR: No, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: You never heard the word: "verwyder" in these discussions about Goniwe?

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson that Mr Goniwe was not the subject of the mini JMC in Port Elizabeth, he would have been the subject of the mini JMC in Cradock. The mini JMC in Cradock would have reported back to the regional JMC.

MR BIZOS: Did the word: "verwyder" have a special meaning in the security police circles in 1985?

MR TAYLOR: No, Chairperson, not as far as I was concerned, it was not used often.

MR BIZOS: Well, if anybody used the words "Goniwe moet verwyder word", what would you have understood?

MR TAYLOR: Detention perhaps, restriction.

MR BIZOS: But why "verwyder"?

MR TAYLOR: As I've said it wasn't a word that was used. If I had to make an inference now I would have understood it as detention or restriction.

CHAIRPERSON: When you finally received the instruction to kill Mr Goniwe and others, which words were contained in the instructions?

MR TAYLOR: Eliminate.

CHAIRPERSON: Nothing about devise a plan or anything like like?

MR TAYLOR: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you understood "eliminate" to mean kill?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Now you say on page 6 of Exhibit DD that

"There black policemen and three white policemen present at the pick-up point"

where was the pick-up point?

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson, which paragraph please?

MR BIZOS: Turn to page 6, about 4/5ths of the - down the page

"He said that at the pick-up point there were three black police and three white police present"

Where was the pick-up point?

MR TAYLOR: The pick-up point Chairperson, if I remember correctly was the place where they would be ambushed.

MR BIZOS: Where was that?

MR TAYLOR: I would just like to read through the statement once more. It must refer to the place where they were intercepted, that must be Oliphantskop.

MR BIZOS: Were all there together?

MR TAYLOR: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Well, what does this mean then?

MR TAYLOR: I see that it says that me or us three and three other black policemen were present and that is not the version that I recall because it the pick-up point which is being referred to here, if that is the Oliphantskop pass, there were only three of us there, myself, van Zyl and Lotz.

MR BIZOS: Well if that be the case why did you say what you are recorded as having said and which you did not correct?

MR TAYLOR: This is correct, I did not notice this, I only read through this document very swiftly because I trusted in the content of the document. There were other errors as well.

MR BIZOS: Yes, but you in your evidence in chief corrected those that you thought were wrong. Isn't this another example of your contradicting yourself as a result of not telling us the whole truth?

MR TAYLOR: Not that I wish to contradict myself but I see that the facts here are not the way that I know them. I can definitely remember that there were only three of us. Initially it wasn't certain whether the three black policemen would be used for the operation.

MR BIZOS: Yes. It may be a convenient stage Mr Chairman.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

ERIC TAYLOR: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: (cont)

Please look at page 4 of Exhibit DD. We have read the passage to you before but I want to merely refresh your memory and ask you a few qustions about it. The 3rd line:

"He pointed out in response to a question that it was the top structures who decided this operation should be carried out and that the people who gave the command will be coming forward at the amnesty hearing".

Is that a correct record of what you said?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did you ever try to find out precisely who was the - from whom the ulitmate authority came?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, when this note was made I had already know that Colonel Snyman and van Rensburg and du Plessis had already applied for amnesty for this same incident and that was the top structure I referred to.

MR BIZOS: Well, "top structures" means, and I think we went into it before, structures means not an individual but things like the army or the police force or the security police head office or the secretariat. Do you remember that we went through that debate, we don't have to repeat it.

MR TAYLOR: That is correct Mr Chairman, but I've referred specifically to the persons I've mentioned and that's why I added that these people would come to the fore during the amnesty hearings.

MR BIZOS: You fellow applicants told us that they don't believe that Mr Snyman took this decision on his own but that he must have had authority from higher up. Do you agree with them?

MR TAYLOR: That is what was testified here. I don't know from where this came except what I've heard here.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now, from what you heard here or elsewhere, did you ever take any steps to find out from Mr Snyman, from whom he might have obtained authority?

MR TAYLOR: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Why not?

MR TAYLOR: As I've already explained Mr Chairman, during those times when we cooperated I would not have asked such a question and afterwards I felt the same regarding my respect for Colonel Snyman. I've also said that I had very little contact with him after he had left the force.

MR BIZOS: You have a common attorney.

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: In the interest of full disclosure, did you ask your attorney to ask Mr Snyman, in view of the feeling that the orders came from above, from whom he might have received orders?

MR TAYLOR: I did not do that Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Why not?

MR TAYLOR: I did not think about doing that.

MR BIZOS: Well now that I've told you about it, don't you think that you might try to help the Committee to get to the bottom of this, where the ultimate authority came from?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, I would like to assist you if I could.

MR BIZOS: Well, what about suggesting to your attorney that he should go to the investigating officer or the Attorney General for a confidential statement to be taken that may help the investigating officer and the Attorney General to investigate these murders further in order to find out who indeed ordered them?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, I left this investigation to the investigative officers.

MR BIZOS: The investigating officers can't get very far unless you cooperate with them.

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, I could not assist them because I was not in contract with high authority.

MR BIZOS: But you could have arranged a visit with Mr Snyman, he is ill, as ill as we are told he is and ask him: "Colonel, in the interests of truth and justice, please let us know from whom you got orders that this should be done". Why don't you take that step even now?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, I'm telling you straightforward, I'm not going to approach Mr Snyman under these circumstances.

MR BIZOS: Well, why shouldn't you ask your attorney to approach Mr Snyman under these circumstances?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, as far as I know they visited Mr Snyman the other day, I don't know what the discussion were about.

MR BIZOS: May I suggest to you that you and your fellow applicants are still more loyal to the system that led to these murders rather than to the truth and justice and that is why you didn't take any steps to find out.

MR TAYLOR: No, Mr Chairman. I want to add that yes, I still have a loyalty towards my colleagues but that is that.

MR BIZOS: And that loyalty includes the right or rather includes that you will not involve people that may have been involved.

MR TAYLOR: No, Mr Chairman, that's not what I mean.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

Mr Taylor, just a few issues that I'd like to clarify with you. You stated quite clearly that part of the plan or the primary method of killing the deceased would be by stabbing them.

MR TAYLOR: That is correct.

MS PATEL: And that the stabbing would take place or would be done by the three black members.

MR TAYLOR: No, not in the initial planning. As I've already stated, only the 27th, that afternoon, I became aware that the black memebers were possibly involved in this operation.

MS PATEL: Prior to that then, would the stabbing then have been done by yourselves?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

MS PATEL: Why then was the decision taken to use the three black members if you yourself were willing to do that?

MR TAYLOR: The decision was not taken by me, it was taken by Captain van Zyl and he also explained it to us. I can't remember exactly why he said it had to happen in such a way, perhaps when he saw the operation would not be executed as planned.

MS PATEL: What do you mean by that: "Would not be executed like it was planned"?

MR TAYLOR: I want to come back to my point, initially on the Friday when the elimination or the murders took place that afternoon it was told that the three members would assist us if necessary.

I did not take the decision to involve them, Captain van Zyl came there and it just happened in the way I described it.

MS PATEL: So, if at that late stage it was confirmed that the black members would be used for that specific purpose, can you explain why you would have left them, or the decision was taken that they would wait for you at some distance away from where the killings had taken place?

Surely you would have taken them along with you if they were in fact going to be used for the actual killing of these deceased?

MR TAYLOR: I don't which arrangements Mr van Zyl had made with the balck memebers. And the reason why they were not on the scene, that it would draw attention to the activities there. In other words my idea of adding the black members later on was that we did not want to have people on the scene.

MS PATEL: But certainly you will concede Mr Taylor, that the three black persons who were present during this operation were not waiting at the police station for you to come and collect them, that they were still waiting at some spot where they could have been spotted by anyone. And that would have - surely if you're saying, that that would have alerted attention. What's the difference?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, I can't concede, I had no idea where the point was where they were waiting for van Zyl.

MS PATEL: Alright. You've noted that the last two persons who were killed were Mr Calata and Mr Goniwe.

MR TAYLOR: That is correct.

MS PATEL: Were they both killed in your presence?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct.

MS PATEL: So you saw the killing of both?

MR TAYLOR: I went with Lotz, I walked to near the spot, it was about 15 - 20 metres from me.

MS PATEL: Are you saying 15 - 20 metres from where the car was parked?

MR TAYLOR: No, from where I was standing. We walked a little distance, I was 15 - 20 metres from the place where the first person was killed.

ADV POTGIETER: And you stated that they didn't put up a fight, that there was no struggle?

MR TAYLOR: Yes, that is correct. I can say that, especially regarding the second person I was personally involved in, the person I hit with the object.

MS PATEL: Were the bodies of the two persons, Mr Calata and Mr Goniwe moved at any stage?

MR TAYLOR: No, Mr Chairman.

MS PATEL: Can you state whether the last person that was killed would have been able to see the body of the person who was killed before that?

MR TAYLOR: No, they were not able to see it.

MS PATEL: Can I refer you to exhibit, the photographs, it's Exhibit E. If you could turn to photograph as marked by the Committee, number 10.

MR TAYLOR: I see it Mr Chairman.

MS PATEL: You see it is a photograph of the bodies of Mr Calata and Mr Goniwe.

MR TAYLOR: It seems to be, yes.

MS PATEL: Is that the area in which the two person were killed? Do you confirm that?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct.

MS PATEL: Do you also see that between the two bodies there is no folioage, there is nothing that prevents the one person from seeing the body of the other?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct, yes.

MS PATEL: And you still stick ...[intervention]

MR TAYLOR: But I just want to add that we should take into consideration that this photograph was taken during the day and the actual deed was committed during the night.

MS PATEL: But still, you will concede that the distance between the bodies is not a great distance, it's actually very close to each other isn't it?

MR TAYLOR: It's difficult to estimate the distance from this but I think it was about 15 to 20 metres, definitely 15 metres.

MS PATEL: Are you absolutely certain about the distance?

MR TAYLOR: I'm certain yes. Mr Chairman, we must remember this happened during the night.

ADV POTGIETER: Do you want to indicate to us from where you are sitting which distance it was?

MR TAYLOR: I would guess it would be from this table to the table opposite where Ms Patel is sitting.

ADV POTGIETER: Tot hierso, langs Mej Patel?

MR TAYLOR: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It's about 12 to 15 metres?

MR TAYLOR: It's about 12 to 15 metres Mr Chairman, yes.

MS PATEL: You confirm that there was definitely no struggle?

MR TAYLOR: No, I confirm that Mr Chairman. Here where this photograph was taken they were hit unconscious while they were still walking.

MS PATEL: I put it to you Mr Taylor, that it's highly unlikely, given the proximity of the bodies, that the last person who was killed would not have realised that there was something untoward happening and would not have put on a struggle.

MR TAYLOR: Regarding the first aspect, it was possible that he had become suspicious but regarding your second question, I think because of the quick lapse of time till when he was hit he could not realise actually what was happening around him.

MS PATEL: Was any of the clothing removed from any of the deceased?

MR TAYLOR: I can't remember Mr Chairman, I can't remember. It might be possible but I can't remember.

ADV POTGIETER: Sorry I just want to go to the previous point that you made. Mr Taylor, on page 156 of the record, the report of the post mortem, Mr Goniwe's post-mortem, paragraph 3 the last sentence. Do you see that?

MR TAYLOR: Paragraph 3 of page 156?

ADV POTGIETER: On page 156.

MR TAYLOR: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: That last sentence.

"The body was found in a general position, in a fighting position".

MR TAYLOR: I see that Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: What does that tell you?

MR TAYLOR: I can't comment on the person who did the post-mortem.

ADV POTGIETER: No, no, no, I don't want you to comment of the person who did the post-mortem. What is your comment regarding this observation written down here, that this person was in a fighting mode?

MR TAYLOR: I don't know what he meant by a fighting position, could somebody just explain to me what this term: "fighting position" means.

ADV POTGIETER: What do you think: "in a fighting position", what do you think?

MR TAYLOR: No, really, I don't know. I don't know how that was interpreted.

ADV POTGIETER: You have no idea what that means: "fighting position"?

MR TAYLOR: No, I don't know what this person means with a "fighting position". According to me they couldn't have been in a fighting mode, they were lying on the ground.

ADV POTGIETER: I think it has been pointed out to you that according to Mr de Kock he was informed by van Zyl that he was actually surprised about the struggle or the fight which Mr Goniwe had.

MR TAYLOR: I cannot recall that Mr Chairperson. ...[transcriber's own translation]

ADV POTGIETER: Well, the evidence will come when Mr de Kock gives evidence. That is what is written in his application.

MR TAYLOR: No, there were no noises, nobody was shouting.

ADV POTGIETER: But how did you get these people, remove them from the vehicle?

MR TAYLOR: They just climbed out.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you speak to them?

MR TAYLOR: I told them they had to get out and come with us.

ADV POTGIETER: And then they just casually got out and walked with you and you hit them dead?

MR TAYLOR: This is what actually happened.

ADV POTGIETER: What did you tell them, where were you going? Didn't they ask?

MR TAYLOR: At no stage, and that made a big impression on me especially when I thought about that afterwards, that they were so quiet and calm.

ADV POTGIETER: So first of all you ask the first person from the two, the others have already been killed and the other one you asked, the last one of these two: "Just walk with us, go with us"?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct.

ADV POTGIETER: And he got out of the vehicle without asking any questions.

MR TAYLOR: He did not ask any questions.

ADV POTGIETER: He just got out?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

ADV POTGIETER: And he walked with you?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

ADV POTGIETER: And suddenly Mr Lotz hit him from behind?

MR TAYLOR: No, the second person I hit.

ADV POTGIETER: I'm talking about the first person.

MR TAYLOR: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you see Mr Lotz hitting him?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: Could you see across this distance of 15 metres what was happening?

MR TAYLOR: I think I was near to Mr Lotz but I saw what happened. When Mr Lotz returned, when he turned away from person number 1 he handed this iron object to me.

ADV POTGIETER: And then Mr Lotz, with the iron in his hand, came back from the first person.

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

ADV POTGIETER: And this person did not object at all?

MR TAYLOR: I didn't know whether he could see this object.

ADV POTGIETER: What did you expect, Lotz was walking with him.

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, to put it bluntly his hands were cuffed behind his back and he give resistance, he couldn't resist.

ADV POTGIETER: I'm not talking about resistance, I undertand that. He didn't do anything, he just walked with you?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct, yes.

ADV POTGIETER: And you came back, he gets killed and there's no sound? ...[transcriber's own translation]

MR TAYLOR: No, Mr Chairman, as far as I know there were no noises.

ADV POTGIETER: And then you came back and you talked to the other person.

MR TAYLOR: And I asked him to go with me.

ADV POTGIETER: He just had to go with you?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

ADV POTGIETER: And he saw his two colleagues had been taken away and were not brought back, in the middel of nowhere, right in the middle of the night.

MR TAYLOR: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: And then he just got from the vehicle and he walked with you and you hit him just like that?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

ADV POTGIETER: Right from the back and he was unconcscious?

MR TAYLOR: Yes, Sir.

ADV POTGIETER: And the other people stabbed him to death.

MR TAYLOR: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I don't want to give evidence but perhaps I should just clarify something. The "vegter's houding" is what is normally known as the pugilistic position and that is from what I remember from forensic medicine. That is not an uncommon situation if a body is burnt, it's a secondary change. If necessary we'll call expert evidence about it insofar as it may be relevant but just for the information you'll find it in any forensic medicine text book I hope.

MS PATEL: Mr Taylor, you've conceded that it's possible that their clothing was removed, can you give an explanation as to why this would have been done?

MR TAYLOR: Chairperson, I'm trying very hard to recall that part. I'm not certain, I think that certain items of clothing were removed, especially in order to drench the clothes in petrol for the purposes of the fire.

MS PATEL: So you would have removed the clothing after they were killed.

MR TAYLOR: Yes, after they were killed.

MS PATEL: And the shoes?

MR TAYLOR: No, I can't remember anything about the shoes, I can't comment on that at all.

MS PATEL: There would be no reason for removing their shoes?

MR TAYLOR: No, I can't think that there would have been any reason to do that.

MS PATEL: Mr Taylor, please turn to photograph 11 of that same bundle, the exhibit. You see it's a photograph of Mr Goniwe.

MR TAYLOR: I assume so, I can't identify the person.

MS PATEL: You accept though that it is?

MR TAYLOR: Yes, I will.

MS PATEL: There's a shoe lying next to his body, do you see that, a takkie?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

MS PATEL: If you look at Mr Goniwe's body you will notice that he's not wearing the same type of shoes.

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

MS PATEL: So then we can accept that that is not Mr Goniwe's shoe that's lying next to him?

MR TAYLOR: That's the impression that I get from the photograph.

MS PATEL: Given the distance between the bodies as shown on the photograph before this, can you explain how his shoe would have landed next to Mr Catala - Mr Calata's shoe would have landed next to Mr Goniwe's body?

MR TAYLOR: I can't explain that.

MS PATEL: Does it not show that there was a struggle and that this wasn't a quiet death as you would like us to believe.?

MR TAYLOR: As I've said, I cannot explain the presence of that shoe. I abide by the fact that there was no resistence and no struggle.

MS PATEL: You've accepted Mr Taylor, that you were present during the deaths of these two persons.

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

MS PATEL: That you could see what's happening, furthermore that you were involved in the drenching of their clothing with petrol or a similar substance in burning their bodies. You were there Mr Taylor, explain please?

MR TAYLOR: Even if I wanted to I couldn't.

MS PATEL: You couldn't tell us the whole truth could you Mr Taylor, is that it?

MR TAYLOR: I have been speaking the truth. If I could have helped by explaining the situation I would have.

MS PATEL: You will concede though that Mr Calata, given that he was handcuffed at the time, would not have been able to remove his own shoes?

MR TAYLOR: I don't know whose shoe that is but he certainly would not have been able to do it with his hands cuffed.

MS PATEL: These photographs were taken Mr Taylor, from the inquest and it was accepted there that this was in fact Mr Calata's show, are you in a position to dispute that?

MR TAYLOR: I will not dispute that. I don't know what the exact process was during the inquest.

MS PATEL: Alright, let's move on Mr Taylor. There's just one other aspect that I'd like a bit more detail on. If you turn to page 11 of your later application, the 2nd paragraph of 10(a). If it's read in conjunction with the first paragraph of10(a), we will accept that in paragraph 2 you are ...[intervention]

MR TAYLOR: I beg your pardon, which page? Could you repeat the qustion please.

MS PATEL: In the 1st paragraph of 10(a) you refer to the four deceased, it follows on that in the 2nd paragraph you are still referring to them, do you accept that?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

MS PATEL: The first line of the 2nd paragraph reads

"Attempts to combat their activities by normal policing methods have failed"

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

MS PATEL: Can you please tell us what normal policing methods were used to your knowledge, on the four deceased prior to them being killed.

MR TAYLOR: Detention was considered, restriction was also considered but it never materialised.

MS PATEL: Are you saying then that no normal policing methods were in fact carried out and tested?

MR TAYLOR: Except that I know that Mr Goniwe had been detained on a previous occasion, but other than this there had been no other fruitful or successful legal processes.

MS PATEL: So on what basis were the options then weighed up Mr Taylor, in terms of perhaps on one hand detention and death on the other if detention was never tried?

MR TAYLOR: The final decision was not in my hands.

MS PATEL: So you don't want to accept responsibility for that I take it?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct.

MS PATEL: Fine. Just in terms of the vigilante attack ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you suggest to those who made the decision, that let us try other options other than the drastic option of killing them?

MR TAYLOR: I never had the opportunity. I received an order, I did not liaise on any higher level, with any higher official regarding this order.

CHAIRPERSON: No Mr Taylor, you were asked to embark on a reconnaissance expedition with the view of planning this killing.

MR TAYLOR: That's correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You seem to be the person who had the most information about Mr Mhlawuli, not so?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So would you agree you were in a position, even if it were going to be rejected, to suggest alternative means of neutralising the effects on the community which these people had?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman, when I was approached this decision was apparently already taken. ...[transcriber's own translation]

CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't think it possible to save their lives or suggest alternative means to neutralise them?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

MS PATEL: Mr Taylor, perhaps just generally, could you give us a little bit more information on what is meant by a vigilante attack? For instance, by whom would a vigilante attack be carried out and against whom?

MR TAYLOR: It was mostly, at that time, between AZAPO and the UDF, also assaults on policemen amongst others, the assaults on presons who at stage were under suspicion that they were informers. Those types of attacks were what we were referring to when we spoke of vigilante attacks.

MS PATEL: From your evidence and that of the other applicants in this matter, you accept that the intention was, for this specific vigilante attack, to look like that of one of ANC or AZAPO against ANC, is that correct?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

MS PATEL: What would the consequences normally be of attacks by members of these organisations upon members or within in the organisation, how would that effect law and order?

MR TAYLOR: It's very difficult to predict, there was already a vendetta between the two groups. I would just like to emphasise that it was not only limited to AZAPO and the UDF but that there were various scenarios where people were just simply attacked and we could not always determine who it was who had killed certain people.

MS PATEL: But the primary - your primary intention Mr Taylor was that it should like an AZAPO attack on ANC.

MR TAYLOR: I followed the regulations or arrangments as I had been told, regarding my participation in this operation.

MS PATEL: An inevitable consequence of this would naturally be that there would then be counter-attacks between the organisations, isn't that a reasonable inference from this?

MR TAYLOR: I didn't think that after the time, it wasn't a consideration for me. The reason for the modis operandi was to divert attention or suspicion away from the police, that was my only intention regarding this method.

MS PATEL: But your overall intention Mr Taylor, as you state in your application, is that you wanted to ensure that law and order would then be the order of the day.

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

MS PATEL: That was your overall intention.

MR TAYLOR: That is correct.

MS PATEL: The primary function of yours that time, was there's a simulation and evaluation that came to you, is that correct?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

MS PATEL: Then you should have good reasoning skills and you should evaluate how certain actions have an effect upon the communities within which you were working, not so?

MR TAYLOR: Naturally, but as I've said, my consideration regarding the modis operandi was aimed at diverting suspicion away from us.

MS PATEL: So you with all the skills and all the information available to you at that stage did not consider that your modis operandi, very far from achieving the overall effect that you had desired, would in fact result in hightened violence.

MR TAYLOR: That was not my consideration. If I can say it directly, that my only consideration was to ensure that I would not be arrested subssequently. That was my primary consideration. In other words, to commit the murders and to get away with it.

MS PATEL: So the end of the day your objective of achieveing law and order really meant nothing, is that what you are saying?

MR TAYLOR: That's not what I'm saying. The only reason why this modus operandi was employed and why I went along with it was to protect myself from prosecution subsequent to these murders.

MS PATEL: Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Taylor, you had the bayonet, is that correct?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct.

ADV POTGIETER: Why didn't you stab the persons?

MR TAYLOR: It just happened too quickly, after I hit the person he was stabbed with the bayonet.

ADV POTGIETER: So you would have stabbed him but the others were just too quick for you?

MR TAYLOR: Yes, I would have stabbed him, that was the initial plan when the three of us were alone, so I was prepared for that.

ADV POTGIETER: So the bayonet was in your position?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

ADV POTGIETER: So you just left it up to the others to do the stabbing?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct Chairperson.

ADV POTGIETER: You had absolutely no part in the stabbing?

MR TAYLOR: No, definitely not but I was present at the body of the deceased, it happened in my presence.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any questions Mr Hugo?

MR HUGO: No, I've got no questions thank you.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe?

MR VAN DER MERWE: No, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Just a number of aspects. My learned friend put it to you that a damaged detonator was found at the Motherwell scene and it was handed in as Exhibit GG at the Motherwell trial, the detonator which you picked up there, the - we have the one that was found at the scene at the crime and then a complete detonator.

You say that the detonator that was handed to you was damaged, is that correct?

MR TAYLOR: Yes, that's correct, and I added that it had been involved in an explosion.

MR BOOYENS: Regarding Exhibit GG, what it shows, is that how the detonator looked that was given to you?

MR TAYLOR: Yes, that's correct.

MR BOOYENS: I apologise Chairperson, unfortunately this is a colour copy of a colour photo, unfortunately there is only one available, may I be granted the permission to submit this as an exhibit? I can just mention that is part of an appeal record so we would be requiring to have it returned.

At one stage it was asked, put to you that when you were sitting with the four individuals in the vehicle, if the four of them couldn't just jump out of the vehicle and run away. In the first place how were their hands cuffed, if they were?

MR TAYLOR: Their hands were cuffed behind their backs.

MR BOOYENS: Was there anything which may have obstructed them from opening the doors and running away, apart from the cuffs?

MR TAYLOR: Yes, chairperson, the doors were locked, regarding the normal procedure with the abduction of suspectes, the child locks were activated.

MR BOOYENS: That must be general knowledge, the child locks ensure that you cannot open a door from the inside of the vehicle, and that would have counted for the back doors?

MR TAYLOR: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And the front doors?

MR TAYLOR: The front doors were also locked and the person sat next to me and it wasn't a problem.

MR BOOYENS: You've also said broadly that the so-called G Plan was a mobilisation plan, what were the ramifications of the G Plan?

MR TAYLOR: On ground level?

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

MR TAYLOR: Firstly, it was the removal of the authoritive institutions from black neighbourhoods, that included city councils, police, the establishment of no go areas, intimidation, assaults on police with the idea to establish the alternative structures with the objective of final takeover and control of these structures.

MR BOOYENS: It was put to you what you knew about vigilante murders, you said that you had seen many corpses who

had been stabbed and burnt, what was the reason for burning the bodies of the four individuals involved in this case? What was the procedure?

MR TAYLOR: It was standard procedure in the black neighbourhoods or rather, it was something which appeared regularly.

MR BOOYENS: And the term: "vigilante murder", was that a phrase? Where does that come from?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct, it was simply terminology which originated amongst our ranks.

MR BOOYENS: If the Commission would just bear with me, I would just like to see whether I have any further insrtuctions Mr Chairman. No further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

DR TSOTSI: Mr Taylor, did I correctly hear you to say at the beginning of your evidence that you were deployedin Lesotho?

MR TAYLOR: No, Chairperson, I was not in Lesotho. I had done border duty in Ovambuland.

DR TSOTSI: You didn't go - you didn't do any border duty in Lesotho?

MR TAYLOR: No, Mr Chairman.

DR TSOTSI: Now you've told us that your division was more porfessional than other divisions of the police, is that correct?

MR TAYLOR: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

DR TSOTSI: And that you were given a certain amount of training, political training? Was it political or military training that you received?

MR TAYLOR: Both military or operational training as well as security branch training.

DR TSOTSI: And you were taught that there was a revolutionary onslaught bearing hatched up against the government?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct Chairperson.

DR TSOTSI: Did they teach you anything about democracy?

MR TAYLOR: At times it was explained to us, and the democracy which was taught to us was the democracy of the white minority and that was what was seen as democracy at the time.

DR TSOTSI: Oh, it excluded the black majority?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct. I'm referring to the time period and the related convictions that we held at that time.

DR TSOTSI: Did you regard the blacks as human beings like yourself or people outside the pale of society as you know it?

MR TAYLOR: I defintely did regard them as human beings.

DR TSOTSI: When you killed them, did you consider that you were killing human beings?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct but I also saw these persons as my enemies.

DR TSOTSI: You also saw them as your enemies hey?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

DR TSOTSI: Now you were taught to, at least part of your duties consisted in an endeavour to stabilise the Eastern Cape. You wanted to stabilise this - the Eastern Cape because there's a lot of revolutionary activity in the area.

MR TAYLOR: That is correct.

DR TSOTSI: Yes. Now you've given us precious little about what actual revolutionary activity was going on except reference to the G Plan, did you consider that to be part of your revolutionary acitivty, that Goniwe and others were engaged in?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

DR TSOTSI: Was it part of your duties to control the beliefs, quite apart from the activities, the beliefs of the people?

MR TAYLOR: Insofar as it involved the revolutionary onslaught, yes.

DR TSOTSI: You agree that the G Plan was really a programme isn't it, a programme of action on the part of certain persons?

MR TAYLOR: That was the beginning or initial phases of a programme. From the G Plan or in the G Plan, all the other manifestations appeared. As I've already mentioned, the mobilisation actions, the death of certain people, the actions against the police ...[intervention]

DR TSOTSI: Let's get down to the people involved, Goniwe. As a result of his having being party to the formation of the G Plan, what activity did he engage in actually?

MR TAYLOR: He wasn't only involved in those Committees, he was also at the public meetings, the information did not come out, it was actually discussed in smaller groupings after the meeting and often it was the case that people received orders to ensure the liberation and that was the idea behind the establishment of area committees, to mobilise people to establish liberated zones and to establish a people's war.

And that happened later with the SDU's who operated within the G Plan and received their training from those certain individuals who were trained and who were brought in. And first the attacks were launched with stones and petrol bombs, eventually home made weapons ...[intervention]

DR TSOTSI: I'm interested in what Goniwe and the other two men, the other three men did, I don't want a general description of what happened. Just tell us precisely what Goniwe did, what Mkhonto did, what Mhlawuli did and what Calata did to warrant being sentenced to death? What were their actual activities on the ground?

MR TAYLOR: As I've said, they politicised people at secret home meetings where they gave orders to people and told them that the existing structures, existing authority structures should be removed from the black neighbouthoods and that ...[intervention]

DR TSOTSI: You are telling us what - just a minute, I'm sorry to disturb you, but you are telling us what they said to other people, how they tried to influence other people. What I want to find out is, did they put that what they said actually into practice and what way?

MR TAYLOR: Yes, it was definitely put into practice by them Chairperson. At meetings of small groups orders were given to people specifically by Mr Goniwe and other persons. It usually took place after a large meeting and after it had adjourned these people would meet in samller groups ...[intervention]

DR TSOTSI: Okay, orders were given to these people by Mr Goniwe as a result of what - what did they do as a result of those orders? Who were given orders, what did they do as a result of having been given those orders?

MR TAYLOR: Unrest broke out, violence broke out, community councils were formed, the police were deriven out of the black neighbourhood, the are committees gained greater control over these zones, they were ungovernable.

We had no-go areas as a result of these alternative structures.

DR TSOTSI: And you say that these four men or seven men were responsible for all that?

MR TAYLOR: In that area, definitely.

DR TSOTSI: You said, laid emphasis on the rural areas, which are the rural areas?

MR TAYLOR: This includes many areas, Grahamstown, Karoo, South Eastern Cape.

DR TSOTSI: Were there any people who were active in those areas? Were there any so-called revolutionaries or activists operating in that area?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

DR TSOTSI: How is it that you have not given us the names of these people?

MR TAYLOR: Do you refer to the list of names that was given to me?

DR TSOTSI: No, I'm not referring to the list of names that were given to you, I'm referring to what you know, the list that you know of person who were operating in these various areas.

MR TAYLOR: As I've the other day when Mr Bizos asked me about the names, it's impossible to remember all these names. If I can give an example, I don't there's anyone here who could tell me who were memebers of parliament in 1995(?), it was 13 years ago.

DR TSOTSI: We're not talking about members of parliament, we're talking about people who have been killed because of certain alleged activities in which they engaged themselves.

MR TAYLOR: I can remember the names of the deceased, these that were killed.

DR TSOTSI: What puzzles me is that so few people could, according to you, have influenced the whole area, the whole of the Eastern area and yet there must have been - according to you, if one follows your statement, there must have been persons other than these seven who were active in these various areas.

MR TAYLOR: Definitely.

DR TSOTSI: Yes. But then you're not able to say who they were. Their names were read out to you and you knew a few of them but apparently you don't know anything about.

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson excuse me, I concede yes but 1985 I knew exactly who they all were and where they were involved in and which positions they had in whatever organisations.

DR TSOTSI: Alright. This photograph of Mhlawuli, how old was it?

MR TAYLOR: It was a reasonably recent photo, I can't say at which time it was taken.

DR TSOTSI: And you say it was a passport size photo?

MR TAYLOR: It was the size but it was distincly not a passport phot, it was a photo which would have been cut out of a larger photo. ...[transcriber's own translation]

DR TSOTSI: ...[indistinct] you mean the head was cut.

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

DR TSOTSI: And you were able to identify Mhlawuli because of you having seen this head of his attached to a index card or something?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

DR TSOTSI: The information at some stage in your evidence was that Mhlawuli was a big man, a thick man.

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

DR TSOTSI: Do you agree that you could not determine that from the photograph that you had in your possession?

MR TAYLOR: I had a description of him ...[intervention]

DR TSOTSI: You had a description of him?

MR TAYLOR: The fact that he was a large person.

DR TSOTSI: So when you went there to stop them to waylay them to kill them your picture of Mhlawuli was that of a big man?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

DR TSOTSI: Yes. Have you any picture of what he looked like?

MR TAYLOR: I saw the picture that Captain van Zyl had and I saw the picture on the index card.

DR TSOTSI: But it was at the dead of night when you stopped them and looked at them.

MR TAYLOR: The inside light of the car was on. As I've said I didn't move to the vehicle first, Captain van Zyl got to the vehicle first.

DR TSOTSI: You didn't consider it necessary at least to ask them to identify themselves?

MR TAYLOR: No.

DR TSOTSI: Didn't you consider that to be a necessary precaution in view of the fact that you had such scanty information about what this man looked like?

MR TAYLOR: Specifically Mr Mhlawuli?

DR TSOTSI: Mhlawuli and the others.

MR TAYLOR: No, I knew exactly what they looked like although I did not meet with them personally but I could recognise them from photos specifically and ...[intervention]

DR TSOTSI: But you were going to kill these men, that's a serious matter isn't it?

MR TAYLOR: That is so Mr Chairman.

DR TSOTSI: Didn't you think under the circumstance that you ought to make doubly sure that the people that you were killing were the people that were due to be killed?

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairman I was satisfied with the identification of these persons at that time.

DR TSOTSI: Now, you received information isn't it from your informers in Cradock that Goniwe and the others or that Goniwe specifically, not the others, Goniwe was on his way to Port Elizabeth?'

MR TAYLOR: No, I did not have an informer in Cradock, this ...[intervention]

DR TSOTSI: How did you know that Goniwe was on his way to Port Elizabeth?

MR TAYLOR: It was through a telephone conversation he had with Derrick Swarts.

DR TSOTSI: Oh I see. And they didn't tell you who was coming along with him?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct, we were not sure who was going to be with him.

DR TSOTSI: And therefore you did not know who drove back with him?

MR TAYLOR: At that stage, that early stage of the 27th we didn't know who would return with him.

DR TSOTSI: So you don't even know that he might have dropped one of those he came with and picked up another person instead?

MR TAYLOR: No, we were not sure. As I've said, later that day we confirmed that the other persons were with him in Port Elizabeth. I did not know if all of them would return or just a few of them or if there would be other persons in the motor vehicle when they returned.

DR TSOTSI: Do you agree that these are possibilities, it's possible that he might have dropped somebody here and taken somebody else with him?

MR TAYLOR: There is that possibility, definitely yes.

DR TSOTSI: Now, did you consider it therefore absolutely important for you to identify these people before you actually killed them?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct Mr Chairperson.

DR TSOTSI: And as you say, you were satisfied that your identification was fullproof, just by reason of the fact that you saw the photograph and that the man was described to you as a big ...[intervention]

MR TAYLOR: I was satisfied and convinced that this identification was enough.

DR TSOTSI: That's all, thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: Could you just clear up one incident for me? We've heard that Captain van Zyl's evidence here was that he wanted to kill all three of these persons, four, because he did not want to involve his colleagues in this incident, is that correct?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

ADV BOSMAN: At which stage were you given instructions to take part in this killing? - that is not clear to me. ...[transcriber's own translation]

MR TAYLOR: Here in the beginning I was informed three weeks before the time, and we told what the method would be and that's why I took the knife with me.

ADV BOSMAN: How do you understand van Zyl's explanation that he was planning, when you left, to kill those people himself because that's how I understsood him?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct Mr Chairperson. I don't know at which stage Captain van Zyl decided to kill them by himself, he did not discuss this with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Taylor, one of the deceased, you hit one of the deceased with an iron.

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Who gave you the instruction to do this?

MR TAYLOR: When I saw - initially it was decided that the persons would be hit over the head with a baton, that was the initial plan. When I received, when I saw the iron object I took the iron object because ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you not stab the person as initially

planned?

MR TAYLOR: Because the black just jumped in and started stabbing.

CHAIRPERSON: But why did you have to hit the man with an iron?

MR TAYLOR: Because I wanted him unconscious before we could start stabbing Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: I'm sorry, if the members of the Committee are finished, arising out of an answer given by the witness, may I be allowed to ask one or two questions?

CHAIRPERSON: How many Mr Bizos?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: One or two questions Mr Chairman.

Mr Taylor, in answer to a member of the Committee you described that Mr - you said that, you said that Mr Goniwe attended samll surrptitious meetings at which he ordered people to do the things that were happening no the ground. Do you recall that?

MR TAYLOR: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: Now Mr Taylor, the activities of Mr Goniwe were documented in K1 and K2, can please refer to any specific reliable information which is contained in K1 and K2, documents from the Commissioner of Police where he said to have given such orders to anyone to commit any serious act of violence or to conduc any people's court or to kill anybody or to do anything?

I'm talking about hard information or evidence that he did anything like that.

MR TAYLOR: It's not in this document, this is a very broad ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Now can we assume that when you say you had information and that information was not transmitted to the Commissioner of Police, that it was either unreliable or it did not exist, and that that information is now made up in order to justify his death.

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson, if I can just get clearance? Who drew us this document, is it JMS document, is it a security branch document, what document is it?

MR BIZOS: I told you that there are annexures to the report of the Commissioner of Police based upon information given to him by the security police, of which you were an important recording memeber.

MR TAYLOR: Mr Chairperson, if I look at this document quickly, I would have like to read it but if I look at it quickly it's just a braod overview, it contains very little information. I would really like to know who drew up this document.

MR BIZOS: I'm telling you where it comes from and who gave the information, assume the correctness of that.

Your Counsel would have objected if I misled you in any way.

Well, can we then say that your answer to a member of the Committee that: "he was busy doing this", is unsubstantiated information which does not appear in these documents and we can't know whether you've just made it up?

MR TAYLOR: We didn't make it up, that was my information at grassroots level.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Let's take the break.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS