Amnesty Hearings

MR KEMP: Mr Chairman, the legal representatives amongst themselves have agreed, subject to your approval, that the following witness should be Mr W A L du Toit. Subsequently Mr De Kock, the technical people involved. If that should meet with your approval, I will ask that we just adjourn for about five minutes, because the witnesses have to reassemble on that side for the ease of the interpreters. So we will have to move to that side. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn for a few minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kemp?

MR KEMP: Mr Chairman, Kemp on behalf of the sixth applicant, Wybrandt du Toit. We thank for the Committee for the indulgence. We will be initially referring the witness to volume 1 of the documents before the Committee. Before I lead the evidence, Mr Chairman, you will note that during the adjournment, we have placed documents before you. It is simply a document in which we apply for a slight amendment to paragraph 9(a)(i) of the application for amendment, merely to extend the request for amnesty also to those crimes as set out in paragraph two of this notice. It follows from the same incident and it is done for the sake of completeness, in line with that done by previous applicants in this hearing.

The witness is ready to take the oath.

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: (Duly sworn, states).

EXAMINATION BY MR KEMP: Mr Du Toit, you are the sixth applicant applying for amnesty in this incident. I want to refer you to page 145 of Volume 1 of the documents before this Committee. This is the amnesty application in terms of Section 80 of the Act, completed by you and handed in last year. Is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR KEMP: Will you look at this document, it ranges from page 145 to page 164. Is this your application as prepared by you and handed in?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR KEMP: The first page is just to give your names, date of birth, address, your career history and other background information. Do you confirm the correctness of this information, as put in this document?

MR DU TOIT: I confirm this.

MR KEMP: From page 151 in this document you refer specifically to the Motherwell incident. Is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR KEMP: You will also find that in this document or in this volume, as from page 115, there appears the document titled Framework. Is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Correct.

MR KEMP: Is that a document prepared by you?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I prepared that.

MR KEMP: This document gives an explanation of your personal history, your career history, the background to the technical division of the security branch, involvement of the technical division and broadly, also the background for your amnesty application. Is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR KEMP: Do you confirm the correctness of the information in this as far as it concerns you?

MR DU TOIT: I confirm that.

MR KEMP: I specifically want to draw your attention to what we are here for, that is the Motherwell incident. It is common knowledge that during the day of the 13th of December 1989, De Kock and Nieuwoudt visited you. Where did that take place and can you remember at what time more or less on that specific day?

MR DU TOIT: I can remember that it took place in my office in the official offices in Rebecca Street. The time I am not sure of, it could have between eight and eleven. I think during the consultation I told you that it could have been between ten or 10,30.

MR KEMP: You have no independent recollection of the time?

MR DU TOIT: No.

MR KEMP: Can you remember how it happened that these people met you? Did they make arrangements, did they arrange for a meeting?

MR DU TOIT: I can't remember such arrangements. I can just remember that they came to my office together.

MR KEMP: You knew De Kock at that stage?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I knew him.

MR KEMP: How long have you known him at that stage?

MR DU TOIT: I knew him for about six years, I think.

MR KEMP: Was there a relationship of trust between you?

MR DU TOIT: I think there was a particular relationship of trust.

MR KEMP: Did you know Nieuwoudt?

MR DU TOIT: No, I did not know Nieuwoudt.

MR KEMP: Can you remember whether he came to your office together with De Kock or did they come separately?

MR DU TOIT: That detail I can't remember, but as I recall it, they came more or less at the same time. If they made an arrangement to come there, I can't say specifically.

MR KEMP: After they arrived there, what did they tell you, what was the purpose of this visit?

MR DU TOIT: Mr De Kock told me, he started the discussion and said there were certain problems in the Eastern Cape. This resulted from offences committed by members of the security branch and they were a security risk, and on a higher level a decision was made to eliminate these people.

MR KEMP: Can you remember whether at that stage it was told to you who at the higher level gave the instruction?

MR DU TOIT: Possibly it could have been told to me, but I can't remember pertinently. In my statement I have said that it was Genl Van Rensburg. It was conveyed to me that this decision was taken at head office, and the authorisation was given at head office.

MR KEMP: Was there any reason to doubt this what they told you?

MR DU TOIT: Not at all.

MR KEMP: What was the request to you?

MR DU TOIT: Shortly, they requested me that I should develop a mechanism to eliminate these people by means of a bomb. This should happen in the vicinity of Port Elizabeth.

MR KEMP: Did they explain to you why it should be a bomb?

MR DU TOIT: The reason for that was that the responsibility should be put before the door of the ANC.

MR KEMP: How would they achieve that? How would they achieve that, to blame the ANC for that?

MR DU TOIT: At that stage we did not discuss those details.

MR KEMP: At that meeting was it discussed which members of your division would participate?

MR DU TOIT: After De Kock had left, I had not taken this decision. I first had to survey the various circumstances, which staff were available. I gave him the undertaking that it would be done, that we would be involved, and that we would be ready by the next day.

MR KEMP: Would you receive any support or assistance from De Kock?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, to the effect, because he made a vehicle and funds available, and also members of his staff, to support us.

MR KEMP: And was a vehicle and cash provided to you later on, as promised?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR KEMP: The money which was given to you, was it a kind of remuneration for your services or what was that for?

MR DU TOIT: No, the money was put in an envelope and it had to be used for the cost incurred during our journey.

MR KEMP: And this was just then to be used for expenses?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR KEMP: When did you have to do this?

MR DU TOIT: It was explained to me that this was an urgent matter and it had to be done the next night.

MR KEMP: How would you get to Port Elizabeth?

MR DU TOIT: Mr De Kock would provide transport and we had to travel by car.

MR DU TOIT: After De Kock and Nieuwoudt left your office, what happened?

MR DU TOIT: I don't know whether it was immediately afterwards, it was the next hour or so, I called Kobus Kok to my office and I explained the circumstances to him, and I tasked him to put things together and to make provision for anything which might occur in the Eastern Cape.

MR KEMP: This Kobus Kok you are referring to, this is Jacobus Kok the fifth applicant?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR KEMP: What was his position in your division?

MR DU TOIT: He was one of the technicians, one of the most reliable and trusted men in my division and we had a very good working relationship.

MR KEMP: And you trusted this man with the project of this nature?

MR DU TOIT: Absolutely, yes.

MR KEMP: Which preparatory measures did he have to take?

MR DU TOIT: With a task of this kind, he had to get various instruments together, and also explosives, and we had to develop a receiver which I had in my possession. I asked him to prepare all these things.

MR KEMP: Where did you get all these items from?

MR DU TOIT: Regarding the explosives, we had that in our possession. We made many tests regarding various limpet mines and got one of the techniques we researched regarding this explosive which would be used. We also used another kind of explosive. But, I could not say why we had this in our possession, but we discussed this, Kobus Kok and myself, and he explained that that was the kind of explosive we used to dispose of land-mines. We used this kind of explosive to dispose of the rest of these land-mines. The rest of the instruments were in my office.

MR KEMP: Where did this come from?

MR DU TOIT: I had a receiver in my possession, and during a research project there was a lead at the explosive division to dispose of the bombs, by remote control. I received one of these senders and the receivers and I thought it would be useful to use in an operation of this kind.

MR KEMP: Whom did you decide would execute this matter in Port Elizabeth? Who was the person who would be involved?

MR DU TOIT: There was nobody else that I could send with Kobus. Therefore, I went with him.

MR KEMP: When did you leave for Port Elizabeth?

MR DU TOIT: We went after office hours and I think Kobus picked me up at nine o'clock that evening.

MR KEMP: That was the vehicle made available to you by De Kock?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR KEMP: Did you drive right through the night to Port Elizabeth?

MR DU TOIT: That's correct.

MR KEMP: So you arrived in Port Elizabeth early the next morning, the morning of the 14th of December 1989?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR KEMP: At what time did you arrive here?

MR DU TOIT: I think it was round about five o'clock, it was still dark.

MR KEMP: What happened after your arrival?

MR DU TOIT: We went to a garage near the beach. We stopped there for fuel, we washed our faces. A little distance from there we called Nieuwoudt.

MR KEMP: What arrangement was made with him?

MR DU TOIT: We did not know Port Elizabeth at all. We told him where we were. He came to fetch us from there.

MR KEMP: Did he fetch you from where you were near the beach?

MR DU TOIT: Correct.

MR KEMP: Where did you go to?

MR DU TOIT: He took us to a private house in one of the residential areas.

MR KEMP: What happened there?

MR DU TOIT: When we arrived there, two of De Kock's men were there. We did not know which of these men would be involved. We found Snor Vermeulen and Snyman. They were busy preparing breakfast.

MR KEMP: Was there anybody else present?

MR DU TOIT: The two of us were there, the two men I have previously mentioned, Nieuwoudt, and also another person I did not know. I still do not know who it was.

MR KEMP: In your application you said it was an older person, who at a certain stage appeared to be a senior officer.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR KEMP: But up to today you do not know who it was?

MR DU TOIT: No.

MR KEMP: Do you have a suspicion who it was?

MR DU TOIT: After discussions I had later on, the people told me, Nieuwoudt told me actually, that it was Brig Gilbert.

MR KEMP: From this house, what happened afterwards?

MR DU TOIT: We left there in a convoy, we drove in the same vehicle we arrived there. We went to a certain point with a lot of trees. We stayed there for an hour. During this time Nieuwoudt left us and he went to fetch the Jetta. He came back where he joined us at the point where he had left us.

MR DU TOIT: Does that mean he went to a certain point, left you and came back later on with the Jetta? Is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR KEMP: Is that the Jetta in which the explosive device was put in?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kemp, I think we must take it from there.

MR KEMP: As the Court pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Let him tell us what he did from the Jetta, let us take it from the time the Jetta was given to him.

MR KEMP: From that point on you went to a different place.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR KEMP: Where did you go to?

MR DU TOIT: I do not know that place. It was in the vicinity of Port Elizabeth, on the outskirts, it was in an area with a lot of trees. We stopped under the trees.

MR KEMP: Now just for the full information of the Committee I want to ask you, you mentioned the people whom you saw at the house, but one of the people who was here you did not mention, that is Martiens Ras. When did he get involved?

MR DU TOIT: As far as I can remember, I can remember vaguely, I didn't see him at this house, but he joined us somewhere on this road where he went with us to this area. We started working there, that is Kobus Kok and myself. We removed the seats and the carpets in order to place the explosive device. The other people were standing there and assisted us from time to time, handing instruments, et cetera. Then we placed the explosives in the car.

MR KEMP: Did any of the people who were there, assist you to assemble this vehicle and place in the explosives?

MR DU TOIT: They might have assisted us in assembling, but placing the explosives was done by us, the technical people.

MR KEMP: After the explosives were placed in the vehicle, what happened then?

MR DU TOIT: It was placed in such a way that it could not be - that it was not noticeable. The various charges were connected. The receiver we put in the boot and we also attached that. So it would mean, and ensured that it would be safe during a journey.

MR KEMP: Who would activate this system when it became necessary?

MR DU TOIT: We gave the code for activation to Nieuwoudt.

ADV DE JAGER: Before you continue. Can you just keep your hands from the microphone. I don't know whether it is you or Mr Kemp but something is making a lot of noise on our ear-phones.

MR KEMP: Who would be responsible for the eventual handling and the detonation of this device?

MR DU TOIT: We described what to do to Nieuwoudt and he would be the person who would activate the code and initiate the detonation.

MR KEMP: After this vehicle was prepared by you, what happened then?

MR DU TOIT: After we had finished our work, we got all our things together and we left the scene.

MR KEMP: Can you remember more or less what time it was

when you finished the preparations?

MR DU TOIT: We left the scene, round about four o'clock that afternoon, we left Port Elizabeth at four o'clock that afternoon.

MR KEMP: Where did you go to?

MR DU TOIT: We went back to Pretoria.

MR KEMP: And when did you arrive in Pretoria?

MR KEMP: I can't remember the exact time, but it was late that night, early the next morning. I'm sorry, we arrived there the same day.

MR KEMP: At a later stage did you hear that an explosion had taken place in Port Elizabeth?

MR DU TOIT: We heard over the media that an explosion had taken place and four people had been killed.

MR KEMP: Did you know who those people were, the people who were the target of this bomb?

MR DU TOIT: No, I did not know the people. Even if they had conveyed the names to me, I would not have recognised them.

MR KEMP: After this had happened, were you part of the attempt to cover all this up, to cover the involvement of the security police?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I was part of this cover-up.

MR KEMP: You know today that four people were killed because of this action?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR KEMP: To take those lives, how do you feel about that today?

MR DU TOIT: It is never an easy situation. I am not saying that because of a lot of experience, but it can't be an easy thing for any person to be involved in the killing of other people. In my case it was very traumatic, it is still traumatic and it will remain like that. Here, at this forum, I would like to convey to the family my sympathy and to say that I am very sorry that I had an instrumental role to play in killing their relatives.

MR KEMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, that is the end of the evidence in chief.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KEMP

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: (Indistinct ... microphone not switched on.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo?

MR HUGO: We have no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO

I am indebted to you, Mr Chairman. If you can look at page 151 of the document, there is something that is not clear to me. You describe a discussion here where you will see that De Kock has told me, on page 151. Then you refer

that -

"Major Nieuwoudt also told me ..."

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Was that during the same discussion where the three of you were together?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Then you go further on page 152, page 8 of the application, where you explain how Nieuwoudt gave some detail. Was that during the same discussion?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, it was happening at the same time.

MR BOOYENS: This was this discussion in your office at Rebecca Street at the technical division.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: That was the only time you had a discussion with Nieuwoudt?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, thank you, I have got no questions on behalf of Mr Snyman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: No questions on behalf of Ras, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: No questions on behalf of the seventh applicant, Vermeulen, thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ford?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FORD

Thank you, Mr Chairman. If you will just give me a moment, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: While Mr Ford is busy, I want to refer to something at the bottom of page 151. You are saying Nieuwoudt expanded and told us that

"The intelligence structures determined that discussions have already taken place between these people and members of the ANC, and this gave it a very actual dimension."

With this discussion is meant that it involved people who are in the process of defecting to the ANC, and they were regarded as ANC supporters, who were directly against combating the total onslaught.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Is that correct that that was told to you at that stage?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR FORD: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Du Toit, it is so that you were convicted in the criminal trial which was held. Is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: That's correct.

MR FORD: And that conviction is presently on appeal, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR FORD: And what is your sentence?

MR DU TOIT: Fifteen years.

MR FORD: Now Mr Du Toit, at the time of this incident, you were relatively speaking, a senior officer, would you agree with that?

MR DU TOIT: To what are you referring? The period or the trial?

MR FORD: At the time when this incident happened, when you were confronted in your office and agreed to do the necessary.

MR DU TOIT: In our terms it is regarded as a middle manager.

MR FORD: There would have been no great terror for you in questioning an order from a senior officer? It would have been legitimate for you to have done so?

MR DU TOIT: I think so, yes.

MR FORD: Or at least to understand the motivation behind an order with such drastic consequences as was the case in this matter?

MR DU TOIT: Somewhere in my application I have explained the way in which we operated regarding this type of operations. The motives were never questioned by members of the technical division. We never evaluated or judged those decisions.

MR FORD: Yes, we know that you said that in your application, Mr Du Toit. What I am asking you now, is that would there have been any serious consequences in so far as you were concerned, had you at least asked for some explanation as to why you were being required to participate in this drastic operation?

MR DU TOIT: No, I don't think it would have had a drastic implication. But I did not doubt De Kock's word and I did not doubt his integrity. It would not have a drastic impact.

MR FORD: Now you heard the questions which I put to Mr De Kock, concerning the legitimacy of orders and there must surely come a time when you question an order which is given to you?

MR DU TOIT: It can be like that, yes.

MR FORD: Now if your evidence is to be believed, Mr Du Toit

"To taking of lives is never an easy decision."

It is a discussion you made and you don't seem to have had any difficulty in making.

MR DU TOIT: To give the necessary perspective, I am trying to say with that, that I did not have any say in the decision to take lives. I got involved through preparing the explosives.

MR FORD: You never thought of questioning that order in any way?

MR DU TOIT: No.

MR FORD: Your involvement in these matters was somewhat removed, was it not? Specifically in this matter, you weren't required to push the button.

MR DU TOIT: Correct.

MR FORD: Your expertise was only used to plant the bomb.

MR DU TOIT: That's correct.

MR FORD: Are you saying that even in those circumstances it was a difficult decision to make?

MR DU TOIT: It was, yes.

MR FORD: Well, then why didn't you even consider questioning, Mr Du Toit? If it was difficult, and you were not going to in any way compromise your position, why didn't you consider questioning?

MR DU TOIT: I can't explain that to you. I will regard that as part of my work. I did not question De Kock's motivation and/or neither his integrity.

MR FORD: This wasn't an ordinary everyday order, Mr Du Toit, this was an exceptional order, was it not?

MR DU TOIT: Definitely, yes.

MR FORD: Hadn't you ever been required to participate in the murder or the killing of your colleagues before?

MR DU TOIT: No.

MR FORD: Well, then wasn't this a different situation?

MR DU TOIT: These people, according to my perception, and I am not trying to justify it here, is all I want to say, is according to my perception, they were on the point of or involved in treason, and that would prejudice the information we got.

MR FORD: You were aware of the drastic measures that were available in so far as the detention of individuals are concerned, at that stage?

MR DU TOIT: I did not have intimate knowledge, but I knew about that. I knew the guidelines. I did not have intimate knowledge of the guidelines.

MR FORD: You were just somebody following orders, Mr Du Toit, is that what you are saying?

MR DU TOIT: Perhaps not as simple as that, but I felt I received instructions and I had to do it.

MR FORD: And you weren't going to question those orders either?

MR DU TOIT: No.

MR FORD: Can I just have a moment, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Whose orders were you following?

MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, I accepted that I was following the instructions of the people from head office. This instruction was not given directly to me. We played a supporting role. We supported the activities of the security branch, or no instruction came directly from an executive officer to me. It would come via the person or persons who had a specific need and through that channel it was brought to my attention.

CHAIRPERSON: The only person, if I understand you correctly, who approached you, was Col De Kock?

MR DU TOIT: Correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The only person who had approached you was Col De Kock?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And I don't understand what - what other possible source was there which you regarded as source, the source of orders to you?

MR DU TOIT: Col De Kock was accompanied by Mr Nieuwoudt from the Eastern Cape. He quickly explained all the circumstances surrounding this case and there was no reason to question this instruction. I accepted that they got the necessary clearance from head office to execute this.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Col De Kock give you an order?

MR DU TOIT: No, it was not an instruction, it was just a request.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what is worrying me. Did Nieuwoudt give you an order?

MR DU TOIT: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Who gave you an order to go and kill those people?

MR DU TOIT: I accepted that this instruction came from De Kock's commanding officer.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't hear you?

MR DU TOIT: I accepted that this instruction came from De Kock's commanding officer, and it was cleared on a higher level.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you for a moment think that somebody had said to De Kock go and get Wybrandt du Toit?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, in total, that was what I believed.

CHAIRPERSON: On what basis?

MR DU TOIT: Well, Col De Kock conveyed it to me like that, that he came from head office, with the request that these people should be handled in this way, and we were requested to play a role in this regard, regarding the elimination.

CHAIRPERSON: I accept that De Kock would have told you that the operation itself, I am talking about the operation, I am not talking about his instructions to you. I accept that (indistinct) this operation had been cleared by head office, but are you saying that De Kock also said to you the head office said that or somebody has said that you, Wynand du Toit, must also come?

INTERPRETER: There is something wrong with the microphones.

MR DU TOIT: No. I have mentioned previously that the instruction was that the technical component that they should become involved. I, myself as a person was not mentioned per se. I have tried to explain previously that after they have left my office, I tried to determine who were available. I could have used two other people and in that instance I would have given the instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) between you and Col De Kock, to me seems to be somewhat different, for obvious reasons. The relationship between him, Ras and Vermeulen and (indistinct). The impression I get is that Col De Kock came and requested you to assist.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct, but he also told me that he had a mandate to do that. That was how this executive instructions worked.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps that's why Mr Ford is asking you if Col De Kock merely came and requested you to come and assist. Could you - why didn't you question that?

MR DU TOIT: In the spirit of the times during which we operated. Today it might be easy, after all this time, it is easy to say, but in the spirit of those times, I want to say unequivocally that there was a very strong bond of trust between the security people, and for that reason I could not question that.

CHAIRPERSON: That might have been so, but one gets the impression that the request or the approach by De Kock was such that you could without any consequences, have said to him I'm afraid, I don't want to eliminate some of my colleagues.

MR DU TOIT: I think one of the previous applicants previously said I don't think it would have been suitable to refuse such an instruction. It would have exposed you as somebody who could not be trusted, if you did not want to participate in the counter-measure against the revolutionary struggle.

CHAIRPERSON: If by the word "opdrag", you mean instructions or orders then we are just moving in circles. Maybe I should just leave it there.

MR FORD: Thank you. May I continue, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe ...

MR FORD: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, Mr Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: This is a convenient point to adjourn, I think, until two o'clock. Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: (Still under oath).

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ford?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FORD: (cont)

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Du Toit, just carrying on from the questions asked by the Chairman. It is now clear from what you say that not only or shall we put it this way, that you weren't in fact following orders, following an order, you were complying with a request, no more than that?

MR DU TOIT: I would have regarded it as an order in these circumstances.

MR FORD: Was Mr De Kock entitled to give you orders?

MR DU TOIT: He conveyed the order from headquarters to me and made it clear to me that this matter had been cleared and headquarters, and that he had been referred to me by headquarters.

MR FORD: And if I understand your evidence further, that the only reason you wouldn't have questioned such an order, was that this might have led to some mistrust, in so far as you were concerned?

MR DU TOIT: No, I couldn't say that that was the only reason. I say it was one of the reasons. I had no reason to doubt it.

MR FORD: I must just put it to you, Mr Du Toit, that in regard to this section of your evidence, it does not appear that the decision to assist in the taking of lives, was as difficult a decision for you as you made it out to be in your evidence in chief.

MR DU TOIT: I have said before it is never an easy decision to take.

MR FORD: When did your trial, the trial in which you were convicted and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, when did that commence, Mr Du Toit?

MR DU TOIT: During the period February to November 1995 to July 1996.

MR FORD: Judgment was handed down on the 14th of June 1996, is that right?

MR DU TOIT: Correct.

MR FORD: Did you testify in that trial?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, indeed.

MR FORD: And you denied your involvement in this matter?

MR DU TOIT: Correct.

MR FORD: And you then presumably instructed your legal representatives to note an appeal on your behalf?

MR DU TOIT: Correct.

MR FORD: That appeal is still pending?

MR DU TOIT: Correct.

MR FORD: When did you decide to apply for amnesty, Mr Du Toit?

MR DU TOIT: Beginning of December 1996.

MR FORD: Why didn't you decide to apply, if you were genuinely regretful, if you genuinely wished to make amends for what you had done, the facility was available to apply for amnesty before then, why did you wait so long before you applied for amnesty?

MR DU TOIT: At the time of our arrest, this process or procedure had not yet been thought through properly and we hadn't yet built up any trust, confidence in the process, and that's why we decided not to deal with it on that basis.

MR FORD: Would it be unfair to say, Mr Du Toit, that your decision to apply for amnesty only came some time after it was clear that you had been convicted and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, and if one has regard to the judgment, I would suggest to you it is unlikely that you will be acquitted on appeal.

MR DU TOIT: I don't know what ...

MR FORD: I'm sorry, you don't understand the question?

MR DU TOIT: No.

MR FORD: I will repeat it.

MR DU TOIT: Please do.

MR FORD: Yes. You applied for amnesty only after it was clear to you that you had been convicted and sentenced. Correct?

MR DU TOIT: Correct.

MR FORD: In that trial you lied, you said that you had not been involved. That's correct?

MR DU TOIT: Correct.

MR FORD: You noted an appeal, you have agreed to that, and what I am suggesting to you, and you are not a "regsgeleerde" as they say, so you don't have to comment if you don't wish to, that if one has regard to the judgment, there is not much chance of you succeeding on appeal.

MR DU TOIT: On the basis upon which we should have or would have conducted the appeal, we had no other reason at that stage or other options. We had to put the process in motion to get to this point.

MR FORD: Isn't this just a last-ditch attempt to avoid being in prison for 15 years, Mr Du Toit?

MR DU TOIT: That might be.

MR FORD: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR FORD

CHAIRPERSON: It is a choice the law gives him, Mr Ford.

MR FORD: That is so. That is so, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: No, thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Du Toit, the section in which you worked, was that a part of the security police, the security branch?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: It was the technical section within the security police?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, it was a section of the security branch.

ADV POTGIETER: It was a section of the security branch.

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you ever have any doubts as to whether the mission or authorisation had been given from up high for this operation?

MR DU TOIT: I never had any such doubts.

ADV POTGIETER: Who was your immediate superior at that stage?

MR DU TOIT: The chiefs varied at the time. I think it could have been Brig Hellberg.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you inform him of this incident?

MR DU TOIT: No.

ADV POTGIETER: Or this request to carry out an order?

MR DU TOIT: No.

ADV POTGIETER: Why not?

MR DU TOIT: I can't remember the detail exactly. The 14th of December is a time when a lot of people are on leave and even if he had been there, I wouldn't necessarily have gone to him with this request.

ADV POTGIETER: Why not?

MR DU TOIT: It was a covert operation which was carried out on a one-to-one basis and on a need-to-know basis, and only people who were actively involved would have known about it.

ADV POTGIETER: But you had to use one of the members of this section in the carrying out of this operation and in regard to certain devices and things which belonged to this unit, you had to use these in the carrying out of the operation.

MR DU TOIT: Correct.

ADV POTGIETER: Didn't you require permission for that?

MR DU TOIT: I was a sub-commander of the unit and I did have some leeway to act, and to use equipment of that kind. I didn't need specific permission to use that.

ADV POTGIETER: So you could just take whatever you liked and use members and launch an operation somewhere else, in another division?

MR DU TOIT: No, I don't think it was that simple. All I am trying to say is that to put the matter in perspective, the technical section wasn't office-bound. We functioned on a national basis, and we had a multiplicity of tasks. In other words, there was a great interaction of people, and movement of people in and out of the office, and it wouldn't have been strange if people weren't in the office. There was a constant interchange of people.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you tell your chief, your superior, that you would be absent from the office and that you were taking Mr Kok with you?

MR DU TOIT: No, I didn't.

ADV POTGIETER: Why not?

MR DU TOIT: I saw fit to limit the information and not to share it with just everybody.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you sneak out of the office?

MR DU TOIT: No, I wouldn't describe it as sneaking out. We left there during normal office hours. We just weren't in the office the next day.

ADV POTGIETER: But the people who worked with you?

MR DU TOIT: No.

ADV POTGIETER: That you weren't going to be there?

MR DU TOIT: No.

ADV POTGIETER: Why not? How did it come about that they didn't know that you were going to be absent?

MR DU TOIT: Well, the next day I simply wasn't present at the office and I think it would have been unwise to publicise an operation of such great sensitivity, so we limited the information to the members directly involved.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you try to be absent from the office in an inconspicuous way and then sneak back quietly?

MR DU TOIT: I wouldn't describe it as going back on the quiet. We travelled a lot and it wouldn't have raised many eyebrows if we weren't in the office on a particular day.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, but you wanted to take part in this operation in a totally inconspicuous way.

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Why?

MR DU TOIT: Well, an operation of this nature is something which one can't carry out in secret, if a lot of people know about it, I tried to limit the number of people that knew.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, but what about your superior? Why was it necessary to be absent from the office in an inconspicuous way, so that even your superior wouldn't know about it?

MR DU TOIT: We travelled round a lot, we were often absence from the office.

ADV POTGIETER: I understand that, but I am trying to get you to answer the question, as far as your chief is concerned. Why was it necessary for you to slip away from the office unnoticed to take part in this operation?

MR DU TOIT: As I have already said, I can't remember whether he was there or whether he had already gone on leave. I can't recall the specific circumstances.

ADV POTGIETER: That may be, but you are saying that you wanted to be absent from the office without anybody noticing, and that applied even to your chief, that he shouldn't be aware of that. Is that what you are saying?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: So I am trying to understand what the reason for that would have been. If you were convinced there had indeed been authorisation for the operation, why was he not supposed to know. That's the point I am trying to clarify. Or did you perhaps have some doubt as to whether the operation had indeed been authorised? Perhaps you knew that this was such a radical operation, that it was actually a special favour which you were doing for your comrades?

MR DU TOIT: No, I wouldn't have seen it in that light. It was certainly not a favour, it was a high profile operation, and the participants in this operation had to be limited to a small a number as possible, for secrecy purposes.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you not trust the chief?

MR DU TOIT: No, I trusted him implicitly.

ADV POTGIETER: But then, I still don't understand your answer. I will try again. Why didn't you tell him what you were going to do?

MR DU TOIT: He wasn't to take part in the operation and I was going to take part and had I conveyed the information to him and had something gone wrong with the operation, then there would just be extra evidence against us.

ADV POTGIETER: So in the normal course of events, if you were to take part in operations, you would have notified him?

MR DU TOIT: As far as normal technical tasks are concerned, yes, but in the case of extraordinary operation such as this, information was always limited to the minimum.

ADV POTGIETER: Was this the first occasion on which you acted in such a way, namely to keep your chief in ignorance of what you were doing?

MR DU TOIT: I don't know whether that was the first time, it was probably not the only time.

ADV POTGIETER: Was it necessary for Mr De Kock, with whom you said you had a special bond of trust, was it necessary to convince him to help you, to assist you in this operation?

MR DU TOIT: Do you mean by persuade, do you mean by means of an explanation?

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, were you sceptical or critical or was it necessary for him to argue with you, and to justify the operation, et cetera?

MR DU TOIT: Well, he explained the matter as in much detail as he could, and I accepted that the matter had been dealt with on the divisional ground level and even higher up at head office. And justification for the operation was not considered by me at all. I accepted that a decision had already been taken.

ADV POTGIETER: You said that you actually saw this as an order in those circumstances?

MR DU TOIT: Correct.

ADV POTGIETER: So it wasn't actually necessary to try to convince you of the desirability or the justification for the operation?

MR DU TOIT: Well, it was explained to me, but it was not necessary for them.

ADV POTGIETER: So they actually did it purely as a courtesy from a colleague, but it wasn't actually necessary?

MR DU TOIT: No, they did explain the desirability or the necessity for this operation. I didn't decide of my own accord to take such drastic action.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr De Kock testified that during a discussion where Nieuwoudt was present, there was at no stage any reference to the ANC and alleged contact between the ANC and the people who were to be eliminated.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that's what I heard and that is what I can recall.

ADV POTGIETER: Is that your recollection?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: But it wasn't necessary for them to give you any details regarding the justification of the operation and so forth?

MR DU TOIT: Well, they did sketch it to me.

ADV POTGIETER: So it wasn't an important aspect for you?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, it was. What was told to me basically, was that these people would go over to the ANC and that that would jeopardise the whole intelligence network and people's lives would be endangered.

ADV POTGIETER: Or Mr De Kock could have told you look, Mr Du Toit, we have to take part in an operation, head office has sanctioned it and it is important, it is an urgent matter and you have to help us with an explosive device. Would that have been sufficient for you?

MR DU TOIT: I assume that that would have been good enough for me, if I had to hand it to him for own use, yes.

ADV POTGIETER: So the reasons and the detail, et cetera, that wasn't of such critical importance to you. You had a very special bond of trust with De Kock and you could simply take his word for it?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Did Mr De Kock testify against you at the trial?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Did he contradict your version that you didn't know anything about this incident?

MR DU TOIT: Was that during the criminal trial?

ADV POTGIETER: Yes.

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: So he contradicted your version?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to re-examine?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KEMP

Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Kemp on behalf of Mr Du Toit. Only one aspect.

Mr Du Toit, if you look at page 152, it is page 8 of your submission to this Committee. The 11th line from the top it starts, at about line 8 -

"They told me that it was a matter of extreme urgency since there was a lot at stake and the people had to be eliminated as soon as possible, according to head office instructions."

Is that correct, is that how it was conveyed to you?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that's correct.

MR KEMP: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KEMP

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You are excused, Mr Du Toit.

MR DU TOIT: Thank you, Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED