MR BOOYENS: The next witness is Mr Wal du Toit, Mr Chairman, and his application can be found on page 240 of bundle 1.
MR MALAN: Your full names of Wybrand Andreas Lodewikus?
WYBRAND ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Booyens?
EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr du Toit, you have your amnesty application before you.
MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct.
MR BOOYENS: And on page 242, 43, 44 to 248, you deal basically with your career history and where you were employed.
MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct.
MR BOOYENS: And on page 249 you sketch the background of what exactly the Technical Division of the Security Branch was.
MR DU TOIT: That is correct.
MR BOOYENS: Just to clarify certain aspects, Mr du Toit. There may be the perception in the minds of some people that the Technical Division of the Security Branch was only involved in offensive actions, such as for example this modification of weaponry, in this case and in other cases and so forth. Would you please explain to the Committee exactly how the Technical Division functioned. Try to be brief, but I think it is important.
MR DU TOIT: Thank you, Chairperson. I would just like to say from the beginning that this perception is not correct, the primary function of the unit was to provide technological support for the court oriented information gathering actions. We had an official mandate, it was in line with official practice and there was nothing sinister about the existence of the unit.
MR BOOYENS: Very well. And with regard to the modification of weaponry and so forth, later in your application you refer to the fact that you modified various types of weaponry, that you modified mines, limpet mines, mini-limpet mines, grenade detonators, even ammunition, is that correct?
MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct.
MR BOOYENS: Is this something which you did on a daily basis or was it a sporadic occurrence?
MR DU TOIT: No, it occurred sporadically due to the fact that there was a limited level of expertise in that unit and that we had the infrastructure to deal with such occurrences.
MR BOOYENS: Then there is just one technical aspect that I wish to clarify here, and I think that you should explain this to the Committee, because especially in previous applications if we study the evidence given by Brig Jack Cronje and others, the statement has been made essentially, that handgrenades or the detonators of handgrenades were adjusted to such an extent that they would explode as soon as you pulled the pin.
MR DU TOIT: No, that is not correct. The lever which folded over the handgrenade had to be loosened first, in other words the pin that was removed was actually a safety mechanism, the lever had to be removed first before the handgrenade would go off.
MR BOOYENS: And that would take place once a person had tossed the handgrenade, that is after the lever and the pin had been removed?
MR DU TOIT: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: And in this case the handgrenade would have gone off.
MR DU TOIT: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: Now Mr du Toit, regarding your involvement in offensive operations, in 1985, can you recall whether Mr Paul Hattingh came to you regarding an issue of the possibility of zero-det handgrenades, the possibility of modifying the detonators of such handgrenades?
MR DU TOIT: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: Now were you aware of an incident in 1978 at Meleeuskop(?), which was a training base, where a handgrenade apparently went off - was it 1978 or 1988?
MR DU TOIT: It's 1978.
MR BOOYENS: ... where a handgrenade, an eastern block handgrenade went off immediately and policemen were injured?
MR DU TOIT: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: And were you also aware that there was talk of the existence of so-called zero-det handgrenades?
MR DU TOIT: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: Did you and Mr Hattingh then discuss the matter?
MR DU TOIT: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: And did you investigate the technical viability of this practice and come to the conclusion that it could be done?
MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct.
MR BOOYENS: You also received a request, can you recall whether this was at the same time or possibly later, the request being also to modify a limpet mine for the purposes of immediate detonation?
MR DU TOIT: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: And was this also investigated and carried out?
MR DU TOIT: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: Possibility just to take it as far as 1989, because you refer to this at stages, did you also receive further requests or instructions for the modification of other forms of weaponry, and was this executed?
MR DU TOIT: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: I think it might just be necessary, just for the sake of completion, for you to elaborate on this. I have read in your application about limpet mines and mini-limpet mines, what is a mini-limpet mine?
MR DU TOIT: It is an anti-personnel mine.
MR BOOYENS: Yes, is it a smaller mine?
MR DU TOIT: Yes, it is.
MR BOOYENS: And then we have also read about the modification of the handgrenade detonators, can you tell us - you heard yesterday afternoon that Mr de Kock said that the detonators could be used on both offensive and defensive eastern block handgrenades, would you agree with that?
MR DU TOIT: Yes, I agree.
MR BOOYENS: You also refer to the fact that ammunition or the regular rounds of ammunition were modified at times.
MR DU TOIT: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: And did Technical Division ever do these things out of their own initiation or motivation, or were there requests or instructions for this to be done?
MR DU TOIT: There were always requests and instructions.
MR BOOYENS: Your division didn't really have the appropriate information to evaluate the exact nature and so forth of an operation in which those things that you had manufactured would be used?
MR DU TOIT: That is correct.
MR BOOYENS: So it fell beyond your line function?
MR DU TOIT: That is correct.
MR BOOYENS: You were not a division who worked in the field, you were technical?
MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct.
MR BOOYENS: And in this specific case what we are dealing with here, after Mr Hattingh said to you what the request was, did he briefly inform you what it was about and what they were considering it for?
MR DU TOIT: Voorsitter, my herinnering daaraan is dat dit primêr so wees om as afskrik middel to dien en om persone wat hulleself bereid verklaar het om ander te dood, op hierdie wyse to elimineer. ...(no English interpretation)
MR BOOYENS: And he also told you that it came as an instruction from the top?
MR DU TOIT: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: Were you satisfied that although it was legally wrong, that it was morally correct with regard tot he situation which was at hand?
MR DU TOIT: Yes, I was satisfied, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Did you and the other applicants who apply for amnesty make the necessary work to do these modifications?
MR DU TOIT: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: Mr du Toit, you request amnesty - let me just ask you, you confirm the correctness of the application in total?
MR DU TOIT: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: Let us just get your application in order. You request amnesty for any offence which might flow out of your involvement with the modification of the arms.
MR DU TOIT: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: Or any offence or delict. I know here we only refer to conspiracy, but it might be accessory and certain transgressions of the Act on Explosives.
MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: And with regard to the preparation of these - of your application as well as the Kok brothers and Mr Louw, you did not have legal representation at that stage.
MR DU TOIT: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: And you basically prepared your own application and because you had a computer you also assisted the other persons in the completion of their applications.
MR DU TOIT: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: The first handgrenades to which the detonators had been modified, was this the handgrenades about which this incident is about, as to which Mr Hattingh gave evidence?
MR DU TOIT: I believe so, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: And in your application you also mentioned that at a later stage you stopped modifying detonators because of two explosions.
MR DU TOIT: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: In which you and the applicant, Mr Kobus Kok were involved and the explosions took place 10 minutes after each other.
MR DU TOIT: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: And at that stage you thought that something might have changed and no modifications were made thereafter.
MR DU TOIT: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: And can you recall when this was?
MR DU TOIT: I don't have a recollection thereof, I think it was in the early '90's.
MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS
ADV GCABASHE: Could I just ask on that point, you are not saying these are the only adaptations you made?
MR DU TOIT: That's correct, Chairperson, there were others.
ADV GCABASHE: There were others that you made.
MR DU TOIT: There was.
ADV GCABASHE: But this was the first?
MR DU TOIT: These were the first yes, Chairperson.
ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Booyens. Mr Hattingh, do you have any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr du Toit, you have heard Mr de Kock's evidence that he and Mr Roelf Venter visited you and asked you to modify a limpet mine in the same manner, can you recall that?
MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, I don't have a recollection thereof. I cannot deny it though, it may be so.
MR HATTINGH: Can you recall whether you had indeed modified such a limpet mine?
MR DU TOIT: I did, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Cornelius?
MR CORNELIUS: I have no questions, thank you, Mr Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mafora?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAFORA: Just one question, Mr Chairman.
How many handgrenades did you prepare?
MR DU TOIT: Voorsitter, kan ons die vraag net meer spesifiek kry, verwys u na hierdie besondere geval? ...(no English interpretation)
MR MAFORA: No, for this incident.
MR DU TOIT: Vir hierdie insident?
MR MAFORA: Yes.
MR DU TOIT: I don't have a clear recollection thereof, Chairperson, I will agree with what the other applicants have said. I assume that it must be to the amount of 20.
MR MAFORA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAFORA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Mafora. Ms Lockhat?
MS LOCKHAT: I have no questions, thank you, Mr Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, any re-examination?
MR BOOYENS: No re-examination.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS
CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe, any questions?
ADV GCABASHE: Were any brought back to you after this incident, for safekeeping?
MR DU TOIT: No, Chairperson.
ADV GCABASHE: Or for further alteration, adjustments?
MR DU TOIT: Are you referring to these ...(intervention)
ADV GCABASHE: These particular ones, yes.
MR DU TOIT: No, Chairperson.
ADV GCABASHE: No. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?
MR MALAN: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Toit, that concludes your - sorry is there a question arising out of the question put by Adv Gcabashe? No questions.
That concludes your evidence, you may stand down, thank you.
MR DU TOIT: Thank you, Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR BOOYENS: I call Jakobus Kok, Chairperson. My attention is being drawn to the fact that it's time for the short adjournment. Would it an appropriate time to adjourn for the tea break? The following applicant will be Mr Kock.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, it's now 11 o'clock, we'll adjourn for tea now until twenty five past eleven, thank you.
MS LOCKHAT: All rise.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
