ON RESUMPTION
MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, the next matter on the roll is the attempted murder of Jerry Thibedi. The amnesty applicant is Mr PJC Loots.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Loots, your full names?
PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS: (sworn states)
MR DU PLESSIS: May it please you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)
MR DU PLESSIS: It is bundle 12.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis.
ADV DE JAGER: Other references, other bundles that you'll use?
MR DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, bundle 2(b). You will find the evidence of Mr Thibedi in bundle 2(b), from page 303 to page 323. I'm not going to refer to it, I'm just referring you to the correct pages.
ADV DE JAGER: ...(indistinct) refer us to the relevant documents, so that we can try and get ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that bundle 2(a), Mr du Plessis?
MR DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, it appears in two bundles, the first is 2(a), that is from page 255 to the end and then also in bundle 2(b), from page 301 to page 323. That is the evidence of Mr Thibedi.
CHAIRPERSON: Just give us a moment to locate our bundle. Proceed, Mr du Plessis, we don't seem to be capable of locating all our bundles.
EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Chairperson. I'm not going to refer to the previous evidence at the previous hearing, except for one question I will ask Colonel Loots. So maybe it won't even be relevant.
Mr Loots, do you confirm the content of your amnesty application, from page 1 to page 47?
COL LOOTS: Yes, I confirm that.
MR DU PLESSIS: That is the evidence with regard to the general background, which also creates a basis for your political motivations.
COL LOOTS: Indeed.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Then you also confirm the correctness of pages 57 up to and including 75. That is also the outline of your political motive.
COL LOOTS: I confirm that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Now Colonel Loots, you were also present during all the hearings of Brigadier Jack Cronje, Captain Jacques Hechter, Paul van Vuuren, Colonel Venter and Captain Wouter Mentz, is that correct?
COL LOOTS: Insofar as it regards the immediate environment, that's correct. I know that there were times that they drove down to Cape Town and I did not attend those hearings. However that was on a minimal basis, but the rest with regard to this Johannesburg/Pretoria environment I confirm.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you heard the evidence of Generals van der Merwe and Brigadier Cronje with regard to the general background of the struggle and the political situation which reigned in the mid-1980's in this country?
COL LOOTS: Yes, that's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And do you confirm that this is correct?
COL LOOTS: I confirm it as correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Can I then take you to page 48 of bundle 12. Do you have it?
COL LOOTS: Yes, I do.
MR DU PLESSIS: And the matter that we are discussing here is the Thibedi matter, which begins on page 48, do you see that?
COL LOOTS: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Before you begin, may I ask you the following. During this incident and other incidents, for which you have applied for amnesty as well, were you aware of the command which was given by Brigadier Viktor to Captain Hechter as well as Brigadier Cronje?
COL LOOTS: Chairperson, yes, although I was not in personal contact with Brigadier Viktor, however by means of Brigadier Cronje on the one hand and Lieutenant, at that point on the other hand.
MR DU PLESSIS: And did you regard your actions as residing below that command?
COL LOOTS: Certainly.
MR DU PLESSIS: Can you read the Committee your application? I will pause you at certain points to discuss certain aspects. Please begin on page 47. I beg your pardon, I have not fixed the date, what was the date of this event approximately?
COL LOOTS: If I recall correctly, it occurred at the end of 1987, but if I do make a mistake with the dates, I beg your pardon, it was quite a few years ago.
MR DU PLESSIS: Can you please proceed on page 48?
COL LOOTS: I continue
"During the period the unrest situation was at its peak and the conditions of that time have been discussed at length and a repetition of this is unnecessary. I do however confirm my background once again.
What is significant is the fact that leadership figures in the above-mentioned time period worked relentlessly at making the residential areas ungovernable. I would like to refer you to the leadership figures within the ANC/SACP/COSATU alliance.
Jerry Thibedi was a very high-profile COSATU member, who was known in Mamelodi as well as in Shoshanguve. His activities presented a danger to the internal situation, security situation. His activities which presented a danger with the internal security situation were no secret, especially in the Shoshanguve area."
Am I going too fast, Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may actually try and lower the pace at which you are giving your evidence, to enable the translators to be able to translate in the many languages they are using to do so, without gasping for air.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, with regard to the date, I think we can accept that it was the 22nd of October 1987.
MR DU PLESSIS: I'm indebted to you.
COL LOOTS: Chairperson, I take notice of your request and I will move a little bit slower, without beginning afresh.
"Although he was subject to a trade union, it was an unequivocal fact that the ANC/SACP/COSATU alliances' undermining activities were so intertwined that informers from the so-called black power desk, of which I was the unit head, submitted regular affirmative written reports about the role of Thibedi in stay-away, consumer boycotts, school boycotts and other ANC/SACP/COSATU actions."
MR DU PLESSIS: Would you pause for a moment there. This evidence has been put to the Committee previously and I do not wish to repeat it too much, but could you please explain how the informer system worked, did the informers know about one another, how did the reports reach you and how did you process this information?
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, I don't think that it's in dispute that Mr Thibedi played a significant role in the freedom struggle. I don't think it is recognised that he participated in the killing of people, but as I understand the evidence, he was a role-player within the freedom struggle on behalf of COSATU. If you have further details then provide them. I don't know if this can be confirmed.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr de Jager. Madam Chair, I may perhaps make a suggestion. I know we have all read the application and I don't know if you want Mr Loots to go through the extent of the whole application, otherwise I can just ask him to confirm it.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, you may go through your application, but we would prefer, was merely making a suggestion that you don't go into the whole aspect of how information was gathered by informers and how verification was conducted of information gathered from the various informants.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright.
CHAIRPERSON: Otherwise you can proceed with your application.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, thank you, Madam Chair.
Very well, Colonel Loots, would you proceed with the second paragraph on page 50.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
COL LOOTS: As it pleases the Chairperson and the Committee.
"As a result of the reliability of the informers and the fact that they supported one another's information, there was no doubt within me that Thibedi was a hardened and dangerous activist. The content of the reports was of such nature that the inference could be drawn that Thibedi would do everything in his power to enforce stay-away's and boycott actions such as the consumer boycott on the Shoshanguve community.
In this context I refer once again to the Louis Khumalo case where people who bought products during the consumer boycotts in urban areas, were either forced or obliged to eat or drink these products, regardless of what they were. In Thibedi's case the same coercion resulted that amongst others, raw chickens or meat had to be eaten along with the consumption of cooking oil and paraffin. However, there was a difference, all persons who disregarded the consumer boycott and had to eat the articles which they bought, were seriously assaulted for the whole period of time that it took them to eat or drink the articles which they purchased. I can recall incidents which were reported, during which people were forced to eat their own vomit every time the finger pointed at Thibedi as the responsible person who used the youth instrumentally to enforce his political objectives of the liberation movements and will on the people. It must also be said that the victims of the action in many cases were elderly people. Perhaps because they thought that their age would count in their favour, they disregarded the consumer boycotts and paid a very high price. I'm not saying that people were not assaulted or hit during the Khumalo incident, but I just want to make it clear that in the Thibedi incident it was not the exception, but the absolute rule.
In some of the written reports which were received, it was very clear that Thibedi was the person who gave instructions that all taxis that transported people to their places of work during the stay-away, were to be set on fire. In this context I would like to mention that many taxis were burnt and many owners and their passengers were injured during the process, either through burn wounds or from being hit by sjamboks, many were also thrown with stones.
From the reports it also became clear that Thibedi ruled the youth with an iron fist and that they would do anything for him. Their militant attitude and actions ran back to him like a straight line. He was responsible for the school boycotts. I do not wish to say that it was singularly him, because I could never say that, but that he played a giant role cannot be disputed. The school boycotts resulted that millions and millions of rands of damage were brought to school structures by means of total vandalism.
Thibedi was also not favourably inclined towards the police because according to him it was the instrument which was used by the government of the day to oppress the black majority. This opinion which he held did not count favourably for the black members of the police. And in this relation it can be stated unequivocally that he played a leading role during the assaults on police residences and police vehicles.
After thorough consideration, it was once again a case of who would be prepared to testify during the criminal case. As an alternative the emergency regulations were there, but such detention would have given him hero status and the major problem would just worsen. For us there was only one other way out, Thibedi would have to learn a lesson."
MR DU PLESSIS: You say there's something missing here, could you please elaborate?
COL LOOTS: Chairperson, if you would just page to page 54, typed 68, paginated 54. It begins with
"After this I went back to Captain Hechter ..."
What should be added there before that extract:
"I discussed this matter with Brigadier Jack Cronje who is known to the Committee and the Chairperson. I also informed him about the content of the reports with regard to Thibedi as a role-player in his attempts to render the country completely ungovernable. The lesson which Thibedi had to learn we, and that would be me in the presence of Jack Cronje, decided that he had to be eliminated."
Is that sufficient?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, that's sufficient.
COL LOOTS: I continue, page 54
"After this I returned to Captain Hechter and Warrant Officer van Vuuren. It was either in their or my office, I'm not certain, that the three of us then decided on a manner of action. It did not take long and we decided to make use of a home-made bomb in the onslaught. Captain Hechter and Warrant Officer van Vuuren would manufacture the bomb and they would report back to me. Warrant Officer Joe Mamasela was instructed to determine Thibedi's movements as well as the place where he sleeps. Mamasela would also report to Captain Hechter."
I continue.
"It was a day or two later when Captain Hechter told me that Mamasela had identified a house in the Shoshanguve/Mabupane area as a safe-house, which was used by Thibedi and other activists. It was at that stage sufficient information for me and I did not wish to know anything else."
MR DU PLESSIS: Can I just stop you there once again. Is that the information which you received, from who?
COL LOOTS: From Captain Hechter.
MR DU PLESSIS: And where did he get this information, do you know?
COL LOOTS: From Warrant Officer Joe Mamasela.
MR DU PLESSIS: The informer reports about Mr Thibedi which reached you, can you recall whether this made any reference to his place of resident and his wife and kids? If you can't remember this, would those facts have appeared in such a report?
COL LOOTS: No, not usually. We were interested in his activities, his decisions, his planning and his movements, not where he lived or whether he had a wife and children.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
ADV DE JAGER: But if at that stage you had already decided to eliminate him and you sent Mamasela with the purpose of determining where he lived, would it not have been of interest where his wife and children lived.
COL LOOTS: Chairperson, the high-profile activists at that time usually moved around quite a lot, they knew that we were hunting them and we couldn't say with all certainty where exactly they would find themselves.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, continue.
CHAIRPERSON: Before we proceed, Mr du Plessis, I just made a note on a question of clarity. The evidence given by Mr van Vuuren was to the effect that the information about the house of Mr Thibedi was supplied, not by Mamasela but by Mr Loots, can you just clear that up? That appears on page 256 of bundle 2(b) - 2(a).
COL LOOTS: That is entirely correct, I read that extract and took notice thereof, but it couldn't have come from me because I didn't have the address.
CHAIRPERSON: So was Mr van Vuuren mistaken then when he said it was you who provided them with the address and other related information with regard to Mr Thibedi?
COL LOOTS: I merely think that he drew an inference, I don't think that he was really certain. I didn't give it to him.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may proceed.
COL LOOTS: I thank you, Chairperson. We continue
"Late that evening I, Slang, who was also known as Danny Sleshlage(?) who was also a member known as Slang, his nickname, Captain Hechter, Warrant Officer van Vuuren and Warrant Officer Mamasela departed in a minibus."
Chairperson, I would just like to add here that if I recall correctly, van Vuuren also said in his affidavit that I drove the minibus and that is not correct, I did not drive the minibus, I sat on the left-hand side in front and Slang was the man who drove the minibus. Thank you, Chairperson.
"Near the residence, Slang stopped the minibus. I sat in front on the left. The residence was not within sight from the minibus. Slang and I remained in the minibus. Captain Hechter carried the bomb in a bag and he, van Vuuren and Mamasela ..."
...(end of side A of tape 2)
... a few minutes later I heard a tremendous explosion and the three, that would be Hechter, van Vuuren and Mamasela followed in the silence of the night. They climbed back into the minibus, they were out of breath. At first nothing was said. A little while later I wanted to know from Hechter how the action had gone and he told me that van Vuuren had hit a window of a house out with the barrel of an AK47 gun and that he, Hechter, had thrown the bomb through the hole, upon which they had run away. We then drove back to Pretoria. I cannot say with certainty whether or not it was the following day, or two or three days later that Hechter walked into my office and said that I wouldn't believe this. What won't I believe, I asked him. Hechter stated that he had information that there were people with Thibedi on the house and that not one of them had been injured during the explosion. He did not tell me who these people were.
The fact that Thibedi had been arrested by the Boputhatswana Police directly after the incident, only became known to me at a very late stage. The fact of the entire matter is that I was involved in the planning and the ultimate action against Thibedi. I was the most senior person during the action, who was present there and I accept full accountability for the deed and those persons in my command.
As Captain Hechter conveyed the information to me after the action, I conveyed that same information to Brigadier Cronje."
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Colonel, may I ask you something with regard to your evidence, or the evidence of Mr van Vuuren. Mr van Vuuren testified that in the informer reports it appeared that Thibedi's house was a safe-house. May I repeat? Mr van Vuuren has given evidence that from the informer reports it appears that Thibedi's house was a safe-house.
COL LOOTS: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And you have read the evidence of Captain van Vuuren and Hechter?
COL LOOTS: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you agree with it?
COL LOOTS: Yes, I do.
MR DU PLESSIS: Except insofar as you have wished to fix the Committee's attention on the aspects which were important to you?
COL LOOTS: Yes, and where they state in the report that they had a five second delay mechanism on the bomb and that they were already 50 to 100 metres away from the house. I don't believe that a man dressed in jeans and takkies, carrying an AK47 could run 50 to 100 metres within five or ten seconds.
MR DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, this is a bit on a lighter note. You will see on page 258, Hechter and I think van Vuuren testified the following, he said
"We ran back to the kombi. The bomb took about five to ten seconds to explode. About 50 to 100 metres from the house the bomb exploded."
That means they each did the 100 metres, with an AK47, in jeans and takkies, in about 10 seconds, which cannot be and that is why Colonel Loots, he showed me this this morning and I said to him on a lighter note we can point that out to you, not that it makes any difference.
Very well, Colonel Loots, your commanding officer with regard to this incident, was Brigadier Jack Cronje, although he was not involved in the execution of the action?
COL LOOTS: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Will you please come again, I was distracted by something, what was your question, Mr du Plessis?
MR DU PLESSIS: Your commanding officer with regard to this incident, although he was not involved in the execution of this operation, was Brigadier Jack Cronje, is that correct?
COL LOOTS: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Who specifically took the decision to bomb Mr Thibedi's house?
COL LOOTS: Chairperson, I can explain that, because after I had discussed the matter with Brigadier Cronje we decided that Thibedi had to learn a lesson and that he had to be eliminated and then I went back to Hechter and van Vuuren, and I can't recall whether this took place in my office or theirs, but the three of us, me, Hechter and van Vuuren and possibly Mamasela, were also present in the office, but the three of us, actually the three of us decided there and then what would be used and we also decided upon an explosive device.
ADV DE JAGER: You decided to kill him, you and Jack Cronje decided to kill him?
COL LOOTS: That's correct, me and Jack Cronje, Brigadier Jack Cronje.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because the other people you mentioned participated in the planning of the modus operandi that would be employed in executing the decision that had already been taken by you and Hechter and Cronje.
COL LOOTS: And Cronje.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.
COL LOOTS: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR LAX: How could you teach him a lesson by killing him?
COL LOOTS: Chairperson, there were many expressions, such as "taking a man out" and that wouldn't be taking him out to dinner, that would mean to kill him, to teach him a lesson in the same relation would be an expression that would denote elimination of a man. Are you satisfied?
MR LAX: Yes, no, no, I'm familiar with all these terms, I've heard them over and over again in all sorts of other contexts, teaching a lesson doesn't usually mean to kill somebody, it usually means to teach him a lesson, to give a fright or to show him the error of his ways. There's a subtle difference between teaching someone a lesson and eliminating him, you'll concede that? Usually if you want to teach someone a lesson you would assault the person or detain him or something, so that the experience would be instructive and act as a deterrent to further conduct on that person's behalf. That's the only confusion I have.
COL LOOTS: Yes, I concede that, under normal circumstances of course you are 1000% correct.
CHAIRPERSON: I have only one concern. When reading your application and listening to your viva voce evidence, against obviously the evidence given by Mr van Vuuren, if one reads the third paragraph on page 68, that suggests that at the time when the bomb was made, a decision and a decision taken to bomb Mr Thibedi's house, the information with regard to the safe-house had not yet been established. Am I reading that correctly?
MR DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, exactly what is the reference, if I may ask? I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON: It's his application, it's on page 54, paragraph 68, the third paragraph.
MR DU PLESSIS: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you understand me, Mr Loots?
COL LOOTS: I understand you completely, you said that the bomb was manufactured before we determined the address.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
COL LOOTS: Yes, that is correct, the explosive device had already been manufactured before we determined the address.
CHAIRPERSON: And that does not accord with the evidence already given by Mr van Vuuren.
MR DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, do you perhaps have any reference to it?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, 269. So you had this information about Mr Thibedi's house even before you started devising the bomb?
COL LOOTS: No, Chairperson, I went to Hechter and van Vuuren's office where we decided upon the manner in which Thibedi would be eliminated. That is where we decided about the explosive device and that Mamasela would determine that address as well as his movements.
CHAIRPERSON: So the manner of execution was decided before you could establish the address of Mr Thibedi?
COL LOOTS: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: You obviously have already cleared that Mr van Vuuren was mistaken when he said that the information about Mr Thibedi's address was furnished by you and not by Mr Mamasela.
COL LOOTS: That is correct, otherwise I would never have asked Hechter to instruct Mamasela to monitor the man's movements, because then I would have had the address already. I didn't have the address.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat, do you have any questions to put to Mr Loots?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, my instructions are just to take Mr Loots just back relating to certain issues regarding Mr Thibedi, Mr Thibedi personally.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS LOCKHAT: In your evidence as well as page 49 of the bundle you say that he was a high-profile member of COSATU, and you also informed us in your evidence that he instructed stay-away's, he authorised and instructed stay-away's, is that correct?
COL LOOTS: I didn't say that, I said that I'd read this in the reports from informers, the reports stated that.
MS LOCKHAT: Fine. I just want to place on record, Mr Thibedi says that yes, he was the Chairperson of the Northern Transvaal region for COSATU, he says that these stay-away's were not taken by himself, that it was an organisation that took the decision to actually conduct the stay-aways. I just want to place that on record, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll take that into account, Ms Lockhat.
MS LOCKHAT: And he also says the issues regarding consumer boycotts, he says that this was a community based organisation which actually called for consumer boycotts and that it was not taken by him personally, that is was a community based decision and he just formed part of that. Do you want to comment on that?
COL LOOTS: Chairperson, I don't wish to lodge a personal attack on Mr Thibedi, but he is a politician and as far as I am concerned, the politicians of the past and of the present, when it comes to practical politics it would appear to me that it is connected to the denial of truth and fact.
MS LOCKHAT: Mr Thibedi also states that regarding school boycotts, these decisions were taken by COSAS and he was no part of that decision regarding school boycotts. I just want to place that on record as well.
CHAIRPERSON: Don't you at least want him to comment, afford him an opportunity to comment?
MS LOCKHAT: What is your response to that?
COL LOOTS: Chairperson, once again, with regard to my decision and the evidence which has been submitted to the Committee, what I have given you was made available to me in written reports and from these reports I have based my facts which I have submitted to the Committee, so I cannot really comment any further on what you have said.
MS LOCKHAT: So you had absolute faith in these reports?
COL LOOTS: Yes, Chairperson, the informers did not know one another whatsoever, the one would not be able to identify the other and the reports ran parallel to one another. If I might just pause here for a moment. Chairperson, you must also remember that when we speak of informers we are also speaking of two other things, one being post interception and the other was telephone monitoring. When we speak of postal interception we're speaking of WH10. And with telephonic monitoring we're speaking of WH11. When a report was written the informers number had to be filled in and if it wasn't the informer's number it would be either WH10 or WH11 and these reports were also made available to me - when we are speaking of informers, and that is what I based my facts on.
MS LOCKHAT: How many informers were placed onto Mr Thibedi to inform you relating to his whereabouts and his activities?
COL LOOTS: Chairperson, it is extremely difficult to tell you. In my affidavit I have stated that the ANC/SACP and COSATU alliance intertwined their actions. I was simply the Head of the black forces desk and there was also a trade union desk that was separate to mine and all these desks had informers.
With regard to informers, we had approximately 270 informers. Not all of them were full informers, there were two statuses. Your full informer would have NT status and an occasional informer would have an NT(G) status. So it is very difficult to indicate precisely how many informers, specifically with regard to the desks, were monitoring Mr Thibedi's activities.
MS LOCKHAT: You also said ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: But as far - may I interpose, Ms Lockhat?
MS LOCKHAT: That's in order, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: But as far as you were concerned, you had a plethora of informers from whom you were able to get information about the activities of Mr Thibedi, you were able to verify the various information from different informers and from your sources, that is the informants, you were convinced in your mind that Mr Thibedi was a high-profile activist.
COL LOOTS: Chairperson, you are absolutely correct.
MS LOCKHAT: You also said in your evidence that Mr Thibedi was responsible for instructing youths to burn out taxis and so forth. Mr Thibedi's comment is that he never instructed members or youths to do that. Can you give me comment on that please?
COL LOOTS: Once again I will have to appeal to the content of the reports which were made available to me.
MS LOCKHAT: So these facts were basically in the reports, you did not witness Mr Thibedi issuing these instructions or even attempting to burn out taxis himself?
CHAIRPERSON: That's his evidence, Ms Lockhat. His evidence is based on the information that was obtained from the many informers that were at their disposal as the Security Branch.
MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson. Just to take you back to the incident again, did Jack Cronje authorise this?
COL LOOTS: That is correct, he authorised it.
CHAIRPERSON: Did he authorise or did he instruct?
COL LOOTS: He gave instruction to continue. I beg your pardon if I wasn't clear.
MS LOCKHAT: Mr Thibedi also says that his house was never used as a safe-house, that was actually his residence and that that information was incorrect that was delivered to you, can you comment on that?
COL LOOTS: Chairperson, as indicated in my affidavit, I relied quite heavily on the people in my command such as Hechter and van Vuuren and Mamasela. I indicated in my affidavit that when the information was conveyed to me I didn't continue to establish whether or not these were the facts, I simply accepted it, I accepted that it was a safe-house.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose? But from the information that was obtained from Mr Mamasela about the fact that Mr Thibedi was in a safe-house, you acted on that on the basis of that information.
COL LOOTS: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: At least with regard to the fact that it's a safe-house.
COL LOOTS: That is correct, that is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you able to canvass facts about this safe-house, whether there were other activists in the safe-house or whether other people other than those related to the ANC were present in that safe-house?
COL LOOTS: I went to no trouble whatsoever, I was satisfied with the information which was conveyed to me and I acted according to that information.
CHAIRPERSON: But did you explore whether there were any other persons other than Mr Thibedi or ANC activists, who were present at any time in that safe-house?
CHAIRPERSON: No, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Proceed, Ms Lockhat.
ADV DE JAGER: I beg your pardon, who would you have expected to find in a safe-house?
COL LOOTS: One of two things would have happened, either the safe-house was used by people who were fleeing away from us, who didn't want us to arrest them. They would go there in order to lay low, as we expressed it, or it could have been a place where activists met one another, one of the two.
MR LAX: If I could just interpose for a moment, Chair, sorry.
Would it have made any difference to you if this was actually just his home and it wasn't a safe-house?
COL LOOTS: I do think so. If I were certain that that was his house I would have made provision for the fact that there may have been woman and children in that house. For me it wasn't about hitting or eliminating anybody other than the target.
CHAIRPERSON: But emanating from the statement just made by my colleague, Advocate de Jager, to which you've agreed, it would have made a difference because a safe-house is usually used by people who are there for purposes of safety, to run away from the police. So in the normal run of events it would not only be the identified target which would have been Mr Thibedi in this instance, it would have also included other people who were using the house as a safe-house. So it wouldn't have been only the target who would have been caught in the crossfire.
COL LOOTS: I understand you completely, Chairperson, perhaps I was being somewhat vague. When I speak of a target I speak specifically of Mr Thibedi, in the light of himself and activists who may have been there.
MR LAX: So repeat my question, because you know, so in a sense you're differentiating now between his family on the one hand and other activists who might have been there, and that wouldn't have made as much difference to you as his family might have made a difference?
COL LOOTS: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it a possibility that you foresaw at any stage that when you went in to blow this house there might be people other than Mr Thibedi?
COL LOOTS: I don't know if I ever thought that far, I really don't know. I can't remember thinking about that.
CHAIRPERSON: And according to the information received from Mr Mamasela, the impression that was created to you was that it was Mr Thibedi who was in that house and that you had no information that any other person, be it an activist of the ANC or his family, were also in that house?
COL LOOTS: You are completely correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Proceed, Ms Lockhat.
MS LOCKHAT: Can you tell us, that when you bombed the house, what was your role?
COL LOOTS: Chairperson, I was the unit head of both Hechter and van Vuuren and then naturally also of Joe Mamasela and ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what did you do in relation to the operation, what role did you have, what was your participation?
COL LOOTS: I remained behind in the minibus along with Slang or Danny Sleshlage. The reason for this being that should the operation go wrong or should a situation develop that we had not budgeted for, we would be able to handle that situation, because as the evidence which has been given before has indicated, we operated with AK47 automatic machine guns.
MS LOCKHAT: Tell me, did you wear masks and so forth?
COL LOOTS: Chairperson, I may have worn a balaclava on my head, but I don't recall pulling it over my face, and the same with Danny Sleshlage because we were in a dark minibus, but Mamasela, Hechter and van Vuuren didn't only wear masks they also wore gloves. I've said masks, sorry, they weren't really masks but they were balaclavas.
MS LOCKHAT: Did you have any firearms with you?
COL LOOTS: Yes, we were always armed with AK47s, always.
MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, I just want to check with Mr Thibedi if there are any other questions he wants me to ask.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat, I suppose we virtually read the evidence previously given to the original Committee about this incident, which relates amongst others to the fact that prior to this incident taking place, somebody had reconnoitred the place. If I recall it was Mr Mamasela. Mr du Plessis might be able to assist me.
MR DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, there was evidence that Mr Mamasela was sent out before to obtain information and that he came back and that he said that it was a safe-house.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: And then Mr Thibedi's evidence was that there was somebody at the house, I think approximately a week before in a kombi, I think, who came and knocked on the door. I don't think the link was ever drawn to Mr Mamasela, although the probabilities are overwhelming that it was the same person, but that link was never drawn.
CHAIRPERSON: But wasn't there evidence that Mr Mamasela reconnoitred the place before the operation was executed?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, that's what I referred to now.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and obviously Mr Thibedi's evidence was that he was advised by his wife that a week prior to the occurrence of this incident some people came in to make enquiries about his whereabouts.
MR DU PLESSIS: One person.
CHAIRPERSON: One person?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. That's why I said the probabilities - there was never the link made that that was Mr Mamasela, but the probabilities are ...
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Nor do I seek to make the link.
MR DU PLESSIS: Sorry?
CHAIRPERSON: I do not want to make a link between that aspect to what happened thereafter, what I wanted to draw Ms Lockhat to is whether he doesn't want to put questions in relation to that piece of evidence to Mr Loots.
MS LOCKHAT: I'll just check with him again, Chairperson. Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Lockhat.
MS LOCKHAT: Just one question relating to that. Mr Thibedi wants to know what the purpose was for them coming to his house prior, the week prior to the ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: May I request you to rephrase your question, we do not have evidence from Mr Loots that he sent anyone to Mr Thibedi's house. So maybe you can put to him what Mr Thibedi has already said in relation to that and request him to respond, because he hasn't said that.
MS LOCKHAT: Mr Thibedi in his evidence in the previous hearing, said that people came, a person came to his house and his wife had spoken to the person and they wanted to know certain details. What was the purpose of that visit, was it an attempt, was it a prior attempt or just explain that.
CHAIRPERSON: May I again, Ms Lockhat, request you do invite him to comment whether he is aware of having sent anyone to Mr Thibedi's house, as alleged by Mr Thibedi when he gave evidence before the original Committee.
MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson, I'm indebted to you.
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to respond to the question as I have put it.
COL LOOTS: Chairperson, as you have explained the question, I understand it completely. It is so, I did tell Hechter to tell Mamasela to verify an address, but whether they ever used a kombi and whether it was the person who was at Mr Thibedi's house at that stage, is completely unknown to me.
CHAIRPERSON: Proceed, Ms Lockhat.
MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Loots, it is correct that the house was entirely destroyed?
COL LOOTS: That is the feedback which I received, that absolutely nothing remained of the house and that the vehicle of Mr Thibedi had been seriously damaged during the explosion.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.
ADV DE JAGER: You've read his evidence about the stove and all the furniture which was destroyed, did you go and investigate the scene yourself?
COL LOOTS: No, I never returned to the scene, that was the information which I received.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loots, you will remember that when Mr Thibedi - no, when either Mr Hechter or Mr van Vuuren gave evidence they stated that when they arrived at the scene they noticed that Mr Thibedi was parked outside the house that was used as a safe-house, do you recall that?
COL LOOTS: That is correct, they gave evidence that the vehicle was indicated to them by Mamasela as being Mr Thibedi's vehicle.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you there when Mr Mamasela informed them that the car that was in the premises that needed to be bombed, belonged to Mr Thibedi?
COL LOOTS: No, Chairperson, I remained in the kombi with Slang.
CHAIRPERSON: So you did not form part of the conversation that took place with regard to the identity of the car?
COL LOOTS: No, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, as Judge Mall would have put it, are you bold enough to re-examine?
MR DU PLESSIS: Not at all, Chairperson, not at all, I've got nothing to say, for once. For once I've got nothing to say.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loots, you are excused.
COL LOOTS: I thank you, Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, I take it that you are in a position to make your submission at this stage?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: And we'll give you the floor to proceed to do so.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Chairperson.
Chairperson, I have similarly in this matter, made copies of the Heads of Argument which I addressed to the previous Committee in respect of the Thibedi matter, with reference to Warrant Officer van Vuuren and Captain Hechter's application in respect of this matter.
CHAIRPERSON: Can I interpose, Mr du Plessis? A Member of my Committee has drawn my attention that maybe Mr Loots might wish to say something - oh, Mr Thibedi might wish to say something to the Committee.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, may I just say that that is something that I forgot to ask Mr Loots when he testified, so perhaps we should give Mr Loots an opportunity to say something to Mr Thibedi ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: As well?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, please.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Lockhat?
MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, we discussed this prior, Mr Thibedi and I, and he said he wasn't going to speak, but he's changed his mind now, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I recall you saying that to me in chambers, that Mr Thibedi was not prepared to say anything to the Committee. I simply presumed, but I think it's better always to explore some of these things because it is the right of any person to change his mind.
MS LOCKHAT: Definitely Chairperson, I agree with that.
CHAIRPERSON: We will give him the right to exercise. And before you do that, Mr Thibedi, we'll also afford Mr Loots an opportunity to say something before we come to you.
Mr Loots, you may proceed. I am advised that you wish to say something to Mr Thibedi.
COL LOOTS ADDRESSES MR THIBEDI: I thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Thibedi, I wish to close the period between 1983 and 1987, as a chapter in my life which I never again wish to experience or repeat. What I have learnt is the hard and naked truth, the brutal truth, that in war or situations of conflict which existed, which still exist and which are yet to come, it is so that the innocent people are always the ones who suffer the most. And in this case specifically, where I was the unit commander who planned your elimination, I would like to say to you that I am extremely glad and sincerely grateful that your wife and your children were not injured during the onslaught.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Loots.
Mr Thibedi, we will now afford you an opportunity to address the Committee. I take it that you don't want to give evidence under oath, but you merely want to make certain remarks to the Committee, is that correct?
MR THIBEDI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR THIBEDI ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Madam Chair, thanks for giving me this opportunity. What I want to say to the Committee is that I have listened to what Mr Loots said, and I want to say, much as it is not my intention of course to oppose the application, I just want to say that, and I want to convey the message from my family that what happened happened during the period where there was serious fighting in the country, but what my family is unable to understand, and is very difficult to come to grips with is the fact that Mr Loots and his unit knew very well that they have identified me as a target, but for them to go to the extent of throwing what they did throw in the house, irrespective of who was in the house, it's something that I will take a long time to forget. But nevertheless, as he is putting it he is very happy that my family, that's my wife, my kids and my sister were not hurt.
I'm also grateful that all what happened, all the damage that was caused was only caused to material things and all of us who were in the house are still alive today. And I really want to say that I hope what has happened to my family and myself and to all other people in the country who were fighting for this liberation, should never ever occur again. And I really wish this Committee good luck in their endeavour to try and find a solution or an amicable solution to this problem and I hope that in indeed it is a closed chapter and I hope that I will never ever again appear in a situation like this, because it took me many years actually to know who did what happened, but at least for now I want to thank the TRC and I want to thank all of you, Madam Chair, who participate in this particular exercise to make sure that at the end of the day my community knows what actually happened because it was said to my community at the time that I kept all these explosives in my house and I was going to use them somewhere and they exploded prematurely. But at least I am happy because Mr Loots said with his own mouth that he planned this thing and he takes full responsibility of this activity. So that is all what I wanted to say, that I wish you good luck in your endeavours to try and resolve this particular crisis. As for my part and my family, in my view this chapter is closed.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Thibedi, we thank you as a Committee for your kind words, particularly those of encouragement. It is not every day that we get such encouraging words about the painful function that we are performing as a Committee. I may on behalf of my Committee also express our sincere sympathies for the loss of your daughter. We know that as you are sitting there you are going through an even much more severe pain and are still grieving and have to yet bury your daughter who has passed away, yet you have been able to attend these hearings and thus enabling and facilitating this Committee to be able to achieve its primary objective of uncovering and establishing the truth, with the hope that that exercise will reconcile our deeply previously divided society. We thank you for your attendance. Thank you.
Mr du Plessis?
MR DU PLESSIS ADDRESSES: Thank you, Chairperson. Chairperson, may I open my argument, which will be very short, by making the following submission, and that is that I have been involved in quite a lot of amnesty applications and I must say that this application today of Mr Thibedi is one of those applications where the end result is the kind of reconciliation that I think we need in this country and that I think should take place. On the one hand we've had Colonel Loots, who was a frank and open witness, who testified openly, he gave all the facts that he knew of and he presented Mr Thibedi with a full account of what happened. On the other side, Mr Thibedi did not express any
hatred or ill will or ill feeling towards Colonel Loots, and for that I want to thank him and I think on behalf of Colonel Loots too. It is something that in my submission, or it's something that has made a great impression on me and something that I think should happen more in this country.
Chairperson, to come back to the Heads of Argument that I've handed to you, the argument is set out in detail there upon which Captain Hechter and Warrant Officer van Vuuren obtained amnesty. Exactly the same facts pertain to this application, there is really no difference between the evidence of Colonel Loots and the evidence of Hechter and van Vuuren. Colonel Loots was frank in his evidence about the decision that was taken, he did it under orders of Brigadier Jack Cronje and he was also frank in testifying that his subjective belief, when he executed this operation and this action, was that he was acting against Mr Thibedi, who he believed was involved in all the acts he referred to in his evidence and that he believed that their house was a safe-house.
I do not think it is necessary for me, Chairperson, to elaborate in detail on the contents of the Heads of Argument, the arguments are exactly the same pertaining to Colonel Loots. I just want to make one further submission in that regard, and that is that the Committee can take into account the fact that Hechter and van Vuuren have already obtained amnesty pertaining to the same application and the same facts and the same incident. And on that basis I would request you to grant Colonel Loots amnesty, as set out in paragraph 241, the first page over to the second page of the Heads of Argument that I handed to you. You will see it refers to paragraph 241.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr du Plessis.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat, do you have anything to say in view of the fact that Mr Thibedi is not opposing this application?
MS LOCKHAT: No, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I think this brings us to the close of Mr Thibedi's application. We've already expressed our gratitude made by Mr Thibedi to make himself available for purposes of participating in these proceedings even thought he's got very pressing and painful duties to attend to with his family. We will excuse you, Mr Thibedi and as I have already stated before, you have our condolences. We hope that you will grow in strength through God's blessings as you go through this difficult period of your life and your family.
The decision in respect of this application will be made by this Committee in due course.
Are we in a position to proceed now? This is in relation to an amnesty application by the following applicants: Mr Goosen, Mr Momberg who are being represented by Advocate Alberts, Mr van der Merwe, Crause, Loots and KC McKenzie, represented by Mr Visser and Mr du Plessis and Mr Alberts. Mr du Plessis is representing the interest of Brigadier Cronje, Ms Lockhat appears on behalf of the Amnesty Committee as the Evidence Leader.
This matter was scheduled to be heard this week and it will now be adjourned by agreement between the parties, to next Wednesday, the date being the 21st of April 1999, at 10 o'clock. Thank you.
MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson. Please stand.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS UNTIL 21ST APRIL 1999 AT 1O o'CLOCK
