ON RESUMPTION
MR CORNELIUS: ... attend to the flight arrangements. I'm ready to call the applicant, Britz. Thank you, Sir.
DAWID J BRITZ: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Mr Britz, you are an applicant for amnesty and you have completed an application form in terms of Section 20(1)(a) of the Act, timeously handed in at the Head Office of the TRC in Cape Town, is that correct?
MR BRITZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: In the application which you completed yourself, which is attached in the bundle and has been supplemented by a supplementary application, you have said that at all times you acted in opposition of the communist PAC alliance and the infiltration thereof into the Republic, is that correct?
MR BRITZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: At the time when this incident took place, the unfortunate attack on the Chand family, you were a Warrant Officer in the service of the South African Police, and we were stationed at Vlakplaas, under the command of Colonel Eugene de Kock, is that correct?
MR BRITZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: At all times you followed the instructions of Colonel Eugene de Kock to the letter and believed that it had the approval of the higher officers, is that correct?
MR BRITZ: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: You were a so-called foot-soldier in the service of Vlakplaas, is that correct?
MR BRITZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: You confirm your participation in the evidence of the applicants who have already given evidence, in the sense that you were present at the scene and had assisted Eugene de Kock when he injured his knee, is that correct?
MR BRITZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Can you briefly please tell the Committee what happened according to you, when you arrived at the Chand house?
MR BRITZ: We walked in single file. There was a dog. The guard came from out of the house, Colonel de Kock shot him. He stepped back, there was an embankment, he fell and he injured his leg. The weapon that I had I gave to one of my colleagues and I assisted Colonel and I took him away from the scene.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you that shots were fired at the scene?
MR BRITZ: Yes, some shots were fired within the premises.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you shoot any rounds at the scene?
MR BRITZ: No, I did not.
MR CORNELIUS: You did not go into the house at any stage?
MR BRITZ: No, I did not.
MR CORNELIUS: After the firing had ceased, did you withdraw from the scene along with Eugene de Kock?
MR BRITZ: Yes, I did.
MR CORNELIUS: And I understand according to the documents, that you went through a river to the border post.
MR BRITZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: And afterwards you returned to Richards Bay, where the Colonel received medical assistance, is that correct?
MR BRITZ: That's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And the Richards Bay version was the cover-story to protect you, it was an alibi.
MR BRITZ: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Is it correct that you always acted covertly in this operation and that specifically you operated on a need-to-know basis, is that correct?
MR BRITZ: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: It was not expected of you to question any instruction given to you and the request particulars as to what has to happen?
MR BRITZ: No.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you know that you were to attack a PAC transit house and that the instruction was that the people had to be eliminated in the house?
MR BRITZ: Chairperson, it was mentioned while we were on our way to the premises.
MR CORNELIUS: But you knew that you would attack an enemy installation?
MR BRITZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you believe that this was your political objective, you have to carry out your orders and this was your political target?
MR BRITZ: Yes, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you receive any financial gain for this action?
MR BRITZ: No.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you at all times act within the scope of your duty?
MR BRITZ: Yes, I did.
MR CORNELIUS: You realise that there were gross human rights violations during this operation.
MR BRITZ: I understand so, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you at all times act in good faith?
MR BRITZ: Yes, I did, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you act out of any malice or revenge against the victims?
MR BRITZ: No, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: You disclosed all the information that is known to you today?
MR BRITZ: Yes, I have, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: You request amnesty for murder, damage to property, possible delicts which might emanate from these actions, and conspiracy to commit these offences, is that correct?
MR BRITZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
MR HATTINGH: Hattingh on behalf of de Kock, Chairperson. We have no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
MR LAMEY: Lamey on behalf of Willemse, Nortje and Bosch. No questions, Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
MR KNIGHT: Mr Chairman, Knight on behalf of applicant Ras. No questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR KNIGHT
MR WAGENER: Jan Wagener, Mr Chairman. I have no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Roelof du Plessis on behalf of Mentz. I have one, maybe two questions, Mr Chairman.
Mr Britz, can you remember whether Wouter Mentz was in the backup team? These are the men who walked right at the back in the operation.
MR BRITZ: As far as I can recall, I cannot recall that he was part of the backup team.
MR DU PLESSIS: But can you recall or can you not recall?
MR BRITZ: I cannot recall that he was indeed there.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did you receive any money for this operation?
MR BRITZ: I did not receive any money.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did you receive any money in the period afterwards, a few months afterwards maybe? - not only for this operation, but possibly for a sum bonus.
MR BRITZ: I did indeed receive some money after another incident, but it had no relevance to this incident, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: But can you recall if you - did you ever receive any bonuses?
MR BRITZ: I received a bonus after the Nelspruit incident, yes, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Is that the only time when you received a bonus?
MR BRITZ: That's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
MR BOOYENS: Booyens, Mr Chairman. I've got no questions, thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, Ramula Patel on record.
Sir, you say you received a bonus after the Nelspruit incident, were you told specifically that the bonus was for that incident?
MR BRITZ: Yes, Chairperson, it was Captain Geefers, he approached me and said that Colonel de Kock had said that we have to put in some claims and we would receive money afterwards.
MS PATEL: And how much did you receive, Sir?
MR BRITZ: For three months I received R1 000 every time and afterwards they said that we cannot file anymore such claims.
MS PATEL: Was this the only time that you received a bonus in respect of a specific incident?
MR BRITZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Can you say whether the other members of the team in that specific incident also received bonuses?
MR BRITZ: I can't. I don't know if they received the same amount of money that I had, and I don't know - I cannot say anything to that.
MS PATEL: Okay. You say that you were asked to file the claim yourself, who decided on the figure to be put on those claims?
MR BRITZ: Captain Geefers told me that Colonel de Kock gave him an instruction that we should claim for a certain amount of money and we will receive the money. Colonel de Kock never told this to me himself.
CHAIRPERSON: What was the claim for? You claimed a certain amount of money, was it for board and lodging, for travel, what were you claiming for?
MR BRITZ: Chairperson, it was a claim which we had filed - yes, like in travelling and accommodation.
MS PATEL: I take it though that the amount that was claimed would have been in excess of your actual expenses.
MR BRITZ: No, no, Chairperson, it didn't cost me any money.
MS PATEL: So it was a fraudulent claim that was put in?
MR BRITZ: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Do you have any knowledge whether other members present at Vlakplaas would have received bonuses for specific incidents, during the time that Mr de Kock was in charge?
MR BRITZ: I cannot comment on that, Chairperson, because I was not present when they received money. And if they indeed receive money, I do not know of it.
MS PATEL: Are you saying Sir, that it wasn't common knowledge that people at Vlakplaas received bonuses? Did you think you were the only person who was receiving a bonus?
MR BRITZ: No, I wouldn't say so, Chairperson, I believe that certain people received some money, as Ms Patel is saying now, but I don't know how much they received, whether envelopes were given to them or whether they received the money at home. I cannot comment.
MS PATEL: Alright. Can we just go to this ...(intervention)
ADV SANDI: Sorry, Ms Patel, are you going to be dealing with something else?
Just on this, Mr Britz, when you say you believe other people received some money, who are you talking about?
MR BRITZ: Certain members who were part of the unit received money. That is what I heard from the evidence, that Mr Mentz received R6 000. I did not have any knowledge of that, I never saw it personally.
ADV SANDI: That operation you are talking about, where you say that after it was carried out you received some money, did you know before you went out on this operation that you were going to be getting some money?
MR BRITZ: No, Chairperson, a bonus was not mentioned before the operation.
ADV SANDI: Thank you.
MS PATEL: Just finally on that point, Sir, these bonuses that people received at Vlakplaas, generally, were they seen as an incentive to do better?
MR BRITZ: I would say it was an incentive bonus.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that you only learnt that bonuses were paid to people, from the evidence you heard here?
MR BRITZ: No, Chairperson, money was paid out, but nobody ever knew who would receive what amount of money and money was not involved while the operation was planned. And if the operation was successful the people would receive a bonus, and this was like an incentive bonus so that they would render better service in future.
MS PATEL: May I proceed Sir? Thank you.
Sir, when were you first informed that you would be involved in the Chand operation?
MR BRITZ: Chairperson, I cannot exactly say that it was a week or two days before the time. Each section had its area which it had to work in. Captain Ras had his area where he worked and we had an operation which we had to launch with him. I cannot say it was two days or one day before the time, or even a week before.
MS PATEL: Okay. Were you present at the planning meeting at the farm at Zeerust?
MR BRITZ: Yes, I was there, Mr Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Can you recall who briefed everybody there about what the operation would entail?
MR BRITZ: Captain Ras gave us the briefing there.
MS PATEL: Okay. What explanation did he give for the operation?
MR BRITZ: As I have said previously, he worked in the Western Transvaal region and he worked PAC, and it was his operation. It was the PAC house from where infiltrations would take place through to South Africa.
MS PATEL: Okay. Did he tell you whom you were in all likelihood to expect in the house at the time that the operation would be carried out?
MR BRITZ: There was a possibility that PAC members would be there who would want to infiltrate the country, but specifically that the people who assisted the members would be there.
MS PATEL: Were details given as to who these specific people were who would assist the PAC in infiltrating? Can you recall?
MR BRITZ: I cannot comment on that. I cannot recall.
MS PATEL: What was the instruction from Mr Ras to the group there?
MR BRITZ: That everybody in the house had to be eliminated.
MS PATEL: Okay. And there were no exceptions or qualifications to that instruction?
MR BRITZ: No, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Okay. Now you've testified as to what your specific role indeed was, can you tell us though what your intended role would have been had Mr de Kock not injured himself on the operation?
MR BRITZ: It would have been operational, if a person would be in my way I would eliminate him. That was my work.
MS PATEL: You were present when Mr de Kock shot the guard, not so?
MR BRITZ: Yes, I was right next to him.
MS PATEL: Okay. Before I proceed on that point, was it expected that the guard would be there?
MR BRITZ: Captain Ras said that there would be a guard. Chairperson, we did not plan that the guard would come out there.
MS PATEL: So what was the planning in respect of the guard specifically?
MR BRITZ: Chairperson, if the guard did not come out, Colonel de Kock would not have shot him.
MS PATEL: Okay. So what you're saying ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Would nobody have gone to his house to shoot him?
MR BRITZ: No, Chairperson, no.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying you would have carried out this operation knowing there was a guard there, presumably an armed guard, and you would have just left him and done nothing about him?
MR BRITZ: No, Chairperson, I would not say that. I would say that if the guard did not come out, Colonel de Kock would not have shot him and the operation would have taken place without having to shoot the guard.
MS PATEL: Were you not afraid Sir, that the guard would at least see you and be able to identify you?
MR BRITZ: It was quite dark.
MS PATEL: Taking into consideration Sir - in your response, that the idea was to make the scene that it wasn't at least a security, or that it wasn't an operation launched from your side, that it would seem as if PAC or ANC members had carried out the operation and that is why this specific ammunition was used, were you not afraid at least that the guard would be able to say that there were white men who had come in? Regardless of whether it was dark, they'd be able to see whether you were white men or not. Was that not a fear, was that not taken into consideration?
MR BRITZ: Chairperson, the guard had a dog as well and the dog didn't even bark. The guard came out, I think the dog woke him, and then Colonel de Kock shot him and afterwards he started screaming and then the people went into the house and they shot the people. That is as far as I can recall.
MS PATEL: Okay. Can - sorry, Honourable Chairperson.
From your briefing session, was it told to you specifically that the guard would be there?
MR BRITZ: Yes, mention was made of a guard there.
MS PATEL: Did you expect him to be asleep? Was that the expectation at the briefing session, or was that not discussed?
MR BRITZ: I would not say that we discussed it because it was so late at night we would have believed that the guard would be asleep when we get there.
MS PATEL: Alright. ...(intervention)
ADV SANDI: Was there any mention of the guard having a dog? - at the briefing session.
MR BRITZ: I cannot recall it as such, Chairperson, I cannot recall that there would have been a dog. I know there was a guard, but I did not know he would have had a dog.
ADV SANDI: You say the dog did not bark, why was it shot?
MR BRITZ: I can't remember the dog being shot. I know the guard was shot, but I cannot recall that the dog was shot.
MS PATEL: Was there only - did you see one dog or did you not see a dog at all?
MR BRITZ: I saw one dog.
MS PATEL: My instructions are that there were two dogs on the premises.
MR BRITZ: Chairperson, I only saw one dog, that was the dog that was right opposite the guard's place.
MS PATEL: Do you know whether the guard was armed or not?
MR BRITZ: I cannot comment, Chairperson, I don't know if he was armed.
MS PATEL: But you were present Sir, when he was shot, not so?
MR BRITZ: Sorry, could you just repeat please.
MS PATEL: You were present when the guard was shot.
MR BRITZ: Yes, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Would you dispute if I said to you that he was unarmed?
MR BRITZ: I cannot dispute it, Chairperson, I don't know whether he was armed or not.
MS PATEL: Okay. Sir, at the time, were you a National Party supporter?
MR BRITZ: Chairperson, I served the government of the day, and that was the National Party.
MS PATEL: Okay. At the time of this operation certain other members of the group I would imagine, were IFP supporters at the time. Did this affect this operation in any way?
MR BRITZ: No, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Were you appraised Sir, at any time, of whether the family who was in the house, the Chand family, of their specific involvement with the PAC?
MR BRITZ: I just performed my duty, Chairperson. I received an instruction and I executed it.
MS PATEL: My question to you Sir is, at the briefing session were you told what the specific functions or roles of the members of the Chand family was in setting up the infiltration routes, or in the use of that house as a transit house? What were you told?
MR BRITZ: That's correct, Chairperson. It was told to me that it was a PAC transit house and that is why we had to execute an operation.
MS PATEL: Were you told to expect family members in the house?
MR BRITZ: At this moment I cannot recall that, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: What did you expect to find in the house, Sir?
MR BRITZ: My instruction was to go with my fellow colleagues to infiltrate the house, to eliminate the people inside the house and to return to the base. I could not foresee who would be there and who would not be there.
MS PATEL: Are you saying that at the time you embarked on the operation, in your mind it was immaterial who would be found in the house?
MR BRITZ: Yes, that's correct, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Just one final thing. My clients have denied that there's an embankment near the fence or the gate where the guard is, can you recall whether there was in fact an embankment there?
MR CORNELIUS: He just wants the question repeated.
MS PATEL: Mr de Kock, whilst he was shooting the guard, said that he fell down an embankment near the gate.
MR BRITZ: Yes.
MS PATEL: It is denied that there is an embankment at that specific place. What is your comment on that?
MR BRITZ: Chairperson, I was standing right next to Colonel de Kock, there was an embankment and he stepped back and that is where he hurt his leg.
MS PATEL: Okay. Was this matter discussed after the operation? MR BRITZ: Which matter?
MS PATEL: The attack on the Chand house, was there a discussion about it afterwards?
MR BRITZ: Yes, while we travelled, while we drove on the way to Richards Bay, we discussed it.
MS PATEL: And after the news reports came out, indicating that there were children killed, was there a discussion after that?
MR BRITZ: Yes, specifically Willie Nortje, he spoke much about it.
MS PATEL: Okay. Can you recall what he said?
MR BRITZ: He was saddened because he did not know that the children or the people who were there were deaf and dumb, because nobody knew beforehand.
MS PATEL: From your discussions with Mr Nortje, can your recall whether he knew at that time that there were indeed family members besides Mr Chand, who were in the house?
MR BRITZ: No, I cannot comment, Chairperson, we did not know.
CHAIRPERSON: You didn't know? Do you say that you didn't know there were children?
MS PATEL: Sorry Sir, what was your response? I didn't hear that.
MR BRITZ: No, I didn't know that children would be involved.
MS PATEL: Did you know that there would be a woman involved?
MR BRITZ: We didn't know at all which persons would be involved.
MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL: CHAIRPERSON: Does that mean that you had not been told that there were children there who helped people on their way to the border?
MR BRITZ: Chairperson, it was not my operation, it was Martiens Ras' operation. He was supposed to have done his homework. He simply said that there were people who had helped these persons to get to the border, these were PAC members, and we didn't know which people would be there. Later we heard that there were children. And to me a child indicates someone of the age of six years or younger.
CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?
MR CORNELIUS: I have no re-examination, thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS
MR SIBANYONI: Mr Britz, were there any discussions as to what was supposed to be your reaction if you were surprised by the Botswana Forces, either on your way or back to the border?
MR BRITZ: Chairperson, it was arranged as such, that is why all those participating in the operation were prepared for any problems. Should it appear on our way back to the border that we would run into the police or a border patrol, then it would simply be part of the operation that they would also be eliminated.
MR SIBANYONI: Then what about South African Police or Forces on the border, if you were surprised by them? MR BRITZ: That is where Captain Ras was supposed to have
done his homework. It would have been arranged that none of the Security Forces or the police would have been patrolling in that environment.
MR SIBANYONI: In other words, they will deliberately be away from the area where you are going to cross the border?
MR BRITZ: No, I wouldn't say that they would do that purposefully, but it would have been arranged for them not to be in that vicinity.
MR SIBANYONI: I notice that you use the word "eliminate" repeatedly, when you refer to killing. Was that the normal understanding or the usual use of the word eliminate, to mean kill?
MR BRITZ: Ja, that's mine. That's my idea of killing, it's eliminating, it's to counter-attack.
MR SIBANYONI: That was also the understanding generally among the members of the Security Force?
MR BRITZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Sorry, Mr Chairman, sorry to interrupt. With your permission - Jansen again on record, Mr Chairman, I'm just instructed by my attorney, I wasn't here throughout this witness' evidence, but that the issue of what was said by Ras at the briefing beforehand, was not canvassed during chief-examination, but only transpired during re-examination. May I just put some questions to this witness on that basis? Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Britz, would you concede that your memory regarding exactly what was said and in exactly which terms, in reference to the occupants of the house during the briefing session, in reference to those matters your memory may be faulty?
MR BRITZ: That is possible.
MR JANSEN: For example, Douw Willemse recalls in his application specifically that mention was made of children, would you accept that?
MR BRITZ: Yes, I would accept that.
MR JANSEN: Thus, at best, one must accept your evidence as such that the impression that was left with you was that there wouldn't be any young children?
MR BRITZ: Yes, that's correct.
MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that all?
MR JANSEN: Yes, Mr Chairman, that's all. Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairman, may I be excused from further attendance? My clients will be available if necessary.
CHAIRPERSON: Enjoy your trip.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Question; you won't be here tomorrow?
MR CORNELIUS: I understood, I thought the hearing would finish today, Mr Chair. So I won't be here tomorrow, if it continues tomorrow.
CHAIRPERSON: Well I was approached and I thought it had been agreed that we would hear argument tomorrow. You've already put argument?
MR CORNELIUS: I've put supplementary Heads. It's fully argued in front of the ...
CHAIRPERSON: So you don't wish to be present at the ...(intervention)
MR CORNELIUS: Written Heads, Mr Chair. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Right. Does that complete all the evidence that is to be led?
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I still have an applicant, Bosch.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, sorry. Yes we interposed, I forgot.
WITNESS EXCUSED
