Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: We are continuing with the amnesty application of E A de Kock and nine others, in respect of the Nelspruit 4 and Tiso. It is Thursday the 26th of August and the Panel and the parties are constituted as has been indicated on the record.

DEON GOUWS: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: We have no questions, thank you, Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: I have no questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Mr Bam?

MR BAM: Thank you, Chairperson, just one singular aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR BAM: ...(indistinct - no microphone).

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Bam?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BAM: I beg your pardon, it must have gone again.

Mr Gouws, the initial discussion with regard to the Coin robbers, the initial robbery, the first robbery - let me put it that way, my instructions are that there was no planning initially to shoot these persons dead and it was not discussed as such, in other words that there would be killing, when those discussions were held with the Nelspruit Murder and Robbery Unit.

MR GOUWS: That is indeed correct.

MR BAM: Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BAM

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bam. Mr van den Berg?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Gouws, before we deal with the incident itself, just a singular aspect regarding the broad background to your involvement here. It is correct that previously you were involved in aspects for which you have applied for amnesty, is that correct?

MR GOUWS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And I will point out to you that there is indeed a connection between you and Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR GOUWS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If one studies your specific application for which you have already received amnesty, for the Kwandabele 9, the persons who were involved in that were in the first place, a Capt Hechter from Security in Pretoria or Northern Transvaal, is that correct?

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But the other persons who were involved in this incident were among others, W/O Wouter Mentz, is that correct?

MR GOUWS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And at this stage of the Kwandabele 9, he was an officer at Murder and Robbery, he was one of your colleagues, is that correct?

MR GOUWS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And later he was transferred to Vlakplaas.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then the other person who was involved in Vlakplaas at a certain stage, was Joe Mamasela.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And he was also involved in the Kwandabele 9.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If one looks at the staff of Murder and Robbery who were involved in the Nelspruit incident, that would be the incident for which you have applied for amnesty in this hearing, in the first place there was Capt Geldenhuys, is that correct?

MR GOUWS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And in the second place also, I think he was a W/O Boshoff.

MR GOUWS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Geldenhuys had a connection with Capt or Col de Kock, is that correct?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: They knew each other since their Koevoet days.

MR GOUWS: Correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And Boshoff, you were not certain at the stage of this incident whether he had already been transferred to Vlakplaas or not.

MR GOUWS: No, I'm not completely certain about that.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I will not refer you specifically to Boshoff's application which appears in the documents, but is it clear that at the stage of this incident he was still involved with Murder and Robbery?

MR GOUWS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The aspect of financial gain as a result of these incidents, has been corrected by you and you say that this is linked to the Carousel incident. Do I understand you correctly?

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: With regard to the Carousel incident, you state that you received the money - I don't know whether it was directly or indirectly, from Gen Smit, Basie Smit.

MR GOUWS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Who reported the incident to him, was it you or someone else?

MR GOUWS: I don't know, everyone who was involved in the Carousel incident was instructed to report to the police headquarters on a certain morning, all of us were congratulated and every one of us received a cheque of R1 000. I don't know who planned it or organised it.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And who handed over the cheque to you?

MR GOUWS: Gen Smit.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I am not certain whether you were present when Mr Nortje, one of the other applicants, was cross-examined regarding the parallels between the Carousel incident and the Nelspruit incident.

MR GOUWS: No.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I am not going to put this pertinently to you again, however I will leave it for argument later on with regard to the mutual facts connected to this.

You were involved in the initial attempt against this gang of robbers at Coin at a stage, is that correct?

MR GOUWS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Where you waited for them within the premises of Coin Security.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: In answer to a question put by Mr Bam, you stated that the initial discussion that there was no plan to kill anyone.

MR GOUWS: Yes, that is correct initially.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But when you waited for them the plan was to kill them.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And at this stage, which information did you have or which information was conveyed to you with regard to the robbers? - to express is as such.

MR GOUWS: That they were political activists. Holtzhausen at that stage had contact with Ben van Zyl when these persons were on their way to Coin and it was positively stated to me, from Holtzhausen, that all the passengers are armed with handguns.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were the names of the robbers ever mentioned to you?

MR GOUWS: No, not at all.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Not one name?

MR GOUWS: No, not at all.

MR VAN DEN BERG: During this Coin incident they did indeed arrive.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But they did not execute their plans.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: My recollection fails me, but this attempt to apprehend them at Coin, was this before or after Carousel, can you recall?

MR GOUWS: I cannot recall as specifically.

MR VAN DEN BERG: My colleague tells me that it was before the Carousel incident.

MR GOUWS: I would accept that.

MR VAN DEN BERG: In how many other incidents were you involved with Vlakplaas, where persons were apprehended?

MR GOUWS: There were quite a few.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Quite a few?

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And during this period?

MR GOUWS: Before and after.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Before and after them. We are aware of at least three, that being Coin, the Carousel incident and then also the Nelspruit incident. Were there any others?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When did Mr Holtzhausen approach you with regard to the Nelspruit incident?

MR GOUWS: He did not approach me directly, he approached Capt Geldenhuys.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Very well. And when did you receive an order from Capt Geldenhuys to go through to Nelspruit?

MR GOUWS: I think it was a day just before the incident.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And did Capt Geldenhuys give you any information with regard to what the action involved?

MR GOUWS: He simply stated that a gang of robbers would go down to Nelspruit and that we were supposed to go there. That was the order that I received.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And according to you, the planning for this incident then took place partially at the Drum Rock Hotel and then partially at the scene.

MR GOUWS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: There are two aspects that I would like to obtain further particulars about, one is the aspect of the AK47s. When was the AK given to you?

MR GOUWS: At the scene.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Was the fact that the AKs would be planted ever mentioned to you before you arrived at the scene?

MR GOUWS: No, this was at the scene.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What was your specific instruction with regard to the AK?

MR GOUWS: To toss the AK into the kombi, that was the instruction.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you given an instruction to fire rounds through the AK47 before you left it in the vehicle?

MR GOUWS: I cannot recall anything like that.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you fire any shots with the AK before you left it there?

MR GOUWS: No.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You were not in possession of the handgrenades, it was at no stage given to you.

MR GOUWS: No.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The second aspect is that with regard to the petrol. Was this discussed at the Drum Rockor only at the scene?

MR GOUWS: I'm not completely certain about that. I cannot say with certainty whether it was at the Drum Rockor at the scene, but it did emerge at a certain point, but I cannot remember precisely when. And then, at the scene I saw the petrol cans. This was after the shooting.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The person who was seated in front of the vehicle on the left at a certain point fell halfway through the window or was tossed halfway through the window, was he still alive when this happened? Can you recall?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, it is very difficult to say, I cannot say precisely.

MR VAN DEN BERG: During the planning, which information was conveyed to you with regard to these potential robbers, were any names mentioned to you?

MR GOUWS: No, all I was told is that they were ANC activists who were once again planning to rob the very same Coin Security company premises.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Because your application is very specific about it. If you will look at page 93 of your application, in paragraph 2 you state pertinently that these were ANC activists and this is also your evidence here.

MR GOUWS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I would like to know how you reconcile this with what you have stated in paragraph 4 of your application which appears on page 94

"And at this point in time I realised and suspected that it would be the same persons who planned the robbery and that the objective of it would be to obtain money for the ANC or the PAC."

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I had knowledge as a result of the briefing session which was led by Brig Engelbrecht, as well as information from sources at Murder and Robbery, that the PAC was also involved in the same type of robbery. Although the information indicated that these persons were ANC members, it may just as well have been PAC members. That is why I have included PAC.

CHAIRPERSON: Therefore you were not certain of the affiliations of these robbers.

MR GOUWS: The information indicated that they were ANC, but the PAC also did the same kind of work, so I just followed the information.

CHAIRPERSON: But the information indicated that they were ANC activists?

MR GOUWS: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you recall whether Capt de Kock was present during the planning?

MR GOUWS: Col de Kock?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, Col de Kock, sorry. Was he present during the planning at the Drum Rock Hotel?

MR GOUWS: Yes, he was at the Drum Rock Hotel, but I cannot recall that he was present during the briefing session.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And at which point did he arrive, did he arrive at the hotel before you departed for the ambush or did he arrive at the scene of the ambush?

MR GOUWS: No, he arrived at the hotel early that evening and then at a certain point he departed again and then I saw him at the scene again, before the shooting.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If one studies Capt Geldenhuys' statement which is on page 252 and the pages after that, I would like to refer you to page 260. If you look at paragraph 40, was it ever mentioned to you that there was anything about arms smuggling in this incident?

MR GOUWS: No, not at all.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you present when the reconnaissance was undertaken for the place for the ambush?

MR GOUWS: No, not at all.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Not at all. So the first time when you were on the scene, when the shooting took place, was that evening when all of you went there?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: There was evidence by Capt Gevers that some of you were all at the police canteen in Nelspruit at a certain point in time. Were you there?

MR GOUWS: I have been there quite a few times in my life, I cannot recall that I was there on that specific night.

MR VAN DEN BERG: There was also evidence by Capt Gevers that according to his recollection, between 8 and 10 beers were had. Did you have any beers that evening?

MR GOUWS: Yes, I had a few beers at the Drum Rock Hotel that evening.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I have no further questions, Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg. Mr Francis or Ms Pillay?

MR FRANCIS: Ms Pillay.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, Ms Pillay then.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PILLAY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Gouws, just a point of clarity first. I had a look at your application and it first refers to you being "tans nog in diens" and then later there's some reference to the fact that you're now pensioned off due to some medical reason. Are you still with - in the service?

MR GOUWS: No, I was declared medically unfit.

MS PILLAY: And when did you leave the service?

MR GOUWS: December '96.

MS PILLAY: So from, I think it's 1981 or 1982 until December '96, you were in the same unit?

MR GOUWS: No. No, no, from '86 ...(intervention)

MS PILLAY: Sorry, from '86.

MR GOUWS: From '86 I've been at Murder and Robbery.

MS PILLAY: So you were - for 10 years you were in the same unit, Murder and Robbery Unit?

MR GOUWS: No, it's for more, from '86 till '96.

MS PILLAY: It's 10 years.

MR GOUWS: Oh ja, that's correct.

MS PILLAY: So for 10 years you were in the same unit?

MR GOUWS: Ja.

MS PILLAY: So at the time of the incident, the Nelspruit incident, you were in fact a specialist, is that correct?

MR GOUWS: That's correct.

MS PILLAY: You were a specialist in murder and robbery incidents.

MR GOUWS: That's correct.

MS PILLAY: So you were not part - at the time of the incident you weren't part of any covert or counter-insurgency unit?

MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: And your job was - I see you said in your application at page 86, it refers to being part of the "Speurtak", your job was to investigate.

MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: How did your job in 1996 differ from what it was in 1982?

MR GOUWS: '96?

MS PILLAY: Yes, just before you left. How did it differ from what it was in 1992, the time of this incident?

MR GOUWS: Then I was just doing regular investigations.

MS PILLAY: So your job description was basically the same?

MR GOUWS: Yes, that is correct.

MS PILLAY: Identical?

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: There was no fundamental change?

MR GOUWS: No.

MS PILLAY: So in 1996, Mr Gouws, would you have ambushed and killed suspected robbers, even before they came near the scene of a crime?

MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: So why did you do it in 1992?

MR GOUWS: I received an order.

MS PILLAY: Who did you get an "opdrag" from?

MR GOUWS: Capt Geldenhuys.

MS PILLAY: So Capt Geldenhuys instructed you to ambush and kill these people?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: Now let's just go into that a bit, Mr Gouws, your "opdrag" from Capt Geldenhuys. When did he give you specific instruction to actually join this operation?

MR GOUWS: It was a day before the incident.

MS PILLAY: Which "voorval", there have been many "voorvals", Mr Gouws.

MR GOUWS: The Nelspruit incident.

MS PILLAY: Which one are we talking about, there were two in Nelspruit. You're talking about the second incident?

MR GOUWS: The shooting.

MS PILLAY: Not the Coin Security?

MR GOUWS: No.

MS PILLAY: Okay. So you were not involved in Coin Security?

MR GOUWS: I were involved

MS PILLAY: Did you get instruction from Capt Geldenhuys for that incident?

MR GOUWS: Ja, to go to Coin, ja.

MS PILLAY: So when did - all the incidents are interlinked, Mr Gouws, so Capt Geldenhuys had to give you instruction for each and every incident?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: So in terms of your working with Mr Holtzhausen, when did Capt Geldenhuys first give you instruction?

MR GOUWS: It was just before the Coin incident.

MS PILLAY: Just before Coin Security.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: Are we clear, that was - your first instruction from Capt Geldenhuys was just before Coin Security?

MR GOUWS: That's correct.

MS PILLAY: What does "just before Coin Security" mean, how long before Coin Security?

MR GOUWS: A day, maybe two days before the time, I ...(intervention)

MS PILLAY: A day or two days before Coin Security. And by then Mr Holtzhausen had put together his planning for Coin Security.

MR GOUWS: I suppose so.

MS PILLAY: So it was clear that the robbery was going to take place at Coin Security.

MR GOUWS: That's correct.

MS PILLAY: At the time when you got instruction from Capt Geldenhuys.

MR GOUWS: That's correct.

MS PILLAY: Okay. Mr Gouws, can I refer you - let me just find my page reference. Sorry, let me just clarify this, Mr Gouws, you were only taking instruction from Capt Geldenhuys from Murder and Robbery?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: And he was the only one that gave you instructions?

MR GOUWS: Regarding which incident?

MS PILLAY: No, I mean with regard to your involvement with Mr Holtzhausen.

MR GOUWS: Yes, he was my direct commander.

MS PILLAY: So you only got instructions from him?

MR GOUWS: That's correct.

MS PILLAY: And the first time he gave you instructions with regard to any involvement with Mr Holtzhausen was a day or two before the Coin Security?

MR GOUWS: Coin Security.

MS PILLAY: When Coin Security had been planned already.

MR GOUWS: That's correct.

MS PILLAY: Now can I refer you to Mr Holtzhausen's affidavit. The page reference - I seem to have lost my page reference, let me just find it. If you can have a look at page 309, Mr Gouws, if you can have a look at paragraph 11

"The prospective robbery would be committed in Pretoria, at a bank in Lynwood Road. Ben said that the bank was situated within a shopping centre. The name of the Shopping Centre was made known and Deon Gouws and I, from Pretoria Murder and Robbery, visited the place and observed the area."

MR GOUWS: I do not know about that.

MS PILLAY: So you've got no knowledge that you accompanied Mr Holtzhausen to Pretoria, to the bank in Lynwoodweg?

MR GOUWS: No, I don't know about that.

MS PILLAY: What does "ek dra nie kennis" mean? I'm sorry, my Afrikaans isn't good at all, I'm sure you can pick that up.

MR GOUWS: I was not on such a story.

MS PILLAY: So does it mean you deny it?

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: You're denying that in fact you accompanied Mr Holtzhausen to Lynwood?

MR GOUWS: Yes, I did not visit a bank. I have visited many banks, but not this one.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, you say it is not true?

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: So you say that Mr Holtzhausen is lying in this affidavit?

MR GOUWS: Perhaps he was with someone else, but he wasn't there with me.

MS PILLAY: He wasn't with you.

MR GOUWS: No.

MS PILLAY: And if Mr Holtzhausen should testify that it was you, Mr Gouws?

MR GOUWS: Then he's lying.

MS PILLAY: Then he's lying.

MR GOUWS: Ja.

MS PILLAY: But if - assuming you were there that time, it would have been without instruction?

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: It would have been without Capt Geldenhuys' ...(intervention)

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: Okay. Can you describe your relationship with Mr Holtzhausen to us please, Mr Gouws.

MR GOUWS: Sorry?

MS PILLAY: Your relationship with Mr Holtzhausen.

MR GOUWS: Well we were good friends, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: You were good friends.

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: And is that it?

MR GOUWS: Well that's it.

MS PILLAY: Your professional relationship?

MR GOUWS: We worked together.

MS PILLAY: Would you know why - sorry, how many people were attached to Murder and Robbery at the relevant time, around '91/'92? Pretoria Murder and Robbery, how many people were attached to that unit?

MR GOUWS: I should say about 13.

MS PILLAY: 13 people?

MR GOUWS: 13.

MS PILLAY: Yes, I said 13.

MR GOUWS: Ja.

MS PILLAY: And all of them were equally qualified as you were?

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: Why is it then that Mr - that you were always involved with Mr Holtzhausen?

MR GOUWS: I think that it must have been a position of confidence.

MS PILLAY: "'n Vertrouens posisie"? And why do you think that he chose you specifically of all 13 people at Murder and Robbery?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I think that he can answer that question himself.

MS PILLAY: Because I refer you, Mr Gouws - I seem to have lost a page of my page reference, will you just give me a second. I'm sorry, Mr Chairperson, can you just give a second, I've lost the page with my page references.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Pillay.

MS PILLAY: Yes, Mr Gouws, do you know why Mr Holtzhausen specifically selected you to partake in the Coin Security incident?

MR GOUWS: I don't know.

MS PILLAY: You wouldn't know why he selected specifically you?

MR GOUWS: No.

MS PILLAY: Because I refer you to page 310 then, Mr Gouws, that's paragraph 17, where Mr Holtzhausen set out the people he initially selected to be part of Coin Security, and I see your name is reflected there.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: You've got no explanation as to why he would choose specifically you of 13 people?

MR GOUWS: I don't know.

MS PILLAY: You've got no knowledge.

MR GOUWS: No.

MS PILLAY: So Mr Gouws, let me just get this straight, you're denying any involvement in the initial plannings, the Lynwood bank planning?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: You have no knowledge of that?

MR GOUWS: I have no knowledge, no recollection.

MS PILLAY: Okay, maybe you should just take us from Coin Security incident. What did Capt Geldenhuys, what did he give you instructions to do?

MR GOUWS: To accompany C10 to Coin Security in Nelspruit.

MS PILLAY: "Om C10 te vergesel". Does that mean you only had to accompany them?

MR GOUWS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: Would you partake in any - if there was any firing, any shooting, were you empowered to partake in that shooting?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: You were. So his instructions was not merely to accompany C10?

MR GOUWS: Well if a shooting were to take place I would have participated.

MS PILLAY: Was that taken for granted?

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: He didn't give you a specific instruction that should there be firing, that you were to be involved? You could be empowered to actually shoot?

MR GOUWS: Correct.

MS PILLAY: Because Mr Gouws, you knew before the Coin Security incident, that these robbers were to be killed.

MR GOUWS: I did not know at that stage.

MS PILLAY: So when did you know they were to be killed?

MR GOUWS: After we were told at the Coin offices by Ben van Zyl that they were armed.

MS PILLAY: So the only reason you killed them was because - sorry, the only reason you were going to kill them was because you thought they were armed?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: You were prepared to go ahead with that?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: It never crossed your mind that you could try to actually arrest them?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, it is easy to explain, Coin Security's staff were seated in the offices, they were armed. That is the information that the robbers had. In other words, they would enter with firearms and open fire left and right and I would obviously shoo them, I wouldn't wait for him to shoot me.

MS PILLAY: Won't wait for him to shoot you first, you would actually shoot him.

MR GOUWS: Definitely.

MS PILLAY: So only in defence.

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: Not attack?

MR GOUWS: If he had a weapon in his hand I would shoot.

MS PILLAY: You will shoot him because he has a weapon in his hand.

MR GOUWS: Otherwise he would shoot me.

MS PILLAY: Was that the modus operandi of the Murder and Robbery Unit at that time?

MR GOUWS: Not always.

MS PILLAY: So why did you do it this - why was that your approach this time?

MR GOUWS: Because political persons were involved in this.

MS PILLAY: So because there were political people involved, you decided that if they have a gun on them you will shoot them.

MR GOUWS: If they were busy with a robbery.

MS PILLAY: So who gave you the mandate that if they were people and only because they were political people, that distinguishes them from other robbers and that's why they deserved the special treatment of being killed if they have a weapon on them?

MR GOUWS: It was obvious.

MS PILLAY: Sorry?

MR GOUWS: It was obvious.

MS PILLAY: I didn't get that. It was obvious, is that what you're saying?

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: When you're saying it was obvious, what do you mean?

MR GOUWS: Exactly what I say.

MS PILLAY: So Capt Geldenhuys didn't give you the instruction that if there were ANC people, you could then go ahead and kill them, even if you would not kill other robbers in the same situation?

MR GOUWS: No.

MS PILLAY: He didn't give you that instruction?

MR GOUWS: No.

MS PILLAY: Yet you were prepared to go that far.

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: And act outside your instructions from Capt Geldenhuys.

MR GOUWS: Yes, he did not give me specific orders.

MS PILLAY: Yet you were prepared to do that.

MR GOUWS: That's correct.

MS PILLAY: You were prepared to go outside your instructions.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: Okay. Did you know, Mr Gouws, at the time of the Coin Security incident, did you know to what extent C10 and Ben van Zyl had been involved in the actual setting up of that whole operation?

MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson, I did not know. It was only on that evening when the robbery was not committed that I met Ben van Zyl. I'd known him already, but I did not know beforehand of any ...(intervention)

MS PILLAY: So you knew afterwards, you knew the extent to which they actually contributed to the setting up of that operation.

MR GOUWS: I was not informed in detail.

MS PILLAY: I'm talking about afterwards, you knew afterwards, after Coin Security.

MR GOUWS: I did not talk to Ben van Zyl much, so I did not know precisely what the prior planning was.

MS PILLAY: Did Holtzhausen tell you?

MR GOUWS: No.

MS PILLAY: So no-one told you that the police and Ben van Zyl had basically set up the Coin operation.

MR GOUWS: I did not know.

MS PILLAY: You had no knowledge of that.

MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: What were you told about the Nelspruit incident, Mr Gouws?

MR GOUWS: That it was ANC activists who once again wanted to rob the Coin Security offices.

MS PILLAY: And who informed you of that?

MR GOUWS: Mr Holtzhausen.

MS PILLAY: Mr Holtzhausen. And what were your instructions from Capt Geldenhuys?

MR GOUWS: To participate in the shooting.

MS PILLAY: Oh so this time he didn't just tell you to actually "vergesel" C10, he told you to actually take part in the shooting.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: So his instructions were clearly different from what they were at Coin Security?

MR GOUWS: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: But Geldenhuys himself was there.

MR GOUWS: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Was he also present during the first Coin incident?

MR GOUWS: No.

MS PILLAY: So were you - at the Drum Rock Hotel, were you specifically informed as to how the operation would unfold?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, not much was said at the Drum Rock Hotel, it was simply discussed superficially. I think the reason for that was that some of the persons were not yet at the scene, the scene for which the ambush was planned. Therefore, most of the planning was undertaken on the scene before the time.

MS PILLAY: But at the Drum Rock Hotel you were aware that these people were going to be shot and killed.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: You were aware of that.

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: Did you find out - and you were aware that they were going to be shot and killed even before they had come near the scene of the crime.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: Of the so-called crime.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: Were you aware that there was going to be no robbery?

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: You were aware of that fact. Didn't it strike you as odd ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: In the sense that it would be prevented or in the sense that there wouldn't be a - there's no planning of a robbery at all?

MS PILLAY: In the sense that it wouldn't happen at all. There was no planning of a robbery at all, from the part of the police.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, from the?

MS PILLAY: From the perspective of the police there wouldn't be any robbery at all.

ADV DE JAGER: Because they would prevent it or because it wasn't planned at all.

MS PILLAY: Because it wasn't planned at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Or was it planned so that it wouldn't happen?

MS PILLAY: Well I think - ja, it goes hand-in-hand, it was planned that the robbery - there wouldn't be any robbery basically.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it appears to me as if that was part of the plan.

MS PILLAY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Part of the police plan, that there would never really be a robbery.

MS PILLAY: Exactly yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS PILLAY: You confirm that, Mr Gouws?

MR GOUWS: That's correct.

MS PILLAY: As an investigator with Murder and Robbery Unit, a unit that specialises in murder and robber, it didn't strike you as strange that you would set up an ambush to kill people even if there was going to be no robbery?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I acted under orders.

MS PILLAY: That does not excuse you, Mr Gouws. I am asking you if it didn't strike you as strange that you would kill people even where there would be no robbery.

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, they wanted to commit a robbery, in either event they would have done it at some point.

MS PILLAY: So you would kill anyone who wants to rob?

MR GOUWS: I wouldn't say anyone.

MS PILLAY: So who would you kill then?

MR GOUWS: These were specific targets.

MS PILLAY: Why were they specific targets?

MR GOUWS: That you can ask of the Security Branch perhaps.

MS PILLAY: I'm asking you, why were they specific targets?

MR GOUWS: I acted on their information.

MS PILLAY: What was the information at that time?

MR GOUWS: That they were ANC activists.

MS PILLAY: Did you ask them how many people were going to be killed?

MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: Did you ask them whether they had information of exactly who was in the kombi and what their political persuasion was?

MR GOUWS: No.

MS PILLAY: And yet you went ahead with this operation.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: Even though in terms of your training, you were specifically a Murder and Robbery investigator.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: And I ask you again, Mr Gouws - you didn't answer my question, my question to you was, didn't you find it strange that these people ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: He did answer the question, with all respect, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well let him try again. Ms Pillay?

MS PILLAY: I don't believe he answered the question, Mr Chairperson, and if he did then he has to excuse me because I missed it. If he can just answer the question again then.

My question to you, Mr Gouws was, didn't you find it strange that these people - you being a specialist in the field, you being a specialist Murder and Robbery investigator, didn't you find it strange that these people were to be killed and that was the intention, specifically to put them - to ambush and kill them even before they had come near the scene of the so-called robbery?

MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: You didn't find it strange?

MR GOUWS: No.

MS PILLAY: It happened before in your experience.

MR GOUWS: That's correct.

MS PILLAY: When did it happen before?

MR GOUWS: Not a similar incident.

MS PILLAY: Definitely not a similar incident.

MR GOUWS: No.

MS PILLAY: So in your experience as someone attached to Murder and Robbery, a similar incident had never happened?

MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: So this was different?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: Yet you didn't question it?

MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: Why didn't you question it, Mr Gouws?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I agreed with it?

MS PILLAY: Sorry?

MR GOUWS: I agreed with it.

MS PILLAY: You agreed with it.

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: You agreed that these people should be killed even before they had robbed and even before they had come near the scene of the robbery?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: Why would you agree with it?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, they were criminals ...(intervention)

MS PILLAY: They're criminals.

MR GOUWS: They would have committed the robbery.

MS PILLAY: They were going to rob.

MR GOUWS: They were ANC activists.

MS PILLAY: Yes?

MR GOUWS: Those are my reasons.

MS PILLAY: Mr Gouws you will agree with me that shooting people in cold blood in an ambush is a serious incident.

MR GOUWS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: It's something that is not undertaken lightly.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: You're saying that you agreed to kill these people because they were criminals, because they were going to rob and because they were ANC people, is that correct?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: Did you have specific knowledge that they were criminals?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, no, I simply acted according to the information which came from Holtzhausen.

MS PILLAY: You had no specific knowledge.

MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: Did you have knowledge that they had robbed before?

MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: And I put it to you Mr Gouws that they were not all ANC people either, how do you respond to that?

MR GOUWS: According to my information they were all.

MS PILLAY: Mr Gouws, I'm not sure whether you were here when Mr Nortje was testifying, but it was put to Mr Nortje that one of the people were actually IFP members. If you had known that ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: It was put to him that according to the evidence, there was speculation that one was an IFP member.

MS PILLAY: I stand correct, Mr Chairperson.

That was the information that was put to Mr Nortje, Mr Gouws. If you had information that possibly one was an IFP member and one definitely was a PAC member, would you have carried on with this operation?

MR GOUWS: Yes, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: You would have carried on?

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: Even if you knew then for a fact that they were not all ANC people?

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: Why would you have carried on then, Mr Gouws?

MR GOUWS: The circumstances were the same.

MS PILLAY: What circumstances?

MR GOUWS: They were criminals and they wanted to commit a robbery.

MS PILLAY: Thank you, Mr Gouws. So you're saying that the main reason these people were killed is because they are criminals and they are going to rob?

MR GOUWS: And that these were political activists.

MS PILLAY: And that because they're political activists?

MR GOUWS: That's correct.

MS PILLAY: Not necessarily that they were stealing to - sorry, that they were going to rob to fill the coffers of the ANC?

MR GOUWS: It was also the information which was generally known.

MS PILLAY: No, but Mr Gouws you're saying that you would kill them because they were criminals, they were robbers and that they were all political activists, that's why you killed them.

MR GOUWS: Yes, but the aspect of the political activists, that the coffers of the political organisation would be filled was general knowledge.

MS PILLAY: It was general information.

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: Which you didn't bother to check in relation of this specific incident?

MR GOUWS: No, it was general knowledge.

MS PILLAY: And I put it to you Mr Gouws, that that general knowledge was in fact wrong and inaccurate and that five people lost their lives because of that.

So you're saying that these - if these political - these political activists would have used the proceeds of the robbery in any case to fill the coffers of the political party?

MR GOUWS: That was the information.

MS PILLAY: So if we got - if we have five robbers, Mr Gouws, hypothetically one of them is an IFP, one of them definitely is a PAC and one an ANC, to which coffers would the proceeds go?

MR GOUWS: I would not know.

MS PILLAY: You won't. Mr Gouws, do you drink?

MR GOUWS: On occasion, yes.

MS PILLAY: Did you drink at the time of the incident?

MR GOUWS: Before the incident I had beers.

MS PILLAY: You did drink before the incident.

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: How long before the incident.

MR GOUWS: About three/four hours before the incident.

MS PILLAY: Three or four hours before the incident.

MR GOUWS: That's correct.

MS PILLAY: You being an investigator from Murder and Robbery Unit, going on an operation, drank three or four hours before the incident. Where did you drink, Mr Gouws?

MR GOUWS: At the Drumrock.

MS PILLAY: With whom were you there?

MR GOUWS: I can't remember who was there.

MS PILLAY: But who were accompanied by?

MR GOUWS: Holtzhausen.

MS PILLAY: Holtzhausen.

MR GOUWS: And Geldenhuys.

MS PILLAY: Geldenhuys. And you all drank?

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: Did you drink light stuff, heavy stuff?

MR GOUWS: Beer.

MS PILLAY: Beer. Is that what you drank?

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: And Holtzhausen, what did he drink?

MR GOUWS: I assume also beer.

MS PILLAY: You assume beer. And Geldenhuys, what did he drink?

MR GOUWS: I think also beer, I can't remember.

MS PILLAY: How many beers, Mr Gouws, can you remember?

MR GOUWS: Three or four beers.

MS PILLAY: Three or four, so it wasn't very heavy drinking?

MR GOUWS: No.

MS PILLAY: Mr Gouws, can you have a look at Mr Holtzhausen's affidavit at page 311, please.

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph?

MS PILLAY: If you look at paragraph 18, the last line

"We booked in at the Drum Rock Hotel before we went to the police station. We also visited the canteen in Nelspruit, where we consumed strong drink."

MR GOUWS: I was not there at the canteen that evening, I was only at the Drumrock.

MS PILLAY: Your evidence today is that you were not at the canteen. Is it that you don't have a recollection of being at the canteen or that you were not at the canteen?

MR GOUWS: No, I was not at the canteen.

MS PILLAY: Let's look at Geldenhuys' affidavit, page 261, paragraph 44

"From approximately 16H00, I met Sgt Gouws and Holtzhausen at the canteen in Nelspruit."

MR GOUWS: I was definitely not here, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: You were not there.

MR GOUWS: No.

MS PILLAY: So now we have Mr Geldenhuys who's also a liar.

MR GOUWS: Yes, perhaps he may be confusing me with someone else.

MS PILLAY: He confused you with someone else.

MR GOUWS: I don't know, but I definitely wasn't at the Nelspruit canteen that night.

CHAIRPERSON: At the canteen, was this a police facility?

MR GOUWS: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Where you would be able to enjoy subsidised drinks?

MR GOUWS: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you recall that you saw the Nelspruit commander that day and that he was informed that you were undertaking an operation in his area?

MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson, if I recall correctly, Capt Geldenhuys and Holtzhausen co-ordinated with him.

MS PILLAY: Mr Gouws, your application refers to R1 000 that you were given for the Carousel incident.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: Do you know why it was paid out to you?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I don't know, probably for good work.

MS PILLAY: When you say "goeie werk", what are you referring to?

MR GOUWS: That robbers were captured.

MS PILLAY: Were there robbers caught in Carousel?

MR GOUWS: No, no, shot.

MS PILLAY: So it was "goeie werk" for killing robbers?

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: Is that what motivated you to participate in the Nelspruit incident?

MR GOUWS: Not at all. I think that on that day the former President of Bophutatswana also wrote us a later, President Mangope.

MS PILLAY: So were you paid money for the Nelspruit incident?

MR GOUWS: Sorry?

MS PILLAY: Were you paid money for - were you given a bonus for the Nelspruit incident?

MR GOUWS: Not at all.

MS PILLAY: Does that mean that there was no "goeie werk" in the Nelspruit incident?

MR GOUWS: I cannot put it that way, I don't know.

MS PILLAY: Do you normally get paid extra money for good work, as a police officer?

MR GOUWS: No.

MS PILLAY: So how do you explain why you received money on that occasion?

MR GOUWS: I don't know, this was the first time in my police career that it happened.

MS PILLAY: And it hasn't happened since?

MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: Does it mean that you haven't done good work since?

MR GOUWS: That must be correct.

MS PILLAY: Were you aware Mr Gouws, that Mr Geldenhuys' view was that Pretoria Murder and Robbery was just used as a front to legitimise this operation?

MR GOUWS: I realised that afterwards.

MS PILLAY: You became aware of that afterwards?

MR GOUWS: Yes.

MS PILLAY: And what's your response to that?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I still feel that we did our job.

MS PILLAY: You did your work by killing people before they had come near a robbery?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: And when you say your "werk", you mean work of the Pretoria Murder and Robbery?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PILLAY: You don't feel that you were used by the people of Vlakplaas?

MR GOUWS: To a certain extent, probably yes.

MS PILLAY: What do you man "tot 'n sekere mate"?

MR GOUWS: We were instructed to participate in an operation and then the decision was made that these persons would just be immediately killed.

MS PILLAY: And you actively ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So in other words, anyone could have done it, anyone that could handle a weapon?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't need a specialist from Murder and Robbery?

MR GOUWS: That's correct.

MS PILLAY: And you actually actively participated in this "skiet voor die voet".

MR GOUWS: That's correct.

MS PILLAY: Because you started shooting first didn't you?

MR GOUWS: Holtzhausen fired first and I began to shoot directly after him.

MS PILLAY: Immediately. But of the lot, you were with the first group that started shooting.

MR GOUWS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: So you were completely comfortable with "skiet voor die voet".

MR GOUWS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: Even though you didn't, as you've testified here today, you didn't specifically have a lot of knowledge of these people?

MR GOUWS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: You yourself.

MR GOUWS: That's correct.

MS PILLAY: And you in now way even bothered to confirm whatever information was given to you.

MR GOUWS: I had trust in the information from the source.

MS PILLAY: Which "bron se inligting"?

MR GOUWS: That was given to us by Holtzhausen.

MS PILLAY: Yet you - earlier you called Mr Holtzhausen a liar.

MR GOUWS: I wouldn't say that he lied about that.

MS PILLAY: You don't think he lied, so what do you say about that, when he referred to you being there at Lynwood?

ADV DE JAGER: He said he may have made a mistake and you put it to you him, if he knew you were there, if he knew you were not there, then he would say that it's a lie. He didn't say he was a liar, you asked him whether he's been there, he said

"No, he may have mistaken me with another person".

"But if he still persists, would you then say he lied"?

"Yes, I would say he lied."

MS PILLAY: Well we'll only know whether Mr Holtzhausen ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: But you could argue that, that's argument, it's not a question to a witness.

MS PILLAY: And we'll only know whether Mr Holtzhausen persists with that when he in fact testifies.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on, Ms Pillay.

MS PILLAY: Mr Gouws, do you recall what Mr de Kock's role at the scene was?

MR GOUWS: I cannot say specifically.

MS PILLAY: You can't specifically say what his role was.

MR GOUWS: No.

MS PILLAY: Did you see him there?

MR GOUWS: I saw him there.

MS PILLAY: And what did he do?

MR GOUWS: He was just around.

MS PILLAY: You was just around.

MR GOUWS: That's correct.

MS PILLAY: And you can't specifically say what exactly he was doing?

MR GOUWS: I cannot say.

MS PILLAY: Did you see Mr de Kock fire any shots?

MR GOUWS: Not at all, Chairperson.

MS PILLAY: Oh, you didn't see anything.

MR GOUWS: No.

MS PILLAY: Did Mr de Kock bring the men into a line when there was so-called chaos? Do you recall that?

MR GOUWS: I can recall that.

MS PILLAY: You can remember that. And what did Mr de Kock do after that?

MR GOUWS: I cannot recall.

MS PILLAY: You can't remember that.

MR GOUWS: No.

MS PILLAY: I have no further questions, Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PILLAY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chair.

Just shortly, Mr Gouws. You stated that you knew Ben van Zyl from a long time before this incident had taken place.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PATEL: Can you tell us in what capacity you knew him, was it professionally or personally or both?

MR GOUWS: He was stationed at the Brixton Murder and Robbery Unit. I began at Pretoria Murder and Robbery in 1986 and I then met him in 1987, via Murder and Robbery.

MS PATEL: Okay. Did you have any - well you had professional dealings with him then from 1987 onwards.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MS PATEL: Do you have any idea why he left Murder and Robbery?

MR GOUWS: No, I don't know.

MS PATEL: Did you have any dealings with him after he left Murder and Robbery?

MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: None whatsoever?

MR GOUWS: No, the first time that I saw him again was with the Coin incident.

MS PATEL: Alright, okay. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Before the Panel asks questions, there's one aspect that I neglected to ask him, it's just to put something on record.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: I asked you about the Kwandabele 9.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Could you confirm the date of this incident, which was approximately June/July 1986, is that correct? Can you recall that?

MR GOUWS: I am not certain of the date.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But it was early within the period that you were with Murder and Robbery?

MR GOUWS: I had not yet joined Murder and Robbery, that is why I think that it may have been in the beginning of 1986.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg.

MR SIBANYONI: No questions from me, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Sibanyoni. Adv de Jager?

ADV DE JAGER: None.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Just one or two questions, Chairperson.

Mr Gouws, it was put to you that you were not a member of any counter-insurgency unit.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: But did you know that C10 was such a unit?

MR GOUWS: Correct.

MR LAMEY: And also fulfilled such a role in '92?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Although you yourself were not a member of a covert counter-insurgency unit with relation to the deeds for which you request amnesty, that being the Kwandabele 9 and the Nietverdiendt 10.

MR GOUWS: No, I was not involved in Nietverdiendt 10.

MR LAMEY: The other was the murder of Minister Piet Ntuli in Nutsi near Kwandabele.

MR GOUWS: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Was that a covert action of the Security Police, in which you were a participant?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: So it was not unusual for you to participate in something like this?

MR GOUWS: No.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Then with regard to the first time that you went to the Coin Security company, when Geldenhuys was not present, your evidence is that you received orders from him to accompany C10.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Who was at the scene there, who had the highest rank?

MR GOUWS: If I recall correctly, it was Capt Gevers.

MR LAMEY: From Vlakplaas?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And Holtzhausen, what was his rank at that stage?

MR GOUWS: I am not certain, I think he was a Warrant Officer.

MR LAMEY: Was he also a higher rank than you?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And did he take the lead with the planning of the incident?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then I just want to ask you, if your commander sends you with another unit such as Vlakplaas, at that stage - in light of the evidence regarding 1991, the basis had already been laid by Gen Engelbrecht for cooperation between C10 and Murder and Robbery, if the commander of Murder and robbery sent you to accompany those persons, would you say that effectively you would be placed under their command for that purpose?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: The question was also put to you with regard to the fact that C10 used you during the Nelspruit incident, your evidence was that you didn't really have a problem with it.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And if we look back to what took place during 1991, during that briefing session, what is your comment regarding the fact that you were applied in this incident?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, basically we were instructed to assist.

MR LAMEY: So this was not unexpected to you?

MR GOUWS: No.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chair, I have nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Gouws, thank you, you are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Lamey, who is next ?

MR BAM: Chairperson, before Mr Lamey continues, at this stage I would like to direct a request to the Committee. It is also my instruction that the Committee consider whether Mr Holtzhausen could give his evidence. He has been subpoenaed. And I think that everybody accepts that they are interested in what he has to say, with the permission of course of Mr Lamey and Mr Cornelius next to me and with the approval of the Committee, I think that it would only be beneficial. Various applicants have referred to aspects which only Mr Holtzhausen can respond to, consequently there are a reasonable number of interruptions in the continuity of events as they took place, within the evidence, and I think that Mr Holtzhausen would be able to approach this in either event.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand you. Mr van Zyl is also in the same situation and we have begun to think that it would be one of the two. You say that Mr Holtzhausen is also prepared?

MR BAM: Yes, he is prepared. If it pleases you, he may begin his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: I would just like to hear the response of all the parties concerned because it is no matter to us. As I've said I understand you and it does make sense that Mr Holtzhausen and Mr van Zyl, it would appear as if there are many relevant points of information which could assist us with this investigation.

MR BAM: Yes, Mr Chairperson. I would just like to supplement that by saying that it is my opinion that it would avoid much unnecessary cross-examination by the other concerned parties.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BAM: And it could expedite the proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We appreciate all your ideas in order to expedite these proceedings.

Is there anyone here who has a problem with this? Is there anybody who has a difficulty if we were to listen to the testimony of Mr Holtzhausen? Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I have just been caught somewhat unawares because it was my intention to call my clients in terms of my preparation and planning. There were certain aspects that I wanted to take up with Mr van Zyl. I don't wish to waste any time, but I would like to request a brief adjournment so that we can discuss the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Would it suit you if we took Mr Klopper's evidence now, or would that throw you completely?

MR LAMEY: I don't know if he is present, I just want to ensure whether he is present.

CHAIRPERSON: Would he have been your next witness?

MR LAMEY: Yes. I think he is in the next room. I see he is here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because I don't really want to interrupt the proceedings. Mr Bam has made an excellent

suggestion there. However, if you have a potential problem with that then we can take the following witness and during the tea adjournment all of us can observe the situation and see what there is to do about it. If we take Mr Holtzhausen now or Mr Klopper now, it surely wouldn't make such a tremendous difference other than what it may interrupt the proceedings and your line of examination.

MR LAMEY: As I've said, I don't necessarily have a problem with it, I just need some time to consider it and just to consult with Mr Bam and take instructions from my clients.

CHAIRPERSON: That would be if there was the decision to take Mr Holtzhausen next, but if Mr Klopper is called now you will not have a problem with that, is that what your preparation entailed?

MR LAMEY: Perhaps Holtzhausen could go in before Klopper. I just want to confer with my clients and be certain.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, certainly your clients don't really have a say in what sequence they appear. In the first place, I think that the Panel can call whichever witness they want at whichever time. The Panel determines that. Here we have a man who was responsible for planning, it was strange to me that he was not called initially or Mr van Zyl was called initially, because then we would have had a greater sense of continuity, but we have called persons who were basically just foot-soldiers who received orders from above. Why don't we give the commanders from above to give evidence first?

MR LAMEY: As I've said, I don't necessarily have a problem, it's just that my one immediate aspect is that Mr van Zyl is an important person to have here and we anticipated that Mr Klopper would go and then him and at the moment he is not here physically, he being van Zyl.

ADV DE JAGER: Well then we really cannot help the matter, Mr Holtzhausen must give his evidence. We cannot help if Mr van Zyl is not present because the matter has been set down for a week, he should be here. It is his case, if he's not interested in it, then it is his problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, I saw Mr Klopper indicating to you that he is present. Can we proceed with him at this stage without interrupting the proceedings? That is what I'm not very favourably inclined towards. Can we hear Mr Klopper's evidence then?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just request the following, it may be preferable that Mr Holtzhausen give evidence at this point before Mr Klopper, due to the considerations mentioned by Mr Bam. I just want a brief moment, just to confer.

CHAIRPERSON: So you say, you are not ready to call Mr Klopper immediately?

MR LAMEY: Yes, I am ready, but if there are other good reasons why Mr Holtzhausen should perhaps proceed before him, then that may also be advisable.

CHAIRPERSON: No, in my opinion there is not such an urgent reason to interrupt the proceedings. It would have been convenient, but it is not of the utmost necessity. If you ready to call Mr Klopper, then I think we should go ahead with that. We will adjourn at the usual time and then if there are any further problems, you can resolve these issues and tell us whether or not there are problems with Holtzhausen. I just don't wish to interrupt the proceedings. If we stand down for two minutes, we will have to begin in 20 minutes time.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Will someone please call Mr Klopper.