CHAIRPERSON: We haven't discussed at the pre-trial meeting, the order in which the applicants should give evidence, and I don't know whether you gentlemen have discussed amongst yourselves or whether we should merely proceed with the order on the list. I'm in your hands there.
MR JANSEN: Mr Chairman, if I could come in here. We, subject to your approval, agreed that Mr Ras be the next applicant. Logically that would make the most sense.
CHAIRPERSON: It seems to be sensible, he's the one who can give us the background and the others should just slot into place after that.
MR JANSEN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well.
MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. It's Jansen on record, I appear for Mr Ras and I wish to call him as a witness in his application. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, before we proceed, I was given to understand by my colleague Rossouw, who attended on my behalf at the last pre-hearing meeting, that he made available a supplementary portion of Willemse's amnesty affidavit, which is not complete in the bundle. Ms Patel told me she can't remember whether that in fact happened.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't seem to have it, I have another one from Mr Ras. None of us have one from Willemse.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, I'll then give it to Ms Patel and see to it that ...
MS PATEL: I was given the extra page by my learned friend earlier on and they've made copies.
MR LAMEY: That is in connection with Bosch, not Willemse. I do have a copy of Willemse also.
MARTIENS D RAS: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Ras, you are an applicant for amnesty with regard to the murder of six persons, including the Chand family during April 1990, is that correct?
MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: During April 1990, what was your rank?
MR RAS: I was a Warrant Officer.
MR JANSEN: You were stationed at Vlakplaas.
MR RAS: Correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: At that stage you had already been, since 1984, connected to Vlakplaas.
MR RAS: That's correct.
MR JANSEN: Just for the sake of background I would like to discuss a few background matters. What did your general work at Vlakplaas involve?
MR RAS: Chairperson, my general duties as a group leader was to work with former PAC and ANC members and I also worked primarily in the Botswana region with the identification of PAC and ANC members who were infiltrating, and the subsequent arrest of such persons.
MR JANSEN: And the group of which you were a leader, was that the typical group within which Vlakplaas had been divided into, these small operational groups which consisted of white officers, black police members and Askaris?
MR RAS: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: And the are in which you worked was the Western Transvaal and the Botswana border?
MR RAS: Yes, primarily.
MR JANSEN: So for an operation in Botswana, you would have been the natural choice as a person, with the preparation of such an operation or for involvement in such an operation?
MR RAS: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Then before we come to the collection of information with regard to the Chand family and this specific operation, I would like for you to discuss the general manner of information gathering in the police and how you as operatives had access to it. Could you perhaps explain the general structure to the Committee?
MR RAS: Chairperson, there were Security Branches throughout the country who had informers in residential areas and in neighbouring states, who were connected with the ANC and the PAC. Such PAC/ANC informers would report back to their handlers at the various branches, who would compile reports.
Those reports were sent to Head Office, and went to a Desk, either the PAC or the ANC Desk, or to the Schools and Universities Desk. Those files would eventually be sent to the persons who were involved with them, and ultimately they would be filed in a file at Head Office, either the PAC Western Transvaal or ANC Western Transvaal.
MR JANSEN: In other words, it was an information system which was centred at the Head Office in Pretoria?
MR RAS: At Security Head Office, Pretoria, that's correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: And if it was your responsibility to collect information for an operation, whether it be in any place in the country, you would have had access to that information?
MR RAS: Yes, I could obtain such a file from Head Office.
MR JANSEN: And that information I assume would be processed by persons at Head Office, and the value of such information would be evaluated, and in such a manner there would be a certain measure of processing of such information?
MR RAS: Yes, that's correct, Chairperson. C2, at that stage under the leadership of Martin Naude and the others, was responsible for the interrogation of arrested PAC and ANC members, as well as the processing of all information which came their way from the various branches in the country.
MR JANSEN: I assume that you would also have had access to the information officers or persons who dealt specifically with the processing of information?
MR RAS: Well if we were sharing the same floor we saw each other every morning and we were at Head Office together, so I had access to that.
MR JANSEN: Now to come to your application itself. You have before you your initial application, which you compiled for the purposes of the particular Act, the Act for the Promotion of National Reconciliation?
MR RAS: That's correct.
MR JANSEN: Mr Chairman, that's from page 116 of the papers, of the bundle.
Along with this application you have recently, on the 19th of May, submitted an additional affidavit about this specific incident, is that correct?
MR RAS: Yes.
MR JANSEN: Mr Chairman, may I enquire whether you actually have that copy before you yourself, and the Committee Members. I know it was given out at the pre-trial hearing. Thank you. Could we mark that A, Mr Chairman, or could that be Annexure A or Exhibit A, or ...
CHAIRPERSON: We haven't had anything else ...(indistinct)
MR JANSEN: We haven't as far as I know.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just come in here and place on record that I was never notified of the change of the time of the pre-trial conference, and you will recall that I arrived at the end of thereof. I was never placed in possession of any of the extra documents that were handed out at the pre-trial conference, I did not even know of these documents.
CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps your colleagues could assist you in this, that those who handed in documents, perhaps they could make available copies to you.
MR JANSEN: Yes, I'm just placing that on record, and I will take it up with Ms Patel. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, Jan Wagener on record. You will recall we handed up a document called: "Algemene Agtergrond" and as far as I can remember this is Exhibit A.
CHAIRPERSON: Well I think that was Exhibit A in the original hearing, not in this application.
MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Will this then be A Exhibit or Exhibit A in the Chand incident?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR JANSEN: Mr Ras, I would like for you to begin with the preamble to this operation. Do you confirm the information that you provide in the first paragraph, regarding the contact between the person who is described as Tony Oosthuizen and Colonel de Kock?
MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Could you perhaps tell us, you describe in the first paragraphs very briefly and you say in the additional affidavit, Exhibit A, you state that you agree in broad terms with what Colonel de Kock has stated in his amnesty application.
MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Can you then tell us in your own words, very briefly, what your recollection is of the incident which apparently led to this incident.
MR RAS: Chairperson, I didn't know Tony Oosthuizen before the operation during which the four PAC members were arrested. What took place there was primarily an exchange of words or a discussion between de Kock and Oosthuizen.
Mr de Kock simply told us that - there was a vehicle of a certain description which he gave us, and mentioned that there were two or four PAC members who wanted to infiltrate the country.
The vehicle was followed from Swartruggens area. If I can recall correctly, a roadblock was established at Magaliesburg, and the four persons were arrested in the vehicle. All of them were armed.
MR JANSEN: If we can just pause there, I don't want to go into too much detail regarding that incident. But your position at that stage was that what you knew about this incident was purely of an operational nature, you didn't really have any knowledge at that stage of the connection with the Chand family and how they fitted into the whole picture?
MR RAS: No, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Once again, without discussing too much detail of the incidents, how did this incident lead to the stage when Colonel de Kock gave you the instruction to plan an operation for the destruction of the Chand house and the elimination of the inhabitants of that house?
MR RAS: Chairperson, after this incident Mr de Kock informed me that we had to assist Tony Oosthuizen with a weapons stockpiling location and the arrest of PAC members near Pietersburg.
Once again we used Task Force members who accompanied us. The place where the weapons would have been buried in that vicinity and the vehicle that was supposed to have arrived to fetch these weapons, and regardless of the fact that we undertook 24-hour observation for two days, we did not uncover anything. We then drew the inference that either Mr Oosthuizen had lost control over the weapons which according to him had already been stored in a cache somewhere in the country and he also didn't know where to find the other persons who were going to come and fetch those weapons. I then went to discuss this with Mr de Kock.
MR JANSEN: Very well. And during these discussions, what emanated from these discussions?
MR RAS: It appeared that upon a previous occasion in which Mr de Kock himself had been involved, it also occurred. And I can't recall specifically how long after it took place, Mr de Kock told me that I should plan an operation with regard to the Chand house in Botswana.
MR JANSEN: Now we know that the incident took place approximately on the 21st of the 22nd of April, how long before that incident did this instruction from Mr de Kock come to you, can you recall?
MR RAS: If I recall correctly, it was approximately one month. Firstly, ...(intervention)
MR JANSEN: Before you continue, did Colonel de Kock tell you how and where you should obtain your information, or would he have accepted that you knew?
MR RAS: Chairperson, at that stage I believe that he knew. Because I worked in Botswana he asked whether I knew where the Chand house was. I didn't know exactly where it was and I started at that point with my investigation and enquiries.
MR JANSEN: And what would the purpose of your information collection have been, would it have been for the purposes of operational requirements or for the verification of the Chand family's political activities?
MR RAS: Chairperson, at that stage I believe that the background of the Chands had already become very clear for the other persons and my purpose was to act operationally.
MR JANSEN: Where did you begin with your collection of information?
MR RAS: Chairperson, firstly I began with the persons who I immediately knew had used the house or the facilities at that house. I approached the four PAC members who had been arrested on the farm, the one whose names was Vietnam. I questioned them about the facilities, the persons who were present there and I question individually and asked each one to make me a sketch of the house, both interior and exterior.
MR JANSEN: Okay. We can continue with the process of those discussions later. Which other sources, if I may refer to them as such, did you consult?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I also withdrew the PAC file at Head Office, where I also saw that the Chand family, upon various occasions were mentioned as a transit house, but there were no sketches with regard to the facility as such.
Furthermore, I spoke to Warrant Officer du Plessis from Zeerust, without informing him about the reason for our discussion and for my enquiries, and it didn't appear strange because at that stage I was working with PAC and ANC members who were infiltrating the country from Botswana. Warrant Officer du Plessis was a specialist in his area and from his side he also mentioned that the Chand residence was used as a transit house for the PAC.
MR JANSEN: Did you undertake any observation - or let's get to this point first, how far was the house from the border post? - that would be the Derdepoort border post.
MR RAS: Chairperson, if I recall correctly it was approximately two kilometres. It may have been somewhat less, it may have been between one and two kilometres. That would have been the distance from the border post.
MR JANSEN: What observation did you undertake with regard to the house itself? Did you undertake any observation at all?
MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson, it was possible for me to drive on the border roads, for the purposes of patrol at that stage. There was a hill behind the Derdepoort border post and from there I attempted to take photographs of the premises and also from the gravel road in a northerly direction from the border post.
The place was recognisable as a result of a big eucalyptus tree on the premises, but I couldn't monitor the movements on the premises itself or at the shop which was nearby.
MR JANSEN: Mention has been made of a settlement which was in the vicinity. This isn't a town that we are discussing, it was more a rural kind of settlement?
MR RAS: Yes, a rural settlement in the rural area.
MR JANSEN: Why for example, did you not send in an example to move around in the vicinity of the house, one of the black members or an Askari to patrol in the vicinity of the house?
MR RAS: Chairperson, if I had done so at that stage he would have been identified immediately as a person who didn't belong there, unless he could say who he was visiting or who he was living with. There would have been questions about his presence there.
It was an open area, it was impossible for me to undertake observations from a close point to the area itself, and for those reasons we decided that it wasn't necessary to go any further.
MR JANSEN: What information did you have regarding who the inhabitants were, the inhabitants of this house, who one could expect to find inside the house?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I knew about the guard at the house, Mr Chand and his wife and their two sons who were deaf and dumb.
MR JANSEN: Where did you obtain this information?
MR RAS: From the four PAC members who had spent the night in the house before they infiltrated the country. It came from all four of them that there was a guard in the house and also that two sons who were living in the house were deaf and dumb. The two sons were also responsible for accompanying them to the border, from which point they were picked up and came into the country.
MR JANSEN: Just to be certain, was it there information that the two boys had specifically accompanied those four members to the border crossing point or that it had been them in general?
MR RAS: Chairperson, it wasn't their opinion. I cannot say whether both sons were involved in taking them to the border post, but one of them accompanied these four PAC members as a group to the border post, from where they were picked up and brought into the country by means of a courier.
MR JANSEN: Was there any information about a third son, apparently somewhat younger? The one that we know now as Imran.
MR RAS: Not of them mentioned him and I didn't hear from anyone else that there was a third son in the house.
MR JANSEN: Mention was made during the examination of Mr de Kock, with regard to helicopters which were flying around in that area, do you know anything about this?
MR RAS: Chairperson, at that stage I did not make use of helicopters or aircraft. It was used on previous occasions as a result of my activities there, in order to determine where persons were crossing over from Botswana into the RSA.
MR JANSEN: Did you think at any point that you should undertake observations from aircraft?
MR RAS: Chairperson, no I did not consider it. In the fist place, as a result of the fact that I could make people at the house suspicious. I also knew, as a result of those four person who had lived in the house, how the house looked. They gave me independent sketches of the house, all of which correlated. I knew of at least five persons at the house, and it wasn't necessary for me at that stage.
The photographs that I had, as a result of the big eucalyptus trees near the house, provided clear and sufficient identification for me. I therefore felt that it wasn't necessary to undertake further observation by means of aircraft or helicopters.
MR JANSEN: This information I think it common cause, that you reported everything back to Colonel de Kock.
MR RAS: Yes, that's correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: And some of the other applicants allege that you compiled this operational team or selected this operational team, can you please tell the Committee who exactly decided upon who the members of this particular operational team would be.
MR RAS: Chairperson, what happened was that Mr de Kock selected the members who would go along on this operation. At Zeerust, on the farm where we stayed before we undertook the infiltration, Mr de Kock told me that I should lead the operation, that he would observe it and he told me to select the members that I would want to place in the operation.
MR JANSEN: How long before the incident itself were the other members involved?
MR RAS: Chairperson, it was on short notice, it was approximately a day or two before we left. That is when Mr de Kock told them to prepare themselves for the operation.
MR JANSEN: And then they got together at Zeerust?
MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Who informed them there of what the operation would entail and what the operational detail would be?
MR RAS: Chairperson, it's a long time ago, but I think what happened there was that Mr de Kock told them that it was concerning a PAC transit house and the people who were going to be eliminated. I had a sketch plan of the house and the shop, as well as the photos. And then the operation was planned the day before we went in that night.
MR JANSEN: You were also - on the day before the incident you were sent by Colonel de Kock to make, is that correct?
MR RAS: Yes, that was the afternoon before we would enter the night.
MR JANSEN: Can you remember what you told the other operatives concerning who would be present in the house?
MR RAS: Chairperson, if I can recall correctly, we had knowledge of the guard, Mr Chand and his wife, as well as the two sons who permanently resided in the house. It was also mentioned to them that the house was used continuously for transit purposes for infiltration or ex-filtration and that we could possibly also expect additional PAC members who were weaponed, armed.
MR JANSEN: Can you remember what you told those members, whether it was children or if it was sons of Mr Chand, or if it was family of his? Can you remember what your words were, or would you be speculating if you have to say something about it?
MR RAS: As I can recall, I referred to them as the sons.
MR JANSEN: In your application you then continue and you describe the incident - it starts on paginated page 119, continuing to the next page. Do you confirm your exposition here of the events?
MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Is there anything that you would like to add concerning the incident?
MR RAS: No, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Now after the event, did you hear anything about the incident or did you read anything about it?
MR RAS: As far as I can remember a few days later I read in the newspaper of the incident and also if my recollection is correct, one of the members of the Chand family died on the way to the funeral.
MR JANSEN: At that stage did you read that another family member, the son of the Chands had been present in the house?
MR RAS: Yes. That night Willie Nortje mentioned to me that they found another person in one of the other rooms, but in the newspaper I read later that the other one was a young son, and I didn't have knowledge of him and that he was also a Chand.
MR JANSEN: In your additional affidavit, Exhibit A, you say in paragraph 13 that you know of the Chand family, but that you don't know what the identity was of the other person in the house. That's in paragraph 14 specifically, is that correct?
MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: These were enquiries that we as your legal advisors only did recently.
MR RAS: Yes, that is correct.
MR JANSEN: Now from Booysens, Adv Booyens, we received clippings of a report in the Beeld of 16 April 1990, did you have a look at that?
MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Mr Chairman, I want to hand this up. Mr Chairman, this is not a photocopy of the original article, clipping of the newspaper itself, it seems to be retrieved from a computer or an electronic retrieval system. I will attempt to get the more original one before the end of this hearing. Unfortunately this only came to our knowledge yesterday, Mr Chairman, while we were busy during the investigation. Mr Chairman, may I just hand this up as Exhibit B?
Just to put it clearly, your knowledge concerning Imran, the third child, that was based on hearsay, it is not something that you gathered from the information that you collected at that stage, is that correct?
MR RAS: No, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: In other words, it is subject to confirmation or further qualification from people who had more personal knowledge and who could give that information to the Committee?
MR RAS: Yes, that is correct.
MR JANSEN: Well you would not have knowledge of it, but perhaps you could give comment on this. Now in this report, in the second paragraph the last sentence something is said about Imran's or, a statement for his presence that day. The paragraph reads as follows
"Mr Chand left South Africa in the 1960's. Riedwaan and Armien are deaf-mute and they lived with their parents. Imran was at home for the school holidays."
Can you say anything about that?
MR RAS: Chairperson, the only comment that I have is that when the other four PAC members used the house that night, that that son was not present. I don't have another explanation because not one of the four mentioned the son to me. But it would appear as if that could be a possible logical explanation for the fact that he was not the usual resident, or at times he was not resident. According to the newspaper report it seems to be the case, but I don't know whether he was there permanently or not.
CHAIRPERSON: What was the date of this event?
MR JANSEN: It was 21/22 April 19 ...
CHAIRPERSON: It might have been the Easter holiday.
MR JANSEN: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is also assuming that the holidays follow more-or-less the pattern in South Africa. But in any event, we don't know where this information comes from, we'll try and verify it first.
Mr Ras, at each incident that you deal with in your amnesty application, you also give your personal background and the political motives. You give an exposition thereof, is that correct?
MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: And do you confirm that part of your application in this regard?
MR RAS: Yes, I do.
MR JANSEN: You are also aware that we as your legal advisors, have discussed it with you that there was testimony given last week by Mr de Kock concerning Vlakplaas in general and the type of operations that were planned and executed and that that was part or is part of this evidence, is that correct?
MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: And you also want it to be considered in terms of your application for amnesty for this incident, is that correct?
MR RAS: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: And then there's one aspect that I perhaps have omitted, the issue of lights in the vicinity of the Chand's house. Where did those lights come from according to your information or knowledge?
MR RAS: Chairperson, the only lights that I can think of would be the lights from the border post which is on a hill approximately 1½ kilometres from there.
MR JANSEN: Another aspect. It was quite dark during the execution of the operation.
MR RAS: Yes.
MR JANSEN: The lighting in the vicinity of the house, was it bright?
MR RAS: No, there was almost none.
MR JANSEN: And the duration of this operation from the point that you came across the guard and where you withdrew, what was the time-frame here?
MR RAS: Chairperson, it was short, three minutes.
MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Hattingh on behalf of de Kock.
Mr Ras, you also heard Mr de Kock's evidence and you also read his application, is that correct?
MR RAS: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Is it correct that because it was your area, that while he was overarchingly in command that you were under his command?
MR RAS: Yes, I also testified in this regard.
MR HATTINGH: And you were then responsible for the planning.
MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: You also heard that he testified that besides the fact that you used Scorpion pistols, that you were also equipped with AKs, is that correct?
MR RAS: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Why was that necessary?
MR RAS: Chairperson, instead of for example getting five people in the house, we also foresaw that there could have been PAC members and that would have led to shooting, although we had the surprise element on our side there could be a shoot-out. The border post is nearby, the army members could have been in the vicinity and there was a possibility that we would have to shoot ourselves out of trouble.
MR HATTINGH: Now if you say that, do you meant that the possibility was foreseen that you could for example, have to cope with an attack from the house, inside the house?
MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: But if it would then proceed to a shooting situation - could I ask you, the AKs that you had, did they also have silencers?
MR RAS: No, not as far as I could remember, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And this shooting would then have been clearly heard on the border?
MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Did you foresee the possibility that the members of the Botswana Defence Force would also come to the scene?
MR RAS: Yes, we made provision for that.
MR HATTINGH: And would you then have given over to them or would you have resisted?
MR RAS: No, we would not have given ourselves over.
MR HATTINGH: Now if they had started shooting at you, would you have returned fire?
MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: So you would have tried to fight your way out of Botswana.
MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Am I correct in saying that you foresaw all possibilities and the operation was planned to finalise it within the shortest period of time?
MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And that was to prevent it from reaching the people at the border?
MR RAS: Yes, that is why we made use of the Scorpions and Makarovs with silencers.
MR HATTINGH: So the idea was, attack the house, execute the operation as quickly as possible and then withdraw across the border back to the RSA?
MR RAS: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Do you know whether the house of the Chands had electricity?
MR RAS: Chairperson, referring to the lights earlier I started thinking, and I don't know whether we used flashlights. I can't remember, it happened so quickly. I really cannot recollect anything.
MR HATTINGH: Did you execute the planning in such a way that people would be defending around?
MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And you decided who the people would be?
MR RAS: Mr de Kock left it to my discretion, yes.
MR HATTINGH: And he then approved your decision in this regard?
MR RAS: Yes, he was there observing.
MR HATTINGH: When you went nearer to the house, approached the house, was there any sort of light from the house?
MR RAS: No, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Any lights outside of the house?
MR RAS: No, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Any lights at the shop outside?
MR RAS: No, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Or inside of the shop?
MR RAS: No, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: So the buildings were dark?
MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: You heard Mr de Kock's evidence where he said that he fell down an embankment, did you see the fall, were you aware of it when it happened?
MR RAS: At that stage Douw Willemse and myself were some distance from there, we were busy at the gate. I wasn't present when he fell.
MR HATTINGH: You referred to a dog at the house and that it was shot at, why was that necessary?
MR RAS: Chairperson, when the shooting started where Mr de Kock shot at the guard, Douw Willemse and myself jumped over the gate, ran in and on the porch the first thing that approached me was an Alsatian and I shot the dog.
MR HATTINGH: So the dog attacked you?
MR RAS: Well he came right at me.
MR HATTINGH: Before you entered the house, did you see any people in the house?
MR RAS: Mr Chand showed with a flashlight through the window and asked what was going on.
MR HATTINGH: And then you entered the house?
MR RAS: I shot him.
MR HATTINGH: Did you shoot him from the outside of the house?
MR RAS: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And then you entered the house?
MR RAS: Douw Willemse hit the door open with a hammer. I entered first and at the door, on the left-hand side, a person was lying in bed, I shot the person. I immediately went to the room where Mr Chand had been standing, he was already dead on the bed.
As far as I can remember his wife stood in the corner. I shot at her as well as, I can't remember whether it was Douw Willemse or Willie Nortje. I immediately went to the room next to that room and there was another person in the bed. I fired one shot at the person and John Tait was next to me and I realised that although I had extra magazines with me, I had already fired quite a few shots, and I asked him to shoot another two shots.
MR HATTINGH: Now the impression that I get of the attack inside of the house was that different people went to different rooms.
MR RAS: We were three or four people and went into the house very quickly and penetrated quickly.
MR HATTINGH: And the idea then was that as quickly as possible every room had to be entered to resist any resistance?
MR RAS: Well we expected armed people in the house, and you don't enter the house with any other objective than to kill the people in the house.
MR HATTINGH: Now the person that you saw lying in the bed, was the person under blankets?
MR RAS: As far as I can remember only his head was visible.
MR HATTINGH: Can you remember whether there was any light in the room?
MR RAS: No, if I can recall we only used flashlights or torches.
MR HATTINGH: And you said that it all occurred very quickly.
MR RAS: I doubt whether it exceeded three minutes.
MR HATTINGH: The inhabitants were shot, the explosives were set and you then withdrew from the house.
MR RAS: That's correct.
MR HATTINGH: Did you then only determine that Mr de Kock had been injured?
MR RAS: As far as I can recall I had already heard outside that somebody was shouting: "Mr de Kock has been injured", and if I recall correctly, I told Louw van Niekerk to assist him in the meantime and the rest of us went into the house.
MR HATTINGH: If we can just return to an earlier question of mine, if there was a person lying under the cover of blankets or sheets, was it possible for you under those circumstances to determine the age of this person?
MR RAS: Apart from the fact that I could not determine the age of the person I could also not determine whether or not that person was lying in the bed clutching an AK47 or a Scorpion pistol.
MR HATTINGH: Judging from the posture of the person, did it appear to be a child or an adult?
MR RAS: It appeared to be an adult.
MR HATTINGH: And after that you withdrew to the place where you had left the vehicles.
MR RAS: Yes, that's correct.
MR HATTINGH: After which you left for Natal, in order to create the impression that you were busy with an operation there.
MR RAS: We first went back to the farm where we fetched all our things and then we departed.
MR HATTINGH: In the investigations that you undertook before the time, approximately a month before the time, did you collect any information with regard to Mrs Chand's involvement with the PAC?
MR RAS: Not that I can recall directly, but as I have already mentioned I spoke to the four PAC members on the farm and all of them said that Mrs Chand knew that they were sleeping in the house and it wasn't questionable to ask what was her share in the whole matter.
MR HATTINGH: The reason why I'm putting this question Mr Ras, is because we have been furnished with the documents, it would appear to be the record of a Section 29 examination, and according to this document it would appear among others, that Mrs Chand at a certain stage was arrested in the Rustenburg area along with PAC activists. Did you have any knowledge of that before you uncovered that information during the course of your investigations?
MR RAS: As far as I can recall I simply wanted to know how the house looked, and as a result of that and the discussion that I had with Mr du Plessis, it came to light that the Chands were involved with infiltrations. We didn't go any further about it because otherwise this whole issue would have come back to us, they would have wanted to know why we were curious about it. So I can't recall that anybody told me that she was detained under the terms of Section 29, because of being arrested with PAC members.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Wim Cornelius, acting on behalf of the third applicant, Dawid Britz and the seventh applicant, Nicholas Vermeulen.
Mr Ras, you worked in groups on a strictly need-to-know basis, is that correct?
MR RAS: Yes, that is correct. I would just like to add that this was the sort of operation where great differences ensued, not great differences but differences as a result of persons who were informed at the eleventh hour, and this was one of those operations where the persons who were together on the farm never discussed the matter again.
MR CORNELIUS: So it was strictly need-to-know. But to put it to you as follows, the members who participated had not doubt that they were attacking a political target.
MR RAS: Colonel de Kock and I both made it very clear to them that it was a PAC facility.
MR CORNELIUS: So they knew that they were attacking a PAC political target. So we can accept that all members who participated had the same objective?
MR RAS: Yes, that's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Vermeulen, as I understand, was not involved in the attack on the house itself, he was simply involved, according to his evidence, in the packing of the equipment.
MR RAS: No, he did not accompany us to Botswana.
MR CORNELIUS: Very well. And if it is his evidence that he was in Richards Bay as a result of the cover-story, would it then be possible?
MR RAS: Yes, it is possible.
MR CORNELIUS: And then with regard to the applicant D J Britz, he is known as Duiwel Britz, was he involved in the operation in Botswana?
MR RAS: Yes, that's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And his evidence will be that he did not penetrate the house, but that he stood by Eugene de Kock after he was injured.
MR RAS: Yes, that's correct, he did not enter the house as far as I can recall.
MR CORNELIUS: I've no further questions, thank you Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Booyens on behalf of the applicant, Tait, Mr Chairman.
Mr Tait tells me that he cannot recall pertinently that any reference was made to the fact that these people had sons, but are you satisfied that you did mention it? He says that it was not mentioned or he can't remember it.
MR RAS: I have no doubt that I did indeed mention it.
MR BOOYENS: Good, then we will accept it as that. And according to his recollection, it was made clear that this was a PAC transit house through which PAC members were infiltrating the country, is that correct?
MR RAS: Yes, that's correct.
MR BOOYENS: So they knew exactly were to attack the place and who to expect there?
MR RAS: Yes, that's correct.
MR BOOYENS: Then Mr Tait states that his initial instructions were that he was to determine whether or not there were people coming from the external buildings, however it was so dark that he couldn't see anything and that's why he went into the house. This was after the first few members went into the house. What is your recollection, what was initial task?
MR RAS: if I recall correctly, the first time that I saw John was when he was standing next to me in one of the rooms. Douw Willemse and Willie Nortje were supposed to go into the house with me, he wasn't supposed to be in the house.
MR BOOYENS: So John Tait could possibly have been tasked with seeing to the buildings outside the house?
MR RAS: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: Mr Tait also maintains that his recollection of what took place in the room - and I'm sure that there's room for the interpretation from both of you, is that you passed each other in the doorway of the room, you were entering and he was exiting, and in the process you possibly told him to continue shooting the person and you recall only one shot being fired because his weapon stalled, is that possible?
MR RAS: Yes, it is possible because I had been in the room before him and the bed was positioned on the left-hand side of the door as you entered the room.
MR BOOYENS: I see that you also told them while you were compiling the explosive device, to go through the house and to make sure, and by implication you mean if there's anybody else there, kill them?
MR RAS: Yes, that's right.
MR BOOYENS: Just a further aspect, if you could just look at page 120, the second paragraph. Mr Baker tells me that he was contacted per telephone by DCC, but not by Tony Oosthuizen, but by Anton Nieuwoudt and that you did make enquiries about Mr de Kock's whereabouts and that Mr Baker believed that you were in Natal, and that he told them that you were in Natal. Would that fit into the measure of covertness with which this operation was launched?
MR RAS: Yes, that's correct.
MR BOOYENS: And then by implication, that Mr Baker did not know about this information.
MR RAS: No, he didn't know.
MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, Jan Wagener on record.
Mr Ras, I have just studied Exhibit B. At the bottom of the first page it states that this attack would have taken place on a Monday morning at two thirty, that is the attack itself. Can you recall which day of the week it was, could it have been a Monday, as it appears to be here?
MR RAS: I cannot tell you what day of the week it was.
MR WAGENER: Was this approximately two thirty in the morning or can you also not recall that?
MR RAS: No, as far as I recall it was earlier, approximately midnight.
MR WAGENER: I have studied my electronic computer at home and it tells me that the 26th of April, which is probably the day of this report, was a Thursday. So according to that, if the attack had taken place on the Monday morning or Monday night it would appear that it took place on the night of the 22nd/23rd of April. After midnight would have made it the 23rd of April. Can we accept that?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I think evidence has already indicated that it was the 22nd(sic), the night.
CHAIRPERSON: What date did you say?
MS PATEL: The 21st, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: The night of the 21st, going into the 22nd or the night of the 20th, going into the 21st?
MS PATEL: ...(indistinct)
CHAIRPERSON: That is the date fixed by the family.
MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, then according to my calculator it says it's got to be a Saturday to Sunday night and not a Monday night, as in Exhibit B apparently.
MR RAS: Chairperson, as I have already indicated, if we have to go according to what appears in the newspaper, that person had to have been on holiday at home. I cannot tell you what day of the week it was, we're talking about 10 years ago.
MR WAGENER: Thank you, Mr Ras. Might I just ask you briefly with regard to page 116, in which you commence with the particulars of your application. You say that during 1988, and from that can I infer that the first incident, the arrest of the four PAC members, took place during 1988 or is that not your intention?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I cannot say. My legal representative has already consulted me with regard to that. I don't know whether or not this should actually read as 1989. I cannot tell you, I'm not certain about the date and I don't wish to speculate.
MR WAGENER: Then Mr Ras, you state on page 118, the second paragraph, that you received the order from Mr de Kock and that you undertook certain investigations and then you say that you evaluated and analysed the information and conveyed this to Mr de Kock. Do you see where that is typed on that page?
MR RAS: Yes, I see it.
MR WAGENER: Then actually my question is the following; the information that Mr de Kock had regarding the Chand house and what was happening there, did he obtain this from you, in other words?
MR RAS: No, if one reads this piece holistically - I just want to make certain of this, Mr de Kock had at that stage already given me the order to plan the operation. I just reported back to him after the fact, in order to tell him this is what I've done and this is the information that I have and then he went to Brigadier van Rensburg. I myself did not discuss this matter with Brigadier van Rensburg. The only person who discussed this matter with me was Colonel de Kock.
MR WAGENER: But I'm not certain if you understand me correctly, or perhaps I misunderstood you. If I read that paragraph it appears to me that you collected certain information, evaluated it, analysed it and then conveyed it to Mr de Kock. That is the first sentence.
MR RAS: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: Then you also say that de Kock at later stage, approximately a week later, came to you and told you that he had discussed the matter with Brigadier van Rensburg and that it have been agreed that you should continue with the planning of the operation, is that correct?
MR RAS: Yes, that is correct.
MR WAGENER: In other words then, at the stage when Mr de Kock, according to you would have discussed the matter with Mr van Rensburg, he, Mr de Kock already had all the information from you with regard to the Khan residence and what was happening there.
MR RAS: Chairperson, if we can just return to page 117, the final paragraph. Eugene de Kock at that stage had already told me and most probably he wouldn't have told me to investigate the matter further if he hadn't received instructions for that from somebody else. I simply gave him feedback at that stage, which he then in all probability, if I could infer correctly, discussed with Mr van Rensburg.
MR WAGENER: Yes, but my question remains simple. If we read the second paragraph on page 118, it states, and this is according to my reading of it, that at the stage when Mr van Rensburg apparently gave the order to Mr de Kock that we should continue with an operation, de Kock already had the information with regard to this facility and that this information came from you. That is what appears there, or at least that is how I read it. Is that correct?
MR RAS: If you read the paragraph in isolation, I would agree with it, but one must read this within the context that it appears in.
MR WAGENER: Furthermore, on the very same page 118, you state in the final paragraph, that the operation was highly sensitive. Was the order from Mr de Kock that DCC was not to know that you were going to execute this operation?
MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson. None of the other members who were on the farm were to know anything else about this operation.
MR WAGENER: Why was DCC not supposed to know?
MR RAS: Chairperson, Chand was an informer for DCC and regardless of whether Mr Chand allowed certain members to go through and reported others, the source of information with regard to DCC would no longer exist and they would not have been very satisfied with that situation.
MR WAGENER: But Mr Ras, if you are finished? Aren't the facts then that here was a situation with DCC, which had spun out of control and the entire operation that you undertook was actually a favour to DCC, to help them out of a nasty situation?
MR RAS: Well you could look at it that way, Chairperson. There were also other members who worked with Mr de Kock at DCC, who at that stage in my opinion, should not have been endangered.
MR WAGENER: Was there a reason why there was such a great level of silence, not only because it was an illegal operation?
MR RAS: Chairperson, this is an inference. Firstly, according to my knowledge we had two groups who had already brought weapons into the country and DCC didn't know where those weapons were anymore. There were places where those weapons were stored which were unknown to DCC. We had the infiltration of the persons who were shot at Lichtenburg, who also came in from Chand and until this very day it was Chand who assisted them in entering the country. And I cannot understand why it is said that this was a completely illegal operation.
MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, I see it's 1 o'clock, I've got one question left.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well continue.
MR WAGENER: Mr Ras, you have stated that this operation was one of urgency and that it had to be carried out urgently, is that correct?
MR RAS: No, Mr de Kock said that it was urgent and he told me to plan the operation. I told you that I took about a month to plan the operation.
MR WAGENER: I'm sorry, I must have missed that. So you say that a month elapsed from the time that Mr de Kock told you that Mr van Rensburg said that you should continue and then a month later the operation took place?
MR RAS: No, from the time that Mr de Kock told me to investigate and the time that the operation was carried out, it was a month.
MR WAGENER: And what was the time span between the time that Mr de Kock told you that you had to continue and the operation being carried?
MR RAS: If I have it correctly, it would have been a week.
MR WAGENER: After the decision was taken, the people were called together and the operation was launched.
MR WAGENER: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER
CHAIRPERSON: 2 o'clock, or does anybody think we can start earlier? 2 o'clock, very well.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
MARTINUS D RAS: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: We have been given some more papers. The one is Willemse, should we call that C? And the other is page 50 of the Bosch application. I think that can just go into the application. Right, shall we continue.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Du Plessis on record, on behalf of Mentz.
Mr Ras, let's go back to the information that you had beforehand and that you had gathered regarding who was in the house and who would be in the house. Am I correct in saying that the information would have been correct regarding the two children who were living in the house?
MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: And at that stage, did you have any knowledge of their ages?
MR RAS: I knew that they were adults, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did you know that they were deaf-mute as reports said?
MR RAS: Yes, I knew, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Was your information that they assisted their parents with the activities pertaining to the house and the infiltration route?
MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson, to the extent that they assisted the PAC members to get to the border.
MR DU PLESSIS: In other words, as far as you would have considered Mr Chand and his wife as terrorists, you would also consider them to be terrorists?
MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: And we could then also accept that the information that you gave to the people who went along with you on the operation, that you would also have explained it in those terms?
MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: In other words, one can understand Mr Mentz' evidence where he says that there would have been terrorists in the house and that they had been eliminated and that the residents of the house also had to be eliminated?
MR RAS: Yes, to the extent that the transit house acted as assistance. We also expected armed PAC members in the house.
MR DU PLESSIS: Together with the people in the house?
MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Well that then corroborates Mr Mentz' evidence. Now another issue that I want to take up with you is that Mr Mentz testified that no-one really knew who was in the house and that the information was actually information that you had gathered and that you had known precisely. Now I want to ask the next question. Would you have given all the information regarding the house and its people to the people with you or would you just have explain it in broad terms?
MR RAS: Chairperson, at that stage where I had informed them, I would have informed them thoroughly concerning the people who would have been in the house. What I have already mentioned, the reason why some members can't perhaps remember everything, I spent approximately minimum of a month on this attack. I did the planning whilst the members were informed only once-off during an information session concerning the aim and the people in the house. In 10 years nothing has been said about this incident, up to the point that we're here with the Truth Commission.
MR DU PLESSIS: Do I understand you correctly that your recollection would be much better than theirs concerning the information of who would be in the house?
MR RAS: Yes, I believe that to be the case, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Ras, Mr Mentz testified that he was in the so-called backup group. That means he and Mr Andreovitch walked behind when they approached the house and it was also the case when they approached the house and when they went back. How do you remember it?
MR RAS: Yes, as far as I can remember, that was the case.
MR DU PLESSIS: And this specific action against this transit house, would I be correct in saying that it was primarily an action against the PAC as a liberation movement?
MR RAS: Yes, that is the case, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Ras, in the ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Would you put yourself on record please.
MR LAMEY: I apologise, Mr Chairman. Lamey, on behalf of Willemse, Nortje and Bosch. Thank you.
Mr Ras, I don't know whether you had the opportunity to look at the evidence that was transcribed concerning a Section 29 hearing, that was for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where Christo Nel mentioned or gave information regarding Tony Oosthuizen, DCC and so forth.
MR RAS: I never read it, Mr Chairperson.
...(end of tape)
MR LAMEY: ... from this document that Security Branch Western Transvaal, and specifically a person by the name of Loots, who was the apparently the Commander of the Security Branch Western Transvaal at that stage, had great problems because of the operations and the way in which DCC operated and then also the problems with the infiltration of PAC members. I'm just giving a summary based on the context and what I infer from this document. Did you also get information in that regard from the Security Branch Western Transvaal?
MR RAS: Yes, I had knowledge that Chand was Tony Oosthuizen's informer. I was involved with an incident in Pietersburg, where weapons got lost, where people didn't arrive and that he didn't know whether PAC members who had already infiltrated the country. The information that I had was that there were many other PAC members who had been arrested, who also infiltrated the country by means of the Chand's house. We heard earlier today that the people who infiltrated at Lichtenburg. Inter alia one person who was arrested there was a Howard. I personally arrested him. I didn't have knowledge of the fact that he made use of the Chand house. And it is then logical that one would infer that it must have been a problem for the Security Branch.
MR LAMEY: Now specifically reference is made of an incident at Lichtenburg, where infiltrated PAC members, where their handgrenade exploded and people were injured and that there was shooting. Do you have any knowledge of that, of such an incident?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I was on the scene. I can't say whether the other person was also killed. The person who was killed with the handgrenade killed himself because while the people were standing around at the kombi he pulled the handgrenade and held it against his body and it exploded.
The one person that I arrested ran away. Someone from the public came to me and said that there was a strange person at their house and the person who later became an Askari, that was Howard, I arrested him.
MR LAMEY: Now this incident, would one consider that to be an example where control had been lost over the infiltration of PAC members?
MR RAS: I cannot absolutely recollect where the information came from, whether it was an ordinary roadblock or information that the people would come through or where the information came from, or whether it was an informer from the Western Transvaal, or where it came from, but I can't really recall that I got the information from DCC.
MR LAMEY: Let's then for the moment assume that Security Branch Western Transvaal had great problems with this way of operation and the uncontrolled infiltration of PAC members. Now from your experience and the modus operandi that would have been followed from Security Branch Head Office, it would be a logical inference to make that Security Branch Western Transvaal would have given that information to the Head Office Western Transvaal.
MR RAS: Well all the information that they received was given to the Head Office in Pretoria.
MR LAMEY: If I understand you, then it is that Mr Chand - I don't know whether I understood it correctly, that Mr Chand was the DCC source and that his wife and their sons were giving assistance with regard to the infiltration, but Mr Chand was the main figure.
MR RAS: According to the information ...(intervention)
MR LAMEY: That is Mr Chand that you refer to as Khan. Some of the members do that, but we know it is Mr Chand. Would he be considered to be the primary figure in this whole situation?
MR RAS: The Chand's house was used as a facility and as far as I knew we always referred to Chand as the informer. I don't if the other members, for example the wife, whether they had been remunerated directly for being informers.
MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, or how he doesn't remember it is that he can't specifically remember that at the farm or over there - and he's not really contesting what you are saying here because Mr Willemse, the other applicant remembers specifically the sons when referring to the Chand family, but Mr Nortje had in his mind specifically Mr Chand, and that there would be armed terrorists but he can't specifically recall the wife or someone else. But he does not dispute what you are saying. I'm just putting it to you.
Mr du Plessis, my colleague, also asked a question in this regard concerning Mentz, that the emphasis, and this is what Nortje had in his mind, that everyone in that house you could have expected would be PAC terrorists or insurgents. And that is what he can recollect of this information session that you had.
MR RAS: Chairperson, as I have already said I informed all the members thoroughly, I had a sketch of the house, I said who I knew would be in the house at that stage. It was also mentioned that there could be other PAC members in the house and I also took photos, although it was at a long distance, with the house with the eucalyptus trees and that was given to all the members at that stage, before the operation.
MR LAMEY: And then in this statement you refer or mention that after you'd entered the house you mention that Mr Willemse shot the wife or the woman. My instructions are that Mr Willemse cannot specifically recall that, what he can recall is that he had to open the door with a hammer and as he also states it, is that - how he recall it, is that he was involved with the gate that he had to open and the problem with the guard, the shooting and then they opened the door with a hammer. And as he can recall he had his Makarov pistol with him, but he had to go and fetch his AK47 that he left outside. But he says that he cannot really recall that he shot the woman. Could it be someone else?
MR RAS: Chairperson, as I have already testified, when I entered the room where Mr Chand was lying on the bed and the woman was there, I shot myself and I then said it was either Douw Willemse or Willie Nortje who also shot at the woman. I did specifically say that it was Douw Willemse, that it was only him.
MR LAMEY: He also doesn't want to deny it, he just says that he cannot recall that.
MR RAS: No, I cannot say that it was only he who shot. I know that they were together in the room, I know that I fired a shot.
MR LAMEY: Did you also fire a shot at the woman?
MR RAS: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chair, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
COUNSEL: No questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. Ramula Patel on record.
Mr Ras, when you received your initial instruction from Mr de Kock, what was the specific ambit of the instruction? Did he explain to you for what purpose he required the information?
MR RAS: Chairperson, at that stage the instruction came after I had an unsuccessful effort at Pietersburg to get this cache, Mr de Kock informed me that I had to plan regarding the Chand house in Botswana and also along with that the destruction of the whole site.
MS PATEL: Did he explain to you who the specific target should be?
MR RAS: That would be Chand and the specific facility.
MS PATEL: Chand being Mr Chand only and the premises, or was the initial instruction Mr Chand, his family and the premises?
MR RAS: At that stage Chairperson, when the investigation started, it was the facility as well as Chand.
MS PATEL: Bearing this in mind, given that your initial instruction was only that Mr Chand would be taken out, you then came back and reported to him that there were two sons who were living on the premises as well, correct?
MR RAS: That is correct.
MS PATEL: Okay. Was there then a discussion about this?
MR RAS: Chairperson, as I have already mentioned, my first source of information was PAC members who had been arrested, who already worked at Vlakplaas for us. Independently from them or from one another, they gave the same information and also sketches of the house. And I just cannot remember whether both sons took them to the border or whether it was only one son, but I inferred that the sons were directly involved with the infiltration, they slept in the house, and that the house was used as a facility.
MS PATEL: Can you tell us regarding the involvement of the sons, can you recall what specific tasks they would have performed in the infiltration process?
MR RAS: Chairperson, according to the information that I had it was that people were taken from Francistown, Zambia, taken tot he house, they stayed there for the night and then this son or sons then took them to the border where they then crossed by foot and a courier would collect them on the other side and then they would be taken to a specific part in the RSA.
MS PATEL: Sorry, Sir, are you saying that the boys would have accompanied the PAC activists on foot to the border?
MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Your information from the four Askaris that you spoke to, was definitely that there were only two sons on the premises?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I simply knew of the man, the woman and the two sons, along with the guard ...(intervention)
MS PATEL: There was no - sorry, are you finished?
MR RAS: Ja, I'm finished.
MS PATEL: Okay. There was no information that there might have been a third son as well?
MR RAS: No, Chairperson, I had no such information.
MS PATEL: Well my instructions in this regard are that at all times the three boys used to be at home, that the youngest son - as is alleged in the report from the Beeld that he was away on holiday is not correct, that he in fact schooled at home and went to school every day from home. So he was present at all times.
MR RAS: Chairperson, what is being said to me now is that the son never visited friends or never went anywhere else. We are talking about a night and not a weekend. I don't know when these persons infiltrated, but I spoke to all four of them and all four of them told me the same thing about the two sons living at home. All that I can assume is that the third son was not at home on that night that they infiltrated. I really didn't know about the other son.
MS PATEL: Did you speak to Martin Naude about what other information he might have had on the Chand family?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I can't recall that I spoke to him as such. I do know that I withdrew the PAC file, that I studied the file and that I spoke to Dup from Zeerust, who was a specialist with regard to PAC activities in the RSA.
MS PATEL: Did you ask him whether he had any specific information on the inhabitants of the house, of the Chand house? Can you recall?
MR RAS: All that I can remember is that I asked him: "Where is the Chand house", and he said: "It's near the shop at Derdepoort", but I didn't go into detail at that point because I didn't want to involve them in this operation as well.
MS PATEL: And you mentioned that you arrested Howard at the Lichtenburg incident and that he subsequently became Askari. Did he become an Askari at Vlakplaas or was he sent out elsewhere?
MR RAS: No, he was at Vlakplaas, he worked under me.
MS PATEL: Okay. How is it that you didn't know that he had infiltrated through the Chand house into the country, if you were his handler?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I cannot recall specifically at this stage that I discussed it with him, all I know is that I spoke to those four members and I was satisfied with the information that they gave me regarding the matter. I didn't go to all the PAC members on the farm and discuss the matter with them.
MS PATEL: Is it possible - you're saying you cannot recall, is it possible that you might have spoken to him?
MR RAS: Not that I can recall.
MS PATEL: Because the information we have at our disposal is that, from one of the other members who had infiltrated the country with Howard, was that they had in fact got to the Chand house on the Friday night, late on the Friday night, and had only left there on the Sunday morning. - Sorry. The information from - as I was saying, the information was that out of the group that had infiltrated and who were arrested at Lichtenburg, that they had spent two nights at the Chand house. So he would have been in an ideal position to tell you exactly what the set-up was at the Chand house.
MR RAS: Chairperson, that's correct, he could have given me more information, but I can't recall that I made specific use of it. All I know - once that you've mentioned it now, is that one of the two persons at Lichtenburg, who was not arrested at Lichtenburg, was missing.
MS PATEL: Yes, he's the one who subsequently applied for amnesty. And this incident occurred at the - the Lichtenburg incident occurred two years prior to this incident happening.
MR RAS: It’s not really Lichtenburg, it was actually at Rooigrond where this incident took place, at the crossing near Rooigrond.
MS PATEL: But you confirm that it occurred at least two years prior to this incident?
MR RAS: Yes, that's correct, Chairperson. And I'd just like to add - I beg your pardon for interrupting, as a result of infiltrations many of the roads were placed under observation by us, we drove through there at night. And I can't recall that I asked him specifically about the Chand incident.
MS PATEL: I'm sorry, you didn't ask who? You didn't ask Howard specifically about the Chand incident?
MR RAS: No. And because you mentioned this to me earlier, I went out of my way to determine who the person was because I couldn't recall Howard's name and it took me half a morning to remember his name. I just want to make it known that any person could have asked him, but I can't recall that I asked him about the matter because I felt that I had enough information from those four that I knew had used the Chand house. My order was to determine who was at the house, to identify the house and to prepare a target, and that's all that I did. And I felt that I had obtained enough information by talking to the other four PAC members.
MS PATEL: Okay. Can I infer then from what you are saying, that to a large extent it wasn't really important who would be in the house and that you did your reconnaissance on that basis?
MR RAS: Chairperson, the order and objective was to obtain information about the family and the house and then afterwards to destroy the structure, so that the house could no longer be used by the PAC as part of its infiltration route and to prevent the Chands from being used any further by Tony Oosthuizen to allow that any other members of the PAC enter the country in an uncontrolled manner.
MS PATEL: Sorry Honourable Chairperson, if you'd grant me a moment. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
Your information about Mrs Chand, what was the source of that information, was it the Askaris as well?
MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson, they made use of the house, they slept in that house and any person - well I can't see that Mrs Chand could see four persons coming in, see that her sons are involved in accompanying these persons to the border, and then could have remained uninvolved.
MS PATEL: If we can just move to the incident itself, you've stated that you yourself shot Mrs Chand. Do you know in which part of the house you had shot her? Where specifically, was it in the main bedroom where Mr Chand was?
MR RAS: If you stand in front of the window, the right-hand window in front of the bedroom I shot through the window. He looked out the window, asked what was going on and I shot him once in the head.
MS PATEL: I'm talking about Mrs Chand, Sir.
MR RAS: Mrs Chand was shot by me in her room, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Alright. My instructions are that her body was found in the kitchen the next morning, can you possibly explain?
MR RAS: The only reason for the fact that she was found in the kitchen could be the explosion.
MS PATEL: Okay. Were you the only person who shot her, can you recall?
MR RAS: No, as far as I can recall I wasn't the only one. I did shoot her and as we have heard previously, it could have been Douw Willemse, I don't know whether it is him, or it could have been Willie Nortje.
MS PATEL: Can you recall how many times they shot at her?
MR RAS: If I recall correctly it was one shot and the other person shot two to three times. Everything happened very quickly, I can't recall exactly.
MS PATEL: Okay. And who else did you shoot? You shot one other person in the house, or was it two other people in the house?
MR RAS: I shot Mr Chand first. When you go into the door, the person who was sleeping on the left-hand side of that doorway on the bed, I shot him as well. After that I shot the wife, then I went through to the back room where I shot another person in bed.
MS PATEL: The person that you shot in bed, Sir, did you shoot him once only?
MR RAS: As far as I can recall I fired two shots in the head of the one person and the last one I fired one shot and I told John Tait to fire another two shots. As we have already heard, he fired one shot and after that he stored his gun and went back to the room where the Chands slept and set the explosives.
MS PATEL: Can I ask, after the boys were all shot, was the house never searched for weapons, or for weapons on them specifically, no?
MR RAS: Chairperson, no, it wasn't the idea because when we went into the house with guns fitted with silencers and the noise that ensued after the guard began screaming, we decided to leave as quickly as possible. I gave the others orders to go through the house to look if there were other people in the house. There wasn't any time to look for weapons. We didn't take anything out of the house.
MS PATEL: Regarding the events subsequent to the operation and the reports that were heard, or the newspaper reports that children were in fact killed, was there a discussion between you and Mr de Kock once these reports had hit the media?
MR RAS: I can't recall anything like that. The third son that was shot was the only person in the house who had not been foreseen, all the others had been foreseen.
MS PATEL: No, my question relates more to the ages of the sons. Was there not a discussion about the fact that you expected adult sons and the media reported children that were killed?
MR RAS: If I understand the newspaper incident correctly the ages were given. So it wasn't a question of having killed children, I knew what the age of those persons were, with the exception of the one.
MS PATEL: And these ages were relayed to Mr de Kock at the time of the planning.
MR RAS: I can't say that I allocated ages to them, I just said that there were two sons in the house who were involved and helped to take persons to the border post, or at least the border fence.
MS PATEL: Okay. Regarding the assistance of the boys my instructions are - well it can't be an outright denial, but my instructions are that to a large extent, as far as the victims can recall, that the boys had mainly only assisted in the business and were not involved in anything else with their parents.
MR RAS: Chairperson, with interrogation I did not doubt because it would have been very strange for Mr Chand or Mrs Chand to go through to the border fence with four persons at their age. Why would they take four persons, three persons or two persons and walk all the way with them to the border fence when to send the boys to go with these persons to the border fence or to the point to where they would cross would not have created any questions?
MS PATEL: Sorry, Honourable Chairperson, bear with me a moment.
Can I just ask you, Sir, at the time of the planning or at the time that the instruction for the operation was given to you, did you not question why the problem was not dealt with in a different way, in that Tony Oosthuizen should rather be disciplined rather than the Chand family be killed?
MR RAS: Chairperson, in the first place I had already mentioned this to Mr de Kock, that people were out of control. It was clear that Mr Chand was a double-agent according to my limited knowledge, because he would allow certain persons to be arrested and others came in without being arrested. This wasn't the first incident in which a facility in Botswana had been destroyed and persons eliminated, it happened with ANC members and which will still appear before the Amnesty Committee.
MS PATEL: Just on that question, just from the information, given the Lichtenburg incident that had taken place at least two years prior, it appears that your allegation in terms of Tony Oosthuizen being out of control or not being able to control that specific situation, that he'd been out of control for a long time already.
MR RAS: Chairperson, if I could answer the question as follows; I don't know Mr Oosthuizen like that, I know him to a limited degree, I saw him on a minimal basis. Everybody is blaming for Mr Oosthuizen in this case, but the question that must also be asked is, did Mr Oosthuizen keep information from us, did he keep information from the police, did Mr Chand allow certain groups to go through or did he provide information from other groups, leading to the fact that they were arrested or shot? Ultimately that is a question which I will not be able to answer.
MS PATEL: But either way it can't be disputed that this scenario had existed for quite some time, the problem with the infiltration route.
MR RAS: That's correct. This is not a decision which was taken lightly. The first time that one heard of a house being used for such purposes, that such a house would be destroyed or blown up and the inhabitants of such a house would be shot. Such an incident would take at least six months before we decided when to take action or how to take action.
MS PATEL: Given that that was the case, could you explain the urgency of this operation then, given its history?
MR RAS: I was told to investigate the matter urgently. It's difficult to decide today how urgent it really was. If PAC members were coming into the country, killing people, planting bombs, where would we have been then, how urgent would it have been? The whole idea was to prevent PAC members from infiltrating the country and committing acts of terror. I was told that this was urgent and that was how I handled the matter.
MS PATEL: Sorry, Honourable Chairperson. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, that will be all. Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman, just a single issue.
Mr Ras, upon a question of Mr Wagener, you made a side remark that due to the circumstances the operation could not be regarded as illegal. Could you please place that into context. You would accept that what you did there was a crime that you committed and that you can be charged for that?
MR RAS: But that's the reason I looked for roadblocks and other such things. Yes, it was illegal, but it wasn't something that we decided to do ourselves, it was something that according to my knowledge at that stage, was approved. It was legal within the legislation of the country but ...
MR JANSEN: But would you say that it wasn't atypical of that which you were involved in, or at least that which you'd regarded as justified?
MR RAS: It's similar of the case of the ANC members that I mentioned earlier, an order was received from a Commissioner and in my mind this was not incorrect, although it was illegal.
MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. That also concludes the evidence in this application, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
MR SIBANYONI: Mr Ras, two possible questions, maybe more than two, but I've got two specific questions. There is no positive information or evidence that Mrs Chand was involved in this operation. You are saying that the mere fact that she was there, there were people coming in there, she should have had knowledge of them and also you suspect that she must have been part of the scheme.
MR RAS: Chairperson, if one is involved in accommodating persons on the other side, if one is involved in helping them to enter the country with weapons of terror and if one is involved in operating a transit house in Botswana, the mere fact alone that this person received informer money from Oosthuizen - although I don't have any solid proof that this did take place but this is based on evidence given by Mr de Kock, indicates that this person is much more involved than simply receiving people and letting them go.
MR SIBANYONI: Would you say the guard was also involved in the scheme?
MR RAS: Chairperson, to be honest with you, the day that I heard that there was a 24-hour guard at the house and that the facilities were being used by the PAC, I believed without any information about it, that the guard had been placed there by the PAC for their purposes, because I don't know of anybody else who would keep a 24-hour guard at their home or at their place of business at that stage, and I believed that the guard was armed and that he had been placed there by the PAC for their purposes.
MR SIBANYONI: Lastly, Mr Ras, from the moment I was studying this bundle, the question which bothered me was why was the action taken against Mr Chand. I was saying that if I was in your position I would definitely have taken steps against, not necessarily take steps against Mr Oosthuizen, but raised the matter with DCC, and I was looking at it that that would have solved the problem because that was the source of Mr Chand being able to infiltrate people into the country. Why was that not done?
MR RAS: Chairperson, as I have already mentioned she was a resident in the house, she lived there, she saw when people came over and as already stated here today during the evidence of one of the others, she was arrested with PAC members in Rustenburg. So her assistance, although I didn't know everything about it, fuelled the fact that I had to plan the operation and prepare for the operation.
CHAIRPERSON: I think you were being asked about Mr Chand, weren't you?
MR RAS: Oh sorry, I thought Mrs Chand. Sorry.
CHAIRPERSON: The suggestion was that you could have - if Mr Oosthuizen had stopped using Mr Chand, he couldn't have done anything.
MR RAS: But the point is, Mr Chairperson, he continued. The information indicated that everybody is blaming Mr Oosthuizen. The fact is that people entered the country without Mr Oosthuizen even knowing about hit and he was an agent for the PAC. It would appear to me from the information at hand, that he was a double-agent, he helped the government and the PAC at the same time by allowing certain PAC people to enter the country and allowing others to be arrested or killed. That's the only inference that I can draw.
MR SIBANYONI: I think without Mr Oosthuizen, Mr Chand would have been able to infiltrate people into the country.
MR RAS: That's correct, Chairperson. We have an example that I've heard of today - I don't have the facts before me, but the example is that Mrs Chand was arrested with PAC members in Rustenburg, without Mr Oosthuizen's knowledge. I don't have the facts before me. I would just like to study it once more before I give an educated answer about it.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR JANSEN: Yes, Mr Chairman, that concludes the evidence on behalf of this applicant.
WITNESS EXCUSED
