Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, for the record it is Friday, 27 August 1999. We are continuing with the amnesty application of E A de Kock and nine others in respect of Nelspruit 4 and Tiso. Mr Holtzhausen was still under cross-examination.

FREDERIK DOUGLAS REID HOLTZHAUSEN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. Mr Hattingh, any further questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (continued) Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Holtzhausen, yesterday afternoon we dealt with the Intelligence note which you sent with regard to this incident and I think that we concluded the matter. The planning here in Pretoria was finalised and the men were given the order to depart for Nelspruit, did you then also depart for Nelspruit?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: In which vehicle did you drive to Nelspruit?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I drove the minibus which I found in Willie Nortje's garage.

MR HATTINGH: Was that the first time that you saw that this was the vehicle which was placed at your disposal?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And Willie himself, in what did he drive?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He drove with his Cressida.

MR HATTINGH: And what about the weapons, the AK47s which he told you would be available, were these available?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I saw those weapons for the very first time at the scene where the shooting took place, when we undertook the final planning there.

MR HATTINGH: From where were these weapons produced at the scene, if I might just jump ahead?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: From Willie Nortje's boot.

MR HATTINGH: And the handgrenades?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Also.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, so allegedly he would have taken it down in his vehicle?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: While I am busy with that, you must have heard that I put this to other persons as well, that the individual members of C1 or C10 at Vlakplaas, all had private arsenals?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: If I recall correctly and I think that it may have been you, but I am not certain, afterwards pointed out his private arsenal to the police.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That was me.

MR HATTINGH: It was you? Can you tell us briefly what you had in your arsenal?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: There were various handguns, quite a few handgrenades and I think three AK47s.

MR HATTINGH: And did the other members also have arsenals consisting of a variety of weapons and weaponry?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, so AKs were actually freely available, is that so?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, to a greater extent.

MR HATTINGH: You then drove down in the minibus, did you drive in convoy with Willie Nortje?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was there anyone else who was driving with you in the convoy?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I am not entirely certain, but I think that Jannie Hanekom drove my vehicle down but I don't know whether he stayed with us all the time, or whether he drove ahead.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, just to cut things short, was the minibus taken to the Bambi Inn or the place near the Bambi Inn?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, the place in the mountains near the Bambi Inn.

MR HATTINGH: That is where it was left?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did you then drive through to Nelspruit?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And when you arrived there, who of the members had already arrived?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I am not entirely certain who was already there, because the members arrived one by one during the course of the day.

MR HATTINGH: What did you do after you arrived there?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I waited for Capt Geldenhuys to arrive, I think that he and Gouws were together, but I am not certain whether they arrived together or in separate vehicles. Then Geldenhuys and I and I think Nortje as well began looking for a suitable place to launch this action.

MR HATTINGH: What time of the day was this?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It must have been approximately two or three o'clock.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then identify the place where the incident would take place?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you go to the police station at Nelspruit?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: With what purpose?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It was to extend an invitation to Captain Davel from Murder and Robbery.

MR HATTINGH: What sort of invitation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: To participate in the action and also it was more to notify him.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, it was police policy and it was part of rules and regulations that if a Unit such as yourself, was operating in the area of another Unit, that you would notify the Commander of that specific area?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did you then notify Davel?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And did you also invite him to participate in the operation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: What was his reaction?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I chose my time at canteen time, that was at approximately four o'clock or just after four o'clock, because I knew that once he was in the canteen having drinks, that he would not really be in the mood to stand by the side of the road through the night for something that could possibly not take place.

MR HATTINGH: So actually you did not really want them there?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, because if they were to send people along, it may have hampered the action.

MR HATTINGH: That is because you had decided previously to kill these persons?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And did he then say that he did not want to accompany you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, he told me that we should just go ahead because he did not have the necessary manpower, all his staff were busy.

MR HATTINGH: One of the previous witnesses was referred to your statement, and more specifically paragraph 18 which is on page 311 of this document. Do you have it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, I do.

MR HATTINGH: The final sentence

"... we also visited the canteen in Nelspruit where we used strong liquor."

I may be incorrect but it is my recollection that it was put to this witness to attempt to indicate that before the incident, you had used hard liquor in the canteen at Nelspruit, but if you look at that paragraph, then you refer there to the occasion upon which you notified Captain Davel, is that correct? When you notified him about the Coin matter?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, the first incident.

MR HATTINGH: The first incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Because there it says that he was asked whether he wanted to send some of his members to assist with the action and he made some of his members available, two or three white members and a black member and that refers to the Coin incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, the first incident Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And did you have drinks in the canteen upon that occasion?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: But upon the occasion before the Nelspruit incident when you met him there in the canteen, did you also have something to drink?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I may have had one or two beers with him yes.

MR HATTINGH: And if it says "hard liquor" in this statement, what did you mean by that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Alcohol.

MR HATTINGH: In contradiction to cold drink?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Do you drink beer when you have drinks?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, sometimes I have beer, sometimes harder liquor.

MR HATTINGH: And sometimes you had beer?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And after you had notified him about your action that evening, where did you go?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I am not entirely certain but I think that we returned to the Drum Rock Hotel.

MR HATTINGH: Did you find Mr de Kock there?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Earlier that afternoon I had seen him.

MR HATTINGH: Was this before you went to the Nelspruit police station?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was this also before you went to look for the place where the incident would happen?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: If my memory serves me correctly, then it was before the time.

MR HATTINGH: I think that you have just said that it was at approximately two or three o'clock that you went to look for a place?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Does that mean that he had already been there before that time?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: If I recall correctly, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And how long was he there Mr Holtzhausen?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Not for very long. I myself believe that I didn't even see him for ten minutes.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Nortje's evidence was that they went to his room, including Mr de Kock, where the planning for the action for that evening took place?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall that. I cannot recall that I saw him in the room at all while I was undertaking the planning with the other members, which at that stage, in either event, basically involved the identification of the place and so forth.

MR HATTINGH: Let me put it this way, you would not have discussed the final planning with the other members, if you had not identified the place where the incident would occur?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: Can I accept then that that final planning was executed after you had returned from the place which you had identified?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: The final planning was executed at the scene itself, where I then also deployed the members.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but did you tell the members in the hotel room that it would take place at that place and roughly described to them what would happen?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And this was after you had identified the place?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: At that stage Mr de Kock was not there any more?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Therefore he could not have known where the incident would occur that evening?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. You have now identified the place, and did you then wait - or perhaps I should put something else to you - did you then contact Mr van Zyl to inform him about the place where the incident would take place?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Mr van Zyl was to telephone me, he paged me upon which I called him back. I did not have a direct line of communication with him, but he did telephone me upon which I informed him about the arrangements.

MR HATTINGH: Including the place?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And at what time did you expect him to arrive there at night?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It would have been at approximately twelve o'clock to two o'clock.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, did you then depart for the scene?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was Mr de Kock present when you departed?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I did not see him when we departed.

MR HATTINGH: So you departed without seeing him again there?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Where did you see him again for the first time?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: At the scene, shortly after we arrived there.

MR HATTINGH: In which vehicle did you drive to the scene?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I drove with Nortje, I think, but I may have travelled in my own vehicle, I am not certain.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock, was he supposed to participate in the operation itself with the shooting and so forth?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I was told beforehand that he and Nortje would not participate in the shooting.

MR HATTINGH: Was this decided previously where he would be during the shooting?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I am not entirely certain. However, at a certain stage, I asked him whether I should deploy him into the Klopper group.

MR HATTINGH: What was his response to that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That he agreed with that.

MR HATTINGH: Wasn't it decided at a stage that he would undertake observation with Willie?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is possible but I am not certain about it.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, at the scene itself you say that the final planning was executed?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And what do you mean by that Mr Holtzhausen, what precisely was done?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: The persons were deployed, we then checked to see how we would compile the four lines, then the final order was given that I would be the first to fire because I was the only person who at that stage knew with which vehicle they would be arriving and I didn't want to shoot innocent people.

MR HATTINGH: Where was Mr de Kock?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He was standing around in the vicinity.

MR HATTINGH: From his arrival at the scene to the commencement of the shooting, did he ever leave the scene?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall that he left the scene.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall where Klopper was?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He was also standing around there, I know at a certain point he lay in his car, sleeping.

MR HATTINGH: With Mr de Kock or alone?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, he wasn't with him all the time. Most of the people there stood around chatting in groups and moved in and among one another.

MR HATTINGH: But you heard Mr de Kock's version that he was not sleeping in the car with Klopper and you heard Mr Klopper's version that Mr de Kock was in the car sleeping. Was he ever there?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I did not see him in the car.

MR HATTINGH: After you had departed for the scene, were you once again in contact with Mr van Zyl?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, I think at a certain point he called me for a second time.

MR HATTINGH: From where would you have telephoned him or to where could he have phoned you on the scene?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He paged me.

MR HATTINGH: Yes?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: And then I went to telephone him.

MR HATTINGH: From where?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: From a phone booth.

MR HATTINGH: And what did he tell you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That they were on their way.

MR HATTINGH: And did he then give you an estimated time of arrival?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And what was the time, can you recall?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It was later, I think it would be between two and three o'clock.

MR HATTINGH: And all the time you were waiting there on the scene?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Can you say at approximately what time you arrived there?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Me?

MR HATTINGH: No, the group, what time did the group arrive?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Any time between eleven and twelve that night.

MR HATTINGH: And the incident took place only after three?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And in this three to four hours, was any alcohol consumed at the scene?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: Were any of the members at the scene under the influence of alcohol according to your observation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, because I would have sent them away.

MR HATTINGH: What was Mr de Kock's policy with regard to alcohol use before operations?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He was very strict about it.

MR HATTINGH: What was he strict about?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That drunken persons not be allowed on the scene of an operation.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Eventually you received the message that these persons were on their way?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And this was per radio from Nortje?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And these people approached and when the minibus drove underneath the bridge, what happened then?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I identified the minibus as the minibus with which these persons would be travelling. I opened fire first.

MR HATTINGH: When you opened fire, was this vehicle still approaching the point where you had taken up position or was it next to you or had it already passed your point?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: From my position it was approximately between 15 and 20 metres away.

MR HATTINGH: Did you fire at the front side of an approaching vehicle or did you fire at the side of the vehicle or towards the back of the vehicle after it had passed?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, I fired diagonally to the front left side of the vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: In other words to an approaching vehicle?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did Mr Klopper also open fire at that point?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Well, shortly after I began shooting, everybody basically began to shoot.

MR HATTINGH: I would just like to return for a moment, when the planning was undertaken at the scene, Mr Klopper gave evidence that he proposed, he felt that you could shoot each other according to the deployment as it had been undertaken, can you recall anything like that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, Klopper was still half asleep, he wasn't really listening to what was being said. Initially Geldenhuys and I discussed the line of fire and we were debating whether we should take up position on the left hand side behind the embankment or whether we should be on the other side of the road where there was an open piece and then shoot into the embankment, in other words in the direction of the embankment. There wasn't any question of cross-fire, I don't know where he came up with that.

MR HATTINGH: And he didn't recommend anything to change your arrangements?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, because at that stage I was in command of the operation.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Everybody was shooting, did you see whether Mr de Kock was shooting as well?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: And the vehicle ultimately came to a standstill?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then it was set alight?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And before it was set alight, you climbed into the vehicle and fired shots from within?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I did not climb in, I held the gun in the vehicle with my arms.

MR HATTINGH: And therefore you were standing on the ground and holding the gun into the vehicle?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: In what direction did you shoot?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I shot through the front side of the vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: Was it your intention to leave AK shells within the vehicle?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct, within the vehicle and on the outside of the vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: And there were indeed AK47 shells left on the outside of the vehicle?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the position of those shells indicated that the person who had fired that gun, had shot forward?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct and I didn't have a problem with that.

MR HATTINGH: There were also shells where the vehicle had stopped?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And ultimately that created problems during the trial?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Well, I cannot recall that it created any problems.

MR HATTINGH: Well, the AK47 would toss its shells towards the right?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that is why it was clear that the position of the shells indicated that the shots had been fired forward out of the vehicle and you were not on that side of the vehicle.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: But they couldn't have fired shots at you then?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, but someone who was wounded and disoriented, anybody who has been in a shoot-out will know that a person wouldn't always know from which side shots are being fired and would simply fire shots at random.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, let us leave the details at that. Who poured the petrol into the minibus?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It was Charlie Chait.

MR HATTINGH: In what was the petrol contained?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: In a round black plastic can.

MR HATTINGH: Just one can?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I only saw one can.

MR HATTINGH: Let me just hear, how did the petrol arrive at the scene?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I am not entirely certain about that, but if my memory serves me correctly, Willie Nortje sent Simon Radebe to purchase the can and the petrol.

MR HATTINGH: When was this?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It would have been earlier that afternoon.

MR HATTINGH: The handgrenades and the AKs, who placed these items in the vehicle?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I placed the one AK that I had fired shots with, in the vehicle along with the handgrenades.

MR HATTINGH: And the other was placed there by Gevers?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Well, I didn't see him do it, but I gave Gouws the order to do it.

MR HATTINGH: It was Gouws, I beg your pardon, I may have been mistaken there. In either event, the vehicle was burning, the handgrenades exploded and what happened next?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Shortly after the handgrenades exploded, I found Ben van Zyl at the scene.

MR HATTINGH: Just before we get to that, was one of the passengers hurled out of the vehicle due to the explosion?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: He lay alongside the minibus burning?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was he still alive?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I am not certain whether he was still alive.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock says that he was alive and that he was screaming?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I know that at a stage there were very serious moaning sounds coming from within the bus.

MR HATTINGH: And shortly after this person landed next to the vehicle, was Willie Nortje at the scene?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I did not notice him immediately but at a certain point, after the fire had begun I saw Willie Nortje.

MR HATTINGH: And you say that Ben van Zyl then arrived?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And he informed you about something?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: What was it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He told me that Tiso, who was the actual target, had not been in the vehicle and that he was waiting alongside the road at Hall's Gateway.

MR HATTINGH: What did you do then?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall whether Willie Nortje was with me, but Willie Nortje and I if I recall correctly, then told Mr de Kock that Tiso had not been there, and we departed immediately afterwards. I am not certain whether we told Mr de Kock that we were going to go.

MR HATTINGH: You see Mr de Kock's version is that he only heard about the fact that Tiso had not been in the vehicle, after you had returned, after you had found him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is possible Chairperson, my memory fails me in that regard.

MR HATTINGH: I have omitted to put this to Mr Klopper, but on page 246 of his statement, he also states

"... at this stage Willie arrived there."

Or let us rather go to page 245, paragraph 35.10 -

"... my vehicle, a white 16V Jetta was then drawn into the road and a blue light was placed on top and switched on to make it look like a real roadblock. At this point Willie arrived there and Dougie left with him and Simon and Eric. After a while Willie and Dougie arrived and spoke to de Kock."

So, he only mentions that a discussion was held with de Kock after you had arrived back and not before you departed?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I would accept that as a correct version, Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you please give me the reference again, which page is this?

MR HATTINGH: Page 246, 245 and 246.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. You then departed from there, you cannot recall whether you told Mr de Kock or not and just to cut a long story short, you found Tiso?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Where was he when you found him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He was travelling in the direction of Pretoria, I cannot recall the precise distance, but it was between two and five kilometres on the other side of the Hall's Gateway.

MR HATTINGH: Did he drive fast or at normal speed?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, he was driving slowly and when he saw our lights approaching from behind, he drew off the road to the left hand side and drove along on the gravel section.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, you then stopped him. Did you search his vehicle?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you find anything?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I found a 38 Special revolver in the front of the driver's seat.

MR HATTINGH: Was it loaded?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, it was loaded.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall whether it had a number?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: As far as I can recall it was an Astra 38 Special of which the serial number had been removed.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall whether this is the weapon with which he was ultimately shot?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I gave the weapon to Simon Radebe and later I received that same weapon back from Rolf Gevers and Gevers informed me that he had shot Tiso with that weapon.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. When you arrived back at Mr de Kock, after you had found Tiso, what was the discussion which ensued?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: We informed him that we had caught Tiso and that we now had a problem, that this man could no longer remain alive. It was at that stage that I left Mr de Kock and Mr Nortje, to assist with clearing the scene for the purposes of the statements.

MR HATTINGH: Was there already police on the scene at that stage?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, I think that there was a patrol van and the fire brigade was also there.

MR HATTINGH: Do you say that you were not a party to the further discussion between Mr de Kock and Mr Nortje?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: Are you aware that shells were picked up from the scene?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, I was quite angry about that because it did not serve any purpose to pick up shells.

MR HATTINGH: Why do you say that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Because it would not try and pretend that less shots had been fired than had actually been fired, because the minibus was full of holes.

MR HATTINGH: So what you are saying is that if one would ultimately counts the bullet holes, there could be more bullet holes than shells?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that would have created even more suspicion?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Did you find Gen Engelbrecht at the scene?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It was only much later during the day.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have any discussions with him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: Were you asked to make statements with regard to this incident there at the scene?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Who asked this?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: By nature of the situation, it would be an obligation to submit statements. By that stage we would have to submit these statements to Lt Brand and Col Alberts.

MR HATTINGH: Did you do so and if not, why not?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson. We informed them that we would later provide the statements to them, saying that we were all very tired and that we would submit all the statements to them at once.

MR HATTINGH: Was this acceptable to them?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, it was.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then submit statements?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I later compiled everyone's statement.

MR HATTINGH: You yourself?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, I compiled each and every statement.

MR HATTINGH: Where were you when you did this?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: In Pretoria.

MR HATTINGH: Were any other persons present when you did this?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Well, I obtained most of the men's particulars from them, such as their Force numbers and so forth, I compiled the statements which they later signed.

MR HATTINGH: Were any amendments brought to the statements?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, I received an order from Gen Engelbrecht to submit the statements to him before taking these statements to Nelspruit.

MR HATTINGH: Did you submit the statements to him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: At Grasdak?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: At a stage at Grasdak and then later, I was also in his office.

MR HATTINGH: Were any changes made to the statements?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, quite a few.

MR HATTINGH: In order to present the circumstances differently than what they had already been or had they already been differently presented?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: They had already been differently presented.

MR HATTINGH: Was he aware that those statements did not present the true course of events?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I think he was.

MR HATTINGH: And these changes which he proposed, what was the idea behind these amendments?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: To a greater extent it was in order to correlate the statements, that it would appear to be the same, so that every person was supposed to tell his own story about his view of the events.

MR HATTINGH: Did you incorporate an individual version of every person in every statement so that it would look as if every person told his own story?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Just a moment you say that you believe that he thought this wasn't the true story. What did you base that belief upon?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I accepted this because I was of the opinion that before this operation took place, Mr de Kock had discussed the matter with him.

ADV DE JAGER: Let us suppose that Mr de Kock did not discuss this with him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Well, then I was under the wrong impression.

ADV DE JAGER: Did Gen Engelbrecht say anything to the effect of "this isn't the way it really happened" or something like that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Because he associated himself with the amendments of the statements so that they should read correctly, I assumed that he knew.

MR HATTINGH: The amendments which were brought, were these amendments with regard to the facts of every person's specific participation in the incident at the scene?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall every specific amendment, but the facts were basically the same. I consistently used the facts for everyone in order to create the pretence that this was a legal action.

MR HATTINGH: And the members received their statements and signed them?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you submit a recommendation afterwards for the reward of Mr van Zyl for the information that he had provided?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall the amount which you recommended?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall whether it was R35 000 or R40 000 or R50 000.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall how much was ultimately approved?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: R20 000.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Holtzhausen, let us just attempt to obtain clarity on this aspect for once and for all. When you recommend a reward for an informer, which factors would be considered with the recommendation that you submit?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: In this case Chairperson, I would have sketched a picture regarding the fact that the source himself had been exposed to life threatening conditions, I would also refer to the fact that weapons of terror had been found and that this action had been successfully executed and so forth.

MR HATTINGH: But you wouldn't sit down and make calculations and say two AKs at so much each, equals so much?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I would request a specific amount which would then include all these factors.

MR HATTINGH: One global figure?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And an amount, when it is considered, would include the fact that AKs were found?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Therefore the intention is for that reward to go to the informer?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr de Kock then sign your recommendation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And was it sent through to Gen Engelbrecht?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr de Kock states that the procedure from that point onwards was for it to go to someone else and then ultimately a cheque would be written out which would then be transferred through Head Office.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the money would be placed in an envelope and be handed over to him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the further procedure would then be for this to be handed over to the informer?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And usually it would be handed over by the handler?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you in this case receive the envelope from Mr de Kock?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall whether I received it from him or whether I received it directly from the Financial Division at Head Office.

MR HATTINGH: Unfortunately I did not have time to study your evidence given during the criminal trial, and I am completely subject to correction but I do recall vaguely that you said at that time that it is possible that you could have fetched it yourself?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It is correct, because at times we ourselves would fetch the rewards from our administrative staff.

MR HATTINGH: My Attorney has just informed me that he has studied it and that you did indeed give evidence to that effect?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct, I believe so.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. And after you had received it Mr Holtzhausen, what did you do with it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I paid it out to Mr van Zyl.

MR HATTINGH: So that envelope never landed up in Mr de Kock's hands?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I cannot recall that he had it.

MR HATTINGH: Would there have been any necessity for him to receive it first, because the procedure was for you to pay it over to the informer?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: When you answer no, you say that there is no reason why it had to go to Mr de Kock first?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You could have paid it out directly to the informer?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you pay out the full amount to Mr van Zyl?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You also gave evidence to that effect during Mr de Kock's trial?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Mr van Zyl was one of the first witnesses during the trial?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And at that stage he was still assisting us with his cross-examination, with regard to information for the purposes of his cross-examination?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you will recall that the cross-examination of him was quite lengthy when it came to the question of how much he received.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: We had insight into his bank statements and all other such documents?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What was his version Mr Holtzhausen?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall precisely, but I know that at a certain stage he could not say precisely, at a stage he said that he never received more than R7 000 and if I recall correctly, he admitted at a stage that he had received as much as R17 000. But he was never certain of the precise amount that he received.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words you and he did not concur on the amount of money that you had given him? You say that you had given him R20 000?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, I gave him R20 000.

CHAIRPERSON: And he did not concur with that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Well, I don't know why.

CHAIRPERSON: No, you don't have to explain that, we will ask him. But I just want to know what his evidence was, he did not concur with you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: At that stage, during the trial, no.

CHAIRPERSON: He said that he received less than R20 000?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, Mr Hattingh, go ahead.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Holtzhausen let us deal with this somewhat. Mr Klopper after Mr de Kock's evidence gave evidence for the first time in my opinion that when there was a real informer who had provided actual information which had actually led to an arrest, in other words when everything was done according to rules and regulations or lawfully, he gave evidence that even under such circumstances, it was the policy not to pay out the full amount of reward to the informer but to retain a certain amount and divide this amongst the other members, what is your version?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I don't agree with that at all. The policy was that an informer would receive the full amount.

MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon, continue.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: And that is why everyone of us had a journal and a cash book and receipts which were regularly studied.

MR HATTINGH: And it was not only upon one occasion but upon various occasions that you paid out a reward to Mr van Zyl for information that he had provided?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you always hand over the amount that had been approved, to him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you never retain any money?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: From van Zyl?

CHAIRPERSON: No, from anyone?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, not from any informer.

CHAIRPERSON: And you do not know about such a practice?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

CHAIRPERSON: And you have never heard that some of Vlakplaas' members would do this?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Well, I heard from Klopper now that he had such a policy, but according to the best of my knowledge, every true informer would be paid the full amount.

CHAIRPERSON: So yesterday was the first time in your whole life that you heard that this was going on at Vlakplaas?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: With regard to actual informers, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean by that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: You see, money was generated in other manners, but with regard to informer fees, the full amount would be paid out to the informer.

MR HATTINGH: Just to put it more clearly, it often occurred that false claims were submitted under the pretence that there was an informer who had provided information which had for example led to other discovery of a stockpile?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: But indeed, such an informer never existed?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And a claim would be instituted under the name of such a fictional informer and the money received would be used for other purposes?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: But what you are saying is that where there was an actual informer, who had actually provided information, which had actually led to an arrest, who actually qualified for a reward, such a reward would be paid out in full?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you always do this with Mr van Zyl?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you also have other informers Mr Holtzhausen?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Who were actual informers, who had provided actual information?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Who then qualified for a reward?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: To whom the full amount would be paid out?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: It is interesting in the light of what Mr Klopper testified here, that the policy was to pay only a portion of that out and divide the rest among the other members, especially when he himself says that he did not receive anything for this operation. Did you receive anything for this operation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock states that he did not receive anything for this operation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: In fact we have not found anyone who received any kind of remuneration. Gevers also did not receive anything, not for Nelspruit, but for the Tiso incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: We have not found anyone who was involved only in the Nelspruit incident, who received any extra remuneration for their participation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: After the unbanning of the ANC, Mr Holtzhausen, did your task change in the sense that you received an order to focus on the prevention of crime or regular crime as such?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did this mean that you had to abandon your previous tasks completely or could you continue with that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, we still continued with our other activities. In fact we were still actively working against terrorism.

MR HATTINGH: And you yourself were involved with that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: The evening of the incident, if you had not shot the robbers dead there, the prospective robbers, there where the incident took place, what do you believe would they have done?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: They would have robbed the Coin Security company.

MR HATTINGH: Or at least they would have attempted to do so?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, they would have attempted.

MR HATTINGH: Were you convinced that they were on their way there?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, I am convinced of it. I cannot see that anybody would go for a joyride in the middle of the night to Nelspruit and back again. I cannot see any other reason.

MR HATTINGH: Especially not in the light of the fact that these were the same persons who had attempted on a previous occasion to rob the place and had indeed arrived there before they were frightened off by a security guard?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: I cannot recall, could you assist me about this, have I examined you about the incident at Witbank?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: Or perhaps I think I did, thank you Chairperson. We have nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. Mr Cornelius?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Holtzhausen, in 1992, just remind me what your rank was?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I was a Sergeant.

MR CORNELIUS: The policy at that stage indicated that if you were a handler such as you were the handler of van Zyl, you would be in charge of the operation, such as the one in Nelspruit?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Can we then accept that the foot-soldiers such as Swart and Hanekom would then have to carry out your orders?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, even those persons who were senior to me.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, and they would also have to follow your judgement as to why C10 would have to be involved in the operation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: If one looks at your statement, on page 306 I see that in 1983 already you had obtained experience at the Security Division in Oshakati in South-West Africa?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, I was a Koevoet member.

MR CORNELIUS: So you had extensive experience with the operational aspects of the security operation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And you joined Vlakplaas in September 1990? By the time of this operation, you had already spent two years at Vlakplaas?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: If one looks at the evidence given by Mr de Kock, we see that he stated that you were a particularly good handler, and that you were a good all-rounder with regard to your work?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I believe so.

MR CORNELIUS: Therefore there was no reason for Col de Kock to doubt your capacities as a handler with regard to Mr van Zyl?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, because I had years of experience.

MR CORNELIUS: And you were also experienced regarding the circumstances under which C10 would become involved in an operation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I beg your pardon?

MR CORNELIUS: You had years of experience regarding the circumstances under which C10 would become involved in the operation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: If we look at Ben van Zyl as an informer, did you accept that he was a particularly good source and in fact you qualified him as a Class A1 informer?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And that is because with his assistance successful operations had been carried out according to this information that he had provided?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And furthermore I see that at a stage he was handled by the so-called Super Spy of South Africa, Craig Williamson?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, it had been brought to my attention that he had also been handled by him.

MR CORNELIUS: And by nature of the situation then, you would have had quite a lot of confidence in him if you saw that he had been handled by a person of Williamson's stature?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Williamson was involved in the planning of operations, including persons such as Ruth First and Marius Schoon?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And furthermore van Zyl was a Private Detective who had his own detective business and he had various persons working for him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct, he had his own network of informers that he handled.

MR CORNELIUS: And this informer network, if we look at the documents, was deeply infiltrated into the ranks of the ANC?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Therefore there was no reason that any information that Ben van Zyl conveyed to you as a result of his informer network regarding the ANC, had to be doubted?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR CORNELIUS: Ben van Zyl also informed you continuously regarding the activities and movements of robbery gangs?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And he also informed you that Tiso was a military trained member of the ANC who was involved in robberies?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct. He informed us that the rest of the gang was also trained.

MR CORNELIUS: So according to your knowledge of your subjective thoughts at that stage, you felt that everybody was an MK member, a trained MK member in that gang?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And your information from van Zyl is further supported by the first Coin incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Because there was a serious attempt which indicated the intent of the robbers?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: After the first Coin operation, you accepted that Ben van Zyl's information was of the finest quality?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: If you were in control of the operation, we could accept that there could be no doubt among the foot-soldiers regarding the reason why they were involved in the operation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR CORNELIUS: Can we accept that Murder and Robbery also took a subjective decision and consideration before becoming involved in the operation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And the same with the Head of C10?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: If you wanted to make money, there were far easier ways than killing people, isn't that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is true.

MR CORNELIUS: We have heard the evidence of Klopper that false claims would be submitted with regard to false informers, with false signatures, which could generate large amounts of money for C1?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: So it would have been senseless to expose yourself to a post-mortem inquest and the consequent evidence and affidavits as well as defeating the ends of justice in order to protect people?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That would be true.

MR CORNELIUS: So the fact that these persons had been killed in an ambush, supports the fact that it was not necessarily for the money?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, that was never the consideration.

MR CORNELIUS: You also mentioned that at a certain stage van Zyl told you that the robbers were looking for AK47 guns?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you believe that evening when you waited with your team at the scene of the ambush, that the robbers would indeed be heavily armed?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you accept that there was a possibility that AK47s could possibly be found at the scene of the incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Because the robbers could obtain this from any other source?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct. During my last communication with van Zyl, I asked him specifically with what they were armed and he told me that he saw that they had hand weapons, but by nature of the situation, he did not search them.

MR CORNELIUS: And any negative inference which must be drawn that you took the AK47 with you, is it logical that you set up an ambush and that these persons would not even have had the time to shoot back?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: So it would have been false to pretend that they had fired shots at you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: In your evidence you stated or at least in your evidence under cross-examination by Mr Hattingh, you said that Tiso was the actual target, but that all five gang members were targets?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, they were all targets, but Tiso was the most important one.

CHAIRPERSON: Why is that so Mr Holtzhausen?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Because he was directly connected to Mrs Mandela and it was also later proven.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the only reason?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He was a trained terrorist and for that reason I was not brash about killing him.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you understand that they were committing robberies to fill the coffers of the ANC?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And that this money would then be used for further actions?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, for the further promotion of terrorist activities.

MR CORNELIUS: And this C-Section, Vlakplaas, was actually the Elite Unit of the Security Police?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: It was regarded as a privilege to serve there?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And rewards and medals were issued for actions by members of Vlakplaas?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: These were given out by Min le Grange and Min Vlok and such persons who visited Vlakplaas to congratulate you on your actions?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And that fortified your subjective belief in what you were doing?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius. Mr Lamey, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Holtzhausen, the first Coin operation, did you at that stage know of Tiso's connection with Mrs Mandela?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I am not entirely certain if I knew then, but I did know that he had a connection with the ANC. I am not certain if I knew then that he had direct connections with Mrs Mandela. It was a long time ago, it is difficult to recall the sequence of events.

MR LAMEY: Do I understand your evidence correctly that planning with regard to the first operation was not an ambush, the intention to kill as in the second instance?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: It was a matter more like the Carousel where you had acted upon information that the people wanted to rob the place and took up position?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: So Mr van Zyl at that stage, or Mr van Zyl did not direct a request to you that the group and Tiso were to be killed in order to protect his identity?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I am not certain about that Chairperson. I cannot say that it is so or that it is not so.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, is this the first instance?

MR LAMEY: Yes, I am referring to the first instance. You say you are not certain?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I am not certain.

MR LAMEY: If he had requested it from you, would it have been important to you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: The protection of the source's identity was not an important factor?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, it is an important factor Chairperson, but if we knowingly all of us who were involved with him, had to kill people then with all the information and people he knew, we would have to kill them.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but the mere fact that he had contact with let's say criminals or robbers and they knew him and had contact with him, it is not an important reason to eliminate robbers or criminals?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Was it also not the consideration with the Carousel incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: The role of Mr van Zyl at the Carousel incident, is it correct that he had the information that robbers who had connections with the ANC wanted to rob a vehicle of Fidelity Guards?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: He did not take the robbers there, he basically just conveyed the information, is that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that Mr van Zyl in all instances, except for the Nelspruit incident, had been an informer for the purpose of supplying information?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And that was his expectation, that he would be rewarded for that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: You, including Vlakplaas and his handler, one would have expected you would have liaised with him and followed up information and in my own words now, when the information is ripe and correct and accurate, would you then decide along with Mr de Kock what operation would be launched and how it would be done?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson, but some of his information I had followed up without clearing or without informing Mr de Kock beforehand.

MR LAMEY: Now, I accept that you followed up information by yourself but when it comes to a progressive state of the planning, then you would inform Mr de Kock?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, everywhere where armed action were to be planned.

MR LAMEY: Mr van Zyl was not in a position to take any decisions with regard to what Vlakplaas would do with the information and what action they would launch?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson. He could only make proposals to which I had made the final decision.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Can you recall how much Mr van Zyl had received with regard to his information of the Carousel incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: What would your submission have been in that case with regard to informer reward?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I would have said that the source had exposed himself to grave danger during obtaining the Intelligence and a further motivation would be that a robbery had been (indistinct) where millions of rands would be stolen, I think at that stage it was R1,7 million which had been (indistinct).

MR LAMEY: Very well, in that regard weapons were also planted, not so?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: You don't know of that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, no weapons were planted in my presence.

MR LAMEY: You don't know whether Murder and Robbery planted the arms?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't think it was done in that case, and I don't believe that is their policy.

MR LAMEY: Handgrenades, nothing?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I don't think this incident has regard to the Nelspruit incident and I would not want to answer that question.

MR LAMEY: Very well, I do not want to compromise you, if that is a problem, then I would not pursue the matter any further. You have no recollection with regard to what Mr van Zyl received for that matter?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I have to guess now Chairperson, but I think it was R15 000. I am not certain, it may have been R20 000, but I am not certain.

MR LAMEY: My instructions are that Mr van Zyl received R15 000 for the Braamfontein matter?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't recall for which matter he received, because we were involved in many.

MR LAMEY: In the Braamfontein incident he supplied information which led to arrests?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: May I just ask you, the procedure with regard to reward, maybe before I get there, I must pursue something else, what type of informant was Mr van Zyl?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I have already said Chairperson, he was an A1 source.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but what I mean is that is with regard to the reliability grading, the A1 connotation, was that with regard to reliability?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: But did he receive a permanent scale of reward or was he paid on an ad hoc basis with regard to the information which he supplied?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I cannot remember in which manner I registered him, although I knew that I carried most of his costs and most of the times when I put in claims, it included his costs also.

MR LAMEY: His expenses?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, but I cannot recall that he received a fixed monthly reward.

MR LAMEY: My instructions are that he did not received a fixed monthly reward and that he received information as he supplied it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: His recollection is also that he was not rewarded for expenses, the income which he generated from his supply of information, he had to cover his own expenses and he had to pay the people who worked under him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson, indeed he had to pay his own people, but petrol and some other expenses, I did carry and specifically the vehicle that I supplied to him, the petrol and all those things, that I carried.

MR LAMEY: My instructions are that he paid once for hotel rooms, but I am not going to go into that any further. That is a matter on the periphery. What I would like to know from you is when he was recruited as an informer for C10, is it correct that he could supply information to other places, but he would mainly be your source and you his handler?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson, I know at some opportunity he supplied information to SANAB and to the Endangered Species Organisation and they dealt with him there, and he only told me about it afterwards.

MR LAMEY: He also supplied information to you with regard to the illegal sale of rhino horns which led to some arrests?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: I would like to ask you, the source with regard to C10 and you as his handler, would one describe it that he in that relationship was an underground agent of Vlakplaas as soon as somebody is registered as a source?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson, I could accept it as such.

MR LAMEY: When you had written a motivation, did you do it by yourself with regard to the reward for the source?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And you added there what you thought important according to your discretion?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: The source never expected or exactly knew what type of reward he would receive, is that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Is that correct or is it not correct? You said no?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He doesn't know for how much I will apply.

MR LAMEY: So it is left to your discretion for how much you would apply for?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes. And what is later approved is not under my control, it goes through the channels and it could be decreased.

MR LAMEY: During the Nelspruit incident, which amount did you want for a reward?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I have already said.

CHAIRPERSON: Between R35 000 and R50 000?

MR LAMEY: Part of that case was that firearms were found?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: That was a false component of that submission?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Well, the weapons were found Chairperson, but it did not belong to the MKs.

MR LAMEY: I beg your pardon, the weapons, are those the weapons that were planted in the bus?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I assume that is what you referred to?

MR LAMEY: Yes. At which stage was a decision taken that the weapons would be planted?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: As I have already said Chairperson, I cannot recall the chronological sequence exactly, but it was decided and it was done at the end of the day.

MR LAMEY: But was it done shortly before the incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Well, the planting of the arms took place during the incident.

MR LAMEY: But the decision?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: As I have said Chairperson, I cannot exactly recall at which exact stage it was decided but it was decided.

MR LAMEY: But it was not something that Mr van Zyl would have known of?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Well, he directed the request for the AKs.

MR LAMEY: No, I know that a request was directed that the robbers wanted AKs, but the fact that the AKs would be planted, he did not know about that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: At some stage he was under the impression that the AKs would be in the vehicle when he received the vehicle, but I left it to the last moment when I told him that it would not be in the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: But he did not know that it would be planted?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I beg your pardon Mr Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Zyl did not know that you would plant AK47S in the minibus after the incident, that is Mr Lamey's question.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR LAMEY: The value attached in the report about the finding of the weapons on the scene would not have been something that could benefit Mr van Zyl?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Not the rand value per weapon Chairperson, but the value of the finding which makes, which forms part of the global operation, will fortify the claim.

MR LAMEY: When you received the money, may I just get clarity there, I understand that a cheque was issued by Head Office?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: To whom is the cheque issued?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: As I understand, it is a Treasury Order which is made out to the Financial Division, who will physically go and draw the money and keep it in cash.

MR LAMEY: The Financial Division at Head Office?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson. I think at that stage it was Capt De Waal in command of that Division.

MR LAMEY: Do you receive the money in cash?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you sign the receipt for it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Do you count the money?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Sometimes I did not count it, sometimes I did it.

CHAIRPERSON: But did you count it in this instance?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall Chairperson, but I believe I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR LAMEY: And then, did you personally receive that money in cash from Head Office?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: In some cases I did and in some cases somebody brought it, it depended on who went to Head Office and he will bring everybody's money. Sometimes it would go to Mr de Kock who would give it to the members, but it never took place in the same manner.

MR LAMEY: May I ask you, in this case, do you recall how it happened with the rewarding for the Nelspruit incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, as I already said, I am not certain, but I imagine that I fetched it myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you have signed a receipt for R20 000 if you did not collect it or if you did not count it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I have signed receipts for money that I have received without counting it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: But you are not certain whether in this case, you collected it yourself?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot say that I collected it myself or I may have received it from one of the ladies in the office.

MR LAMEY: At Vlakplaas?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: In such a case she would have told you that it was Mr van Zyl's reward?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: One moment please, Head Office, the guy who makes out the cheque and puts the money into an envelope, would he bring Mr van Zyl's name onto the envelope, does he know who the informers are, are these people's names known or is it secret?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, just before the question I wanted to correct myself, because we were speaking of van Zyl, I said yes, van Zyl, but it was in the name of the, the false name that I had used for the claim. I know to which name I attach which informer and I think in this case it was Daniel Mokaba, I used the name Daniel Mokaba as the informer. I know Daniel Mokaba is actually Ben van Zyl.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall in this instance, I note that you are not certain but just on this point Mr Holtzhausen, you in the statement which you have submitted, have said that there are several details which you do not recall?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson, it was more than seven and a half years ago and it is something that I would rather forget and not be reminded of.

MR LAMEY: I understand that and accept that, and you suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome, is that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Do you find that it leads to loss of memory?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson, I find that during these proceedings, my mind wanders somewhat.

MR LAMEY: So as I form the impression then the crutch on which you lean on, is the statement which you had made before and I am not saying it in a bad sense, I am just saying that you are leaning on the previous statement that you had made?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson, and what I have heard here has joggled my memory somewhat, but I can really not recall everything.

MR LAMEY: Did you suffer from this disorder in August 1995?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you suffer from this disorder in August 1995 when you made the statement?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, and I was locked up for some time.

MR LAMEY: Did you received psychiatric help at that stage?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Are you still undergoing psychiatric treatment?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I have ceased it Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Did you receive it until recently?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Not very recent, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall in which form was the amount handed over to Mr van Zyl, are you certain whether it was in an envelope or whether it was cash?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It would have been cash in an envelope.

MR LAMEY: You say it would have been cash in an envelope?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Well, it was cash in an envelope, I didn't give him a cheque.

MR LAMEY: What I mean is could it have just been cash without it being in an envelope?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I believe it was in an envelope Chairperson, I wouldn't carry cash with me just like that.

MR LAMEY: My instructions from Mr van Zyl is that he had always received cash, and not in an envelope?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Smaller amounts I could have possibly given to him only in cash which I had taken out from a bank bag, but R20 000 is a larger bulk to carry around.

MR LAMEY: Very well, if we look at your evidence and you have no definite recollection, you say that you would have handed it over in an envelope and if this money was placed into an envelope at Head Office and came down to Vlakplaas before you received the envelope, then you just handed over an envelope to Mr van Zyl?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, I would not regard that statement as entirely correct.

MR LAMEY: Can you say what ...

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: If I recall correctly ...

MR LAMEY: This package is made up at Head Office, the reward for Mr van Zyl, the money that would be paid out to Mr van Zyl in the name of Daniel Mokaba, is placed in an envelope and I expect that that envelope is sealed?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Not necessarily Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Do they not seal it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: R20 000 in an unsealed envelope?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, if the envelope is sealed and I come there, I have to tear it open to count the money and if somebody else comes there to count the money, then what is the point of sealing the envelope because you have to tear it open in any case.

MR LAMEY: Let me ask you, why did you need to count the cash if it was in a sealed envelope or placed in an envelope and it is R20 000 which is supposed to go to Mr van Zyl, which had come down through the channels?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: As I have already said Chairperson, it is usually a habit to count money. If you receive any amount of money, you would count it. Some people from whom you collect it, insist that you count it.

MR LAMEY: So would you have opened the envelope to count it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I may have Chairperson, as I have already testified, I believe in this instance I did count the money.

MR LAMEY: You are guessing now, you don't have a definite recollection?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I don't have a definite recollection, but I believe that I did count it.

MR LAMEY: Do you have a definite recollection that you handed over R20 000 to him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Are you quite sure that you handed over R20 000 to him, but you are not certain if you counted it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR BAM: May I just ask Mr Lamey, I am not certain if I do not understand him. Does he refer to count when he received the money from Head Office or count it when he gave it to Mr van Zyl?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if there is any difference Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: His evidence is not that he recalled that he received it from Head Office and his recollection is also that he does not recall whether he counted it, as I understand it now. Now I am putting it to you, if you don't have a recollection that you counted it and you don't recall where you received the envelope from, whether it be from Head Office or from Vlakplaas and you can't recall whether it was sealed or not, how do you have a definite recollection that you handed over R20 000 to Mr van Zyl?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Because Mr van Zyl, every time when I handed over money to him, counted it.

MR LAMEY: Are you saying every time?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Every time Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Where did you hand over the money to him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Various places.

MR LAMEY: Public places?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: My instructions from Mr van Zyl are that in many situations he couldn't count the money because of the fact that it was in public places?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, that specific reward was paid out to him in my vehicle in front of the Porterhouse in Germiston and he counted it there.

MR LAMEY: The specific place, you can remember quite clearly?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And also that he counted it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And it was R20 000?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: I want to put it to you Mr Holtzhausen, my instructions from Mr van Zyl is that he did not receive R20 000 in this instance.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Then your instructions are incorrect.

MR LAMEY: I would like to put it to you and I am not insinuating that you had anything to do in paying out a lesser amount to him, but all that I can put to you is that he did not receive that amount. Is it not possible Mr van Zyl, that down the channels where people would have handled cash, that it could have been lessened?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, otherwise he would not have signed a receipt for R20 000.

MR LAMEY: My instructions are that he did not sign that receipt for R20 000 and that was also his evidence in the de Kock trial.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He did sign the receipt Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: My instructions are that he did sign a receipt, but not for R20 000.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He signed a receipt for R20 000 Chairperson.

MR BAM: Chairperson, I would not like to interrupt, but I think it is fair that it is put to the witness what the amount was, because he denies R20 000, I think it is only fair that my client can answer to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know whether he can but it depends on Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: I can just put it to you Mr Holtzhausen that Mr van Zyl's evidence is that it was less than R10 000 in the vicinity of R7 000?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, if he himself doesn't have a recollection of how much it was, how can he say that he did not receive R20 000?

MR LAMEY: I do not want to argue with you.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: But now we are like a stuck record, I will say he received R20 000 and he will say that he did not receive R20 000.

MR LAMEY: Mr Holtzhausen, let us not argue about this, I would not want to get into an argument with you, but my instructions are that he definitely did not receive R20 000 and he would have recalled it if he received such an amount. MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Once again Chairperson, I will say for the umpteenth time he received R20 000.

MR LAMEY: Mr Holtzhausen, where would Mr Klopper get the evidence that informers were sometimes done in?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't know what Klopper's own motives are Chairperson, in any case, there is no love lost between Klopper and I.

MR LAMEY: But you are not an applicant in this matter Mr Holtzhausen, you have already received indemnity.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: So what would it benefit him? He never pointed a finger to you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is what I am saying, Chairperson, I don't know what Klopper's motives are, that is my answer. My instructions were that an informer should receive his money at all times, because you will shoot yourself in the foot if you do him in. There were many other manners, many other ways to benefit yourself from operations.

MR LAMEY: Yes, Mr Holtzhausen, but the informer would not know that he was being done in?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Mr Chairperson, in Ben van Zyl's case he could have known, because he knew people in Head Office at Finance and to such an extent that he had a complaint that he was done in by the Endangered Species Organisation and that one of his rewards which had been approved, he did not receive and in that case Mr de Kock and I assisted him and in the end he was paid. I would not want to do him in.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he know under what name you had sent the claim in?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I believe he could have known Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he know that he was Daniel Mokaba?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He could have Chairperson. Besides our source/handler relationship, we were also friends Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: My instructions from Mr van Zyl is that his informer's name with you as a source, his name was Johan van Kloosder?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Do you recall that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Johan van Kloosder? Where does the name Daniel Mokaba fit in?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is the name that I used with the set-up, I think that is the name that I used, I am not certain.

MR LAMEY: So now you are not certain? Why would you not use Johan van Kloosder?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Because I wanted to create the impression that the source had been black.

CHAIRPERSON: So you only used it for this case because the circumstances were of such a nature that the informer had to be black?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I am not certain Chairperson, but some of these other claims, I may have used a similar black name.

CHAIRPERSON: And the name Van Kloosder, did you use it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes I did, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: What purpose or importance does it serve if the source is black?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It could be explained better how the source could get close to the criminals, as well as the type of information which was given.

MR SIBANYONI: Was it difficult for Mr van Zyl to get deeper in the information in his operations?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, because he was white, it would have been much more difficult for him to move in the direct circles of the trained MK persons, as opposed to it would have been easier for a black man, as it would seem from the fact that Hamilton was much closer to them than what van Zyl was.

MR SIBANYONI: Was it very often, very usual to use whites as informers? I am asking you this question because I may not have had enough information, but my impression was that people who came forward as informers in various cases, were black people and it was for me strange to hear that Mr van Zyl was an informer?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, it is indeed so that the large majority of our sources were black, there were indeed white informants, but they were very much in the minority. van Zyl's great value was in that he had his own network of black informers from which he gleaned this information.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: It was his business?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson, it was his business and that is how he made an existence.

CHAIRPERSON: Another aspect which I cannot understand, did you pretend that the name that you were using in the processing of the claim was the name of the source or did you use false names for your claims?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson, it was a false name in the claim.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was not a matter that the real name of the source was used for the processing of the claim?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson and for various reasons.

CHAIRPERSON: So it doesn't matter what name you used, it does not mean that it is a black or white person?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, the name did not have a connotation with regard to the race or background of the person.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Mr Holtzhausen, the other claims which you had handed in for Mr van Zyl, was it in the name of Van Kloosder?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Some of them.

MR LAMEY: The Braamfontein incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: The Carousel claim?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't recall.

MR LAMEY: But the Nelspruit one you recall it was not under the name of Van Kloosder?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Did you use the name Johan van Kloosder in other matters where the persons or the criminals were blacks?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I can't recall Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: That was his official source name, Johan van Kloosder?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, with C10.

MR LAMEY: Mr Holtzhausen, let's just leave that point there, in the Carousel incident you had direct dealings with one of Mr van Zyl's sources, his name was James?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, I had direct access to him.

MR LAMEY: Did you in the Nelspruit incident also personally speak to Hamilton?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I had on occasion, Chairperson, but most of the discussions were between myself and van Zyl.

MR LAMEY: Did you receive information from Hamilton that he was a PAC member?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: If I recall correctly, van Zyl told me at some stage that Hamilton was a Zimbabwean and that he was a PAC member.

MR LAMEY: So your recollection is that Mr van Zyl told you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is my recollection.

MR LAMEY: Indeed he was a PAC member?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I believed it at that stage and I still believe it today.

MR LAMEY: Do you know that Hamilton moved in ANC circles?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Do you know whether he was involved with the Returned Exiled Committee, there is a statement of his in which he mentioned it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't have firsthand knowledge of that Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have first knowledge that he moved in ANC circles?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson, because on occasion I personally spoke to him at Ben's office and he mentioned certain ANC people whom he had seen and whom he had liaised with.

CHAIRPERSON: So this was something that he told you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have any personal knowledge?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I was not present at any of these meetings Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Mr Holtzhausen, apart from information that you received from van Zyl, did you receive any information from any other places that firstly ANC MK members were committing armed robberies?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson, it was not a secret.

MR LAMEY: And PAC members?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Some of them too, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Was it strange when you heard that Hamilton was a PAC member and that he had contact with ANC persons?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Could you at some stage have told the members of Vlakplaas that Hamilton was a PAC member who moved in ANC circles because Mr Gevers' impression was that somewhere he formed the impression and this was in hindsight with regard to this group, but somewhere in his head he had the PAC? Could it have been you that had referred to the PAC?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, all the while I told the persons that these were ANC trained people, I know that after the incident, during the post-mortem inquest there was information or some allegation that some of them had been a PAC member and if my memory does not fail me, it was Kohna Rabela. This was the person whom everybody referred to as the Inkatha member. His father was an Inkatha member, an IFP member, but Kohna Rabela himself was not.

MR LAMEY: Yes, because I could not receive instructions from any of my other clients about this IFP member, but you recall that after the post-mortem inquest, he was the IFP member?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Before the incident, there was no mention of PAC or IFP.

MR LAMEY: Could you have mentioned that one of Ben's informers, during conversations, was a PAC member who moved in ANC circles?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I may have said that one of the sources did indeed move in this manner, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, we will adjourn and reconvene at half past eleven.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

FREDERIK DOUGLAS REID HOLTZHAUSEN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. Mr Lamey, any further questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: (continued) Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Holtzhausen, in your statement on page 308, paragraph 6 you say that you were told by Mr de Kock that Ben was a member of the CCB and was handled by one Craig Williamson?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson, it appears as such there and I imagine that it was Mr de Kock who informed me about this.

MR LAMEY: You yourself had no direct factual evidence pertaining to that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR LAMEY: You do not know if Mr van Zyl was indeed a source of Craig Williamson?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, I would accept that.

MR LAMEY: Very well, and you don't know whether he was indeed a member of the CCB?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, I have no direct evidence indicating that.

MR LAMEY: I would just like to put Mr van Zyl's version to you, you would not be able to dispute it but I would just like to put it on record that upon instructions from Mr van Zyl, it is his contention that he was never a member of the CCB nor was he a source of Craig Williamson. You would not be able to dispute that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR LAMEY: Secondly, it is my instructions from Mr van Zyl that he was never a member of the CCB.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot dispute that.

MR LAMEY: What the case is is that before he became your informer and before he started his own business, he was at a stage in business with Mr Slang van Zyl who was a member of the CCB?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: But he as such, Mr van Zyl, was not a member of the CCB, nor did he have anything to do with Mr van Zyl and his activities with the CCB?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I would not be able to dispute that.

MR LAMEY: Very well. In paragraph 4 or rather paragraph 10 on page 309 you refer that according to Ben van Zyl there was an argument between Tiso and Winnie Mandela about money?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it your clear recollection what the nature of the dispute was that you heard of?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Because my instructions from Mr van Zyl are that he recalls that he may have mentioned to you at one stage that he heard from Tiso that there was a dispute with Mrs Mandela about money, but not about stolen money?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I would not be able to dispute this, but my impression was that it was about stolen money.

MR LAMEY: That was your impression?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Then furthermore you indicate that for this reason they wanted to commit their own robbery separate from Mrs Winnie Mandela, is that your inference as a result of your impression?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is possible.

MR LAMEY: I would just like to put it on record that my instructions are from Mr van Zyl that he did not tell you that they wanted to commit their own robbery independently from Mrs Winnie Mandela?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Where would that information have come from?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: As Mr Lamey has just put it Chairperson, it is possible that I may have drawn my own inference from that.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you make your own inference that they wanted to commit their own robbery independent from Mrs Winnie Mandela?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It is possible that I may have drawn such an inference.

CHAIRPERSON: Upon what basis?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: The fact that he told me that there was a dispute about the money or the money issue and the incident had already taken place in 1992 and the statement was compiled in 1995 after a long period of time, and my recollection wasn't completely clear about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: In paragraph 15 you state and this is on page 310

"... he told me during this time that he had discussed the planned robbery on two occasions with Mrs Winnie Mandela and that she possibly would have co-operated or accompanied on the robbery. Whether she would do this, I don not know."

Are you certain in light of the previous inference that you drew, that this could also have been an inference that she would have accompanied them on a robbery or that he himself would have spoken to Mrs Mandela?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I would recall that he did tell me that he had contact with her, but I don't know whether this was directly or indirectly with Hamilton.

MR LAMEY: Could you possibly have heard this from Hamilton?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It is possible.

MR LAMEY: Because my instructions from Mr van Zyl are that at no stage did he himself speak to Mrs Winnie Mandela and he also did not tell you this?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: As I have said Chairperson, my recollection is not very clear about it.

MR LAMEY: And that at no stage did he convey information to you that Mrs Winnie Mandela would participate in the robbery?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: If I recall correctly I accepted and believed at a stage that she was involved in it, and it was also later proved that she knew about it.

MR LAMEY: Very well. I just would like to ask you upon what basis do you say that she knew about it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, from the investigation after the shooting it appeared that Mrs Winnie Mandela and Tiso Leballo's mother had had words because apparently according to my understanding what the Investigating Officer said, Mrs Winnie Mandela before nine o'clock that morning after the incident took place, contacted Mrs Leballo and told her that Tiso had been shot dead. Now, there is no way in which she could have known that Tiso had been shot dead if she did not know that he was there. And to such an extent an incorrect person was pointed out as Tiso Leballo, I think it was his sister who mistakenly identified him.

MR LAMEY: I think that in the post-mortem reports reference is made to one of the deceased as Tiso Leballo?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Were you independently aware that the people around Mrs Mandela such as the soccer club and so forth, were involved in crime?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Could you have formed an impression based upon that and that you linked this to certain information that Mr van Zyl gave you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't know to which impression is being referred here.

MR LAMEY: No, what I am asking you is during that period in time, were you independently aware, independently from Mr van Zyl as a source, that people around Mrs Mandela such as the notorious soccer club were involved in crime?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Very well. My instructions from Mr van Zyl are and I just want to put this on the record that at no stage did the information come from him, indicating that Mrs Winnie Mandela's cohorts participated in the robberies.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot confirm or deny it because I don't have a direct recollection about that.

MR LAMEY: What Mr van Zyl does recall and you yourself referred to this in the evidence as an important factor considering Tiso and the ambush, that you knew about his connection to Mrs Mandela, is that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: It was particularly Tiso who was the target in your mind?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: My instructions from Mr van Zyl are that at a certain stage, he encountered Tiso. Before this he had contact with him and he knew and understood that he was a so-called exile who had returned and that he was a trained person and that he was interested in criminal activities and robbery and after that, Mr van Zyl met him coincidentally in front of the Advocates' Chambers in Johannesburg where he was seated in a car. Mr van Zyl approached him and asked him what he was doing there and he said that he was waiting for Mrs Mandela.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot dispute that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, what is the version? Is it that this was before the Nelspruit incident that Mr Holtzhausen became aware that Tiso was the driver of Mrs Mandela, not earlier than that? In other words was it at the stage of the earlier attempt to rob the Coin Security company?

MR LAMEY: Mr van Zyl, let me just put this on record, my impression is that he is not entirely certain, it may have been beforehand but if he thinks back, it was rather after the first Coin action, that it may have been at that stage that he became aware of it. But what Mr van Zyl says is that when he communicated to you that Tiso was the driver for Mrs Mandela, it then occurred that you became very interested?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is true.

MR LAMEY: And you encouraged him to continue with the plans?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then I just want to ask you, is it your recollection and clearly that Mr van Zyl directed a request towards you that these persons be shot dead during an ambush in order to protect his identity or could it be possible that this aspect and the danger that surrounded him, only came to light later once it was discovered that Tiso had not been in the vehicle?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I cannot recall the precise context, it is possible that van Zyl could have told me that if one of them were to escape, he, van Zyl, would be a dead man as a result of the MK connection and that sort of thing, they knew where to find him and all such related matters. It is possible that the request originated as such or he may have asked me directly, I don't have a clear recollection of this.

CHAIRPERSON: But you say that the initiative came from Mr van Zyl?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, to an extent I believe so that the seed may have been planted in me, by him to eliminate these persons.

MR LAMEY: When did you decide that you would set up an ambush for these persons?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, over a period the idea occurred to me, but the final decision was taken only in Nelspruit that this would be the form that it would assume.

MR LAMEY: That was once you had already arrived in Nelspruit?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson, because there were factors to consider such as if Nelspruit Murder and Robbery were to make persons available, the possibility of us doing it the way we wanted to do it, no longer existed and we would have to change the plan, or postpone the entire matter.

CHAIRPERSON: So this was after you had excluded the possible participation of Nelspruit Murder and Robbery that the full set-up came into being?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That was when you started working on the plan of the ambush itself?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You see, my instructions from Mr van Zyl - before I get to that, let me just take you back again - the question of the bank in Pretoria, are you sure that this was information, let me just look at your statement, paragraph 11 on page 309, that the proposed robbery would be committed in a bank in Pretoria in Lynwood Road? That is in terms of the previous paragraph, paragraph 10 with reference to the gang. Isn't it possible Mr Holtzhausen that you yourself, may have been looking at an alternative spot namely a bank in Pretoria where the robbers would have to be taken in order to rob the place and that you may have investigated that possibility yourself and that it was not connected to Mr van Zyl or any information from him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is possible, I do not have a clear recollection about it, but it is possible.

MR LAMEY: If I would say the following that Mr van Zyl from the beginning, and his discussion with Tiso, discussed Nelspruit as a possible place and that there was follow up regarding this and that he never discussed the possibility of a bank in Pretoria with Tiso?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot dispute that.

MR LAMEY: Your recollection here that Mr Gouws was with you, is that clear?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, it would appear that I was mistaken and that it was possibly Nortje who was with me. I can say that Gouws and I had launched actions together at various banks and perhaps it is for that reason that I have connected his name to this particular incident.

MR LAMEY: The Witbank robbery which you mentioned, I heard what your evidence was and this indicates that it was not connected to this group or gang, I also do not have any instructions from Mr van Zyl that he had the information that this gang was involved in that robbery, but my question is in terms of time, how long did the Witbank incident take place before this incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't know.

MR LAMEY: Could it have been shortly before this particular incident or quite some time before?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It could have been a short or a long time beforehand because at that stage there were many robberies and I think that that is the reason why I myself was not involved in the Witbank incident because I was busy investigating a murder of one of our own people during which we arrested the Toaster Gang.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Could you possibly explain where Mr Nortje and Klopper or specifically Mr Klopper is making the connotation between the Witbank group and this group, isn't it possible that he may have formed that connection mentally but that in hindsight it appears to be incorrect?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I really do not know that that issue or incident took place shortly before the time, but it is possible that somebody may have spoken about this incident in order to incite the group for what was going to happen.

MR LAMEY: So you may have mentioned this incident to motivate the people?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I will not say that I mentioned that these people had anything to do with the Witbank incident but I may have said that robbers are merciless and that they simply shot that woman dead or something like that.

CHAIRPERSON: But you are speculating now?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I am speculating, I don't have a clear recollection about this.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Just a minor aspect, my instructions from Mr van Zyl are that Mr Stolz was not his handler but that he had information about the AK47s and the woman who was dealing in these guns.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, I understand but I don't think that if Stolz had been his handler at some stage or not, will really be of any assistance for us to come to any conclusion in this matter regardless of the directions.

MR LAMEY: I will leave it at that, thank you Chairperson. Just with regard to the petrol in the kombi vehicle. Do I understand you correctly that you knew nothing before the time of this that was going to happen?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I did know. Although I don't have a specific recollection about it, I could possibly have requested the petrol myself seeing as it was my operation. MR LAMEY: On page 310 and 316 you gave evidence that the AK47 guns were obtained from Mr Nortje. On page 310 you state that according to your previous request, there would be AK47s.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes. The idea with the fact that I stated that I saw to it that this would take place, connects with the fact that Nortje brought them.

MR LAMEY: At what stage did you obtain the AK47s?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I saw them for the first time and received them for the first time at the scene.

MR LAMEY: Was this before Mr Nortje departed for the point where he would undertake observations of the minibus and the arrival of the gang?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you give any of these guns to Mr Gouws?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: I just want to get back to the other aspect which I began with a few moments ago. My instructions from Mr van Zyl are that when you were in Nelspruit, the arrangements were with Mr van Zyl that upon your request, he would take the group down once again initially to Coin Security, those were the arrangements and that a second vehicle was arranged?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Or at least that the second vehicle would be arranged?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't really understand.

MR LAMEY: That a second vehicle would be arranged and that the arrangement was that a second vehicle would be arranged but that these persons would travel down in the Cressida to Nelspruit?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson, if I understand the question correctly.

MR LAMEY: The arrangement was that as with the previous time, they would be taken to Coin Security?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And a similar action such as the previous time with Coin Security would take place?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, not entirely.

MR LAMEY: My instructions from Mr van Zyl are that you were already in Nelspruit when you contacted him and told him that you were going to set up an ambush?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then you spoke about a death?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you gave a description to Mr van Zyl telephonically, regarding where this would take place?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Mr van Zyl knew Nelspruit well and he knew of which place you were speaking of where this would take place?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: My instructions from Mr van Zyl are that this was the first time that he understood that there would be an ambush before the time at another place and that these persons would never be taken to Coin Security, nor would they ever arrive at Coin Security?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot dispute that.

CHAIRPERSON: When you decided that it would be an ambush, had Mr de Kock already departed?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I am not certain Chairperson, I really am not certain. I cannot recall that I told him anything at the Drum Rock. I know that he spoke with Geldenhuys, but at that stage we were not completely sure of where it would take place, it was only after that that we departed to identify the place and the final decision that it would be there, was taken later.

CHAIRPERSON: That is when Mr de Kock was no longer at the scene?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, according to the best of my knowledge, he was no longer on the scene.

CHAIRPERSON: And you decided that the shape of the action would be an ambush?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: And you explained to Mr van Zyl what he was supposed to do?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct, I gave him his orders.

MR LAMEY: And at that stage you also told him that you would not provide the AK47s?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Very well. I would just like to put this on record, that my instructions from Mr van Zyl are that he never requested that these persons be murdered in this manner in an ambush beforehand in order to protect his identity?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, it is possible that I may have drawn the inference from his discussion with me that he would be a dead man if any of these persons were ever to find him. As I have said, I cannot recall this clearly.

MR LAMEY: Yes, well Mr van Zyl will give evidence that it is possible that this may have been discussed after it was discovered that Tiso had not been in the minibus and then it was that the clear and present danger emerged, but it was not before the time?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I have no clear recollection of it, all I know is that van Zyl reported to me at the scene that Tiso was not there and where we would be able to find him.

MR LAMEY: Very well.

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon Mr Lamey, Mr Holtzhausen, what channel of communication did you have with Mr van Zyl during the preamble to these events?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It was telephonic. Up to the time that he would arrive at the scene directly after the shooting, and if I recall correctly, when we arrived at Hall's Gateway, the first time, we did not find Tiso there and we raced off in the direction of town to go and look for him elsewhere, that is where we ran into van Zyl at the crossing to Pretoria, the Witrivier/Barberton crossing. Those were the only two times that I communicated directly with him.

CHAIRPERSON: You spoke of telephonic communication, how did that work?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He would page me and then I would telephone him at the number that he had left for me from a telephone booth.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, sorry Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Mr van Zyl has indeed associated himself with this action and he participated in it as he did?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Just a moment please, Chairperson. Did you also know that Tiso worked in Shell House?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Or that Mr van Zyl had contact with him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: While he worked at Shell House, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the exact position now, did Mr van Zyl have contact with him at a stage while he, Tiso, worked at Shell House?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: While he was present at Shell House?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't recall the precise context, but in my recollection I have something which connects Shell House to Tiso, in connection with something about which I was informed. I myself, didn't see or encounter him there.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. May I just take an instruction?

CHAIRPERSON: Please go ahead.

MR LAMEY: I was not clear about the evidence, did you give evidence that Mr van Zyl had requested specifically a Toyota minibus as an additional vehicle with exception to the Regulation 80 Toyota vehicle?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, he requested an additional vehicle.

MR LAMEY: Mr van Zyl says that it is possible that this could have happened and that Tiso and the others may possibly have requested that specifically?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He did communicate their request to me.

MR LAMEY: Would a Regulation 80 vehicle have been traced back to the police?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And there was also another reason from your view, why an additional vehicle had to be made available?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I just want to be certain that I have covered all aspects. Yes, this aspect, I just want to ask you Mr Holtzhausen about this aspect, did you have personal knowledge that robbers would sometimes make use of home made plastic weapons in their robberies?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It was not an unknown fact that toy guns were used during armed robberies.

MR LAMEY: Were there any other weapons except the AK47s which were planted at the scene, were any other weapons found?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR LAMEY: By nature of the fire and the explosion that ensued, I would like to suppose that one of these robbers had an artificial plastic weapon, would that have been destroyed during the explosion and the fire?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, it would have been totally destroyed.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, is anyone going to offer evidence to us that they had plastic toy guns with them?

MR LAMEY: No Chairperson, but this is a very important aspect.

ADV DE JAGER: We are going to speculate about this? I don't know, I would appreciate it if we could confine ourselves to the relevant matters.

MR LAMEY: I would just like to inform you further about this, we are trying to seek a logical explanation for something which is lacking. Firstly my instructions from Mr van Zyl are very clear and definite that on the evening after the robbers had received the minibus, he at a stage saw a weapon which looked like an AK47 in the hands of one of the robbers. We know that only two weapons were found at the scene and that is why the question is being put.

ADV DE JAGER: Would that have been a plastic AK47?

MR LAMEY: Well, that leads to the inference.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Holtzhausen, was there any fire coming from the bus?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, at no point.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Mr van Zyl tell you at a certain point that these persons had guns?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct. Upon my last communication with him, I asked him pertinently which weapons they had and he assured me once again that all of them had handguns. I took his word on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you find any handguns in the vehicle?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Any weapons besides the two AK47s?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Are you referring to the first Coin incident, Mr Holtzhausen?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Both.

MR LAMEY: Both? My instructions from Mr van Zyl are that he believed that they had weapons on them, that they had hand-weapons on them?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I believe that he believed that.

MR LAMEY: He knew about the weapon that Tiso had definitely?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I believe that as well because if he had told me that these persons were not armed, then I would have seen to it that there would have been at least two or three hand-weapons in the minibus as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Would those have been doctored weapons?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes. After the time, I would also have planted this with the AK47s.

MR LAMEY: Mr van Zyl says that he did not see, physically see weapons on them. He believed that Tiso had a weapon because he had seen previously that Tiso had a weapon, and he accepted that these persons would be armed, but he did not see it physically except the one that he saw and this was after the minibus had been handed over in Nelspruit. Very well, I am just putting it to you. Chairperson, I don't know if I have omitted anything, but that is my questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey.

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, with your leave, before Mr Van den Berg puts questions, might I just make a correction here with regard to the evidence that Mr de Kock had rendered. You will recall that he gave evidence that because of pressure and the scope he had applied, he could only give it in 10 minutes before the cut-off date and I am informed that that played a part and there were still problems to finish it in time, but an important consideration and we are indebted to Mr Francis, I was not involved with the drawing up of the application and he had omitted and he confirmed what Mr Francis had said that one of the reasons why the application was handed in so late, was that Mr de Kock would have wanted to ensure that other people who were also involved in the incident, would come forward and apply for amnesty and tell the truth to the Commission and therefore he did not want them to know what he had said in his application, because out of fear that he might incriminate them. We did not try to mislead you, it has just slipped us and we apologise for that not being added.

CHAIRPERSON: We will note that Mr Hattingh.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, another aspect which I have just reminded myself of and which I have to take up with Mr Holtzhausen.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly Mr Lamey.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Holtzhausen, what is your recollection, at which stage was it decided that Mr de Kock and Mr Nortje would not fire shots?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I am not entirely clear about this, but I believe that with my initial planning I was informed that Willie in any case specifically could not participate in the shooting because at that stage there was a sensitive post-mortem inquest ongoing, but the exact stage I really cannot recall.

MR LAMEY: But Mr de Kock also would not fire shots?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR LAMEY: At which stage did that come about?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't understand.

MR LAMEY: The final decision that Mr de Kock and Mr Nortje will not fire shots?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That was common cause right from the beginning that they would not fire shots, I accepted that right from the beginning because they were both involved in that post-mortem inquest.

MR LAMEY: I accept that you had the plan with the ambush in Pretoria already with the members which Mr de Kock had changed, because the previous instance all those members were not there, the previous Coin robbery, attempted Coin robbery?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson, I had the idea, but the final decision about it was only after I had informed Captain Davel from Nelspruit Murder and Robbery.

CHAIRPERSON: This is one of the ideas that you had?

MR LAMEY: But the preparation for an ambush was already started in Pretoria?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Could it be that the fact that Mr Nortje and de Kock would not fire shots, could this have been discussed at Nelspruit at the Drum Rock Hotel?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I knew from the beginning that Nortje would not fire shots Mr Chairperson, because I think I recall with the initial, it was pointed out to me with my initial list. I may just add that at that stage I did not know whether Mr de Kock would be present with this operation or not.

MR LAMEY: Did you not add Mr de Kock to the initial list?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I did not Chairperson, he was my Commander. He would decide if he would come along or not.

MR LAMEY: Are you saying that you put him on the list?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: No, he said he was his Commander, he would not put his Commander on the list. It was his decision himself.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr Van den Berg, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. There are two aspects on which I will have to take instructions and I will do that over lunch. I anticipate that my cross-examination will be through before lunch and so if you would afford me the opportunity once Mr Francis is through, just to put those aspects which arise from the instructions which I obtain.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there is some good news in that bad news.

MR VAN DEN BERG: It is the question of the exchange of words between Mrs Leballo and Mrs Mandela and there is one other aspect as well. Mr Holtzhausen, the information which you received from Mr van Zyl in general, if we look at it, it dealt with Endangered Species, smuggling of weapons and you have mentioned specifically an incident in Braamfontein and the black woman who was smuggling weapons and so forth, some of these incidents are not political, is that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If we specifically look at the Braamfontein incident, if I read in between your words, it was not a political incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The persons were arrested and handed over to Brixton Murder and Robbery?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It was people from somewhere else, Zimbabwe or something?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I am not entirely certain where they came from Chairperson, but I have a recollection that some of them were Zimbabweans and later it came to light that they were involved in other robberies as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Just to confirm, this is information which you received from van Zyl?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The five persons who were involved in the Nelspruit incident, may I put it to you as follows, Tsitetso Leballo was a member of the ANC?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I believe so Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: He was military trained?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, I am convinced thereof Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But the largest part of the time that he was outside the country, he spent in Quatro Camp, do you know about that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I don't Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But you are well aware of the connotations attached to Quatro Camp, he was detained there?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I heard that here Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The second family for whom I appear is Mrs Mapwashike, the mother. Nyalinda went to school in Zimbabwe, he travelled between South Africa and Zimbabwe legally with a passport in his own name, he was not attached tot he ANC. Can you dispute that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I cannot Chairperson, but at that time I believed that he was a member of the ANC.

MR VAN DEN BERG: He worked at Rand Proprietary Mines in Johannesburg with his return to South African in 1990, do you know about that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When was the first time that you received information with regard to this group and I use the word "gang", this group, when was the first time that you received information?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I cannot specifically recall. I want to imagine that Mr van Zyl at some stage had told me about them and that he had dealings with them, but where they were specifically mentioned, it was before the first Coin incident.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And it is correct that you in a group had decided already at the Coin incident, to kill these people?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You waited for them at Coin, is that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Heavily armed, is that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: With the instructions to shoot first, is that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is a standing instruction which I had given with every operation of any nature Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You have already been cross-examined with regard to paragraph 15, so I will not question you about that. If we could move to Mr Gouws, you say he was a friend of yours, is that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: From when, when was the first time that you met him, can you recall?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I think we know each other from 1985, 1986.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you aware of his other political activities, the arson at the Ribeiro's? Did he mention that to you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall that he directly mentioned it to me, Chairperson, but I was aware of it that he had been involved in certain activities.

MR VAN DEN BERG: For example Piet Ntuli or the so-called Kwandabele 9?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall any names as such, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The date of the Nelspruit incident, the 25th or 26th of March, how was that date determined, did you determine it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I cannot recall exactly, but I think it was the date on which the wages were made up or during that, over that period and then the money would be available on the premises.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The fact that both, I think at that stage he was a Brigadier, but here he is referred to Gen Engelbrecht and Col de Kock had to attend a meeting in the Game Reserve, did that add anything to it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, I only became aware of it in Nelspruit.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The plan to plant the AK47, as I understood, that was already discussed in Pretoria? It started there or you only thought about it there?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You were convinced that these people would be armed, is that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Why did you then not use their arms, or planned to use their arms?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: To plant the AKs would once again fortify the impression that these people used weapons of terror to commit these robberies, as in the previous instance when I was informed that they only had hand-weapons and the request came from van Zyl for these AKs to ward off any resistance.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What kind of arms did you and the men have at the scene that particular evening?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Do you mean our own weapons?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Your own weapons?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I believe all of us were armed with R5 rifles.

MR VAN DEN BERG: As well as your handguns as well as service pistols?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Any other weapons except for the AK47s?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, there were the two AK47s and I had handgrenades.

MR VAN DEN BERG: There were no other hand-weapons available at the scene?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, I did have Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Except for these that you have already mentioned now?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were these illegal weapons?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes they were Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And these were not planted?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, they were not Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You contradicted yourself in terms of the decision with regard to the petrol and it would seem as if you do not have a clear recollection of it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Because you said to Mr Hattingh that you looked for it, but if you have a look at your affidavit, at page 317, there is a sub-number 9 you say

"... I cannot recall whether it was planned to use petrol, but I can recall that Nortje sent Simon to buy petrol."

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: As I have already said Chairperson, this incident took place in 1992, this statement was taken from me over a course of a few days, I was under pressure, the facts were not clearly put, it was also not put in my own words, although I did sign it later.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You mentioned in your cross-examination of Mr Hattingh that you foresaw the possibility to embarrass Mrs Mandela and the ANC, can you recall that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you recall whether it was before the Coin incident or before Nelspruit or both?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Before the Nelspruit incident Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You assisted Mr de Kock in his criminal trial, is that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: At some stage, when the writing was on the wall, he told you to look after yourself, you agreed to testify against him, is that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What is your attitude today? I understand that you were subpoenaed here but do you have any subjective attitude towards these proceedings?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I stand neutral towards any person and any party here Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Just a further aspect, in your evidence you mentioned that Mrs Mandela was active, do you mean politically active or what did you mean by that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: She was politically active and she was active in the generation of money in illegal manners.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you have any proof of this, except for - yes, you wanted to say?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: She was guilty of many illegalities, Stompie Sepei was one of them, there are many, I cannot recall all of them.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you have any direct proof that she was involved in the planning of robberies of banks for the ANC?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I myself do not have direct evidence Chairperson, but at some stage it came to light from the tapes that was made of her, that she was indeed involved. In this instance, she also knew and that is why shortly afterwards she knew that Tiso was killed, because nobody knew that shortly afterwards that these people had been killed.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Chairperson, that is the one aspect to which I have to receive instructions, but at this stage I do not have any further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, certainly Mr Van den Berg, we will note it as such. Was Mrs Mandela ever prosecuted with regard to any of these allegations?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, it was not the intention to prosecute her directly, because we wouldn't have reached anything.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but in general, was she ever prosecuted for participating in bank robberies?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't think that she was ever physically prosecuted because it was well known that she was protected.

CHAIRPERSON: So is your answer that as far as your knowledge goes, she was never prosecuted with regard to alleged involvement in bank robberies?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Not directly Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And just one other aspect, Mr van Zyl was a member of the Murder and Robbery when you met him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, he had already had his own business, I think it was Panakai Investigations, when I met him the first time. That was indeed with the first incident with Stolz where we arrested the woman with the four AK47s. I did not know him before that.

CHAIRPERSON: According to your knowledge, was he ever involved in the Security Police?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, although it was mentioned to me that he was a very good Murder and Robbery Detective.

CHAIRPERSON: So he was more a man for - a crime policeman?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: He was not a specialist in political matters?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, but as it is clear those are two things which flow into each other.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis, I assume it is you?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FRANCIS: Mr Holtzhausen, I won't be long with you.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, may I interrupt, may I request that my cross-questioning takes place in Afrikaans because it is clear that Mr Francis speaks Afrikaans.

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you just put on the headset?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, it will be uncomfortable for me, he is Afrikaans, so I will accept that he can question me in Afrikaans.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, we will not make an issue of it.

MR FRANCIS: I will try.

CHAIRPERSON: So you don't have a problem with it?

MR FRANCIS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Holtzhausen, you realise that during that period there was a campaign launched against Mandela?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct. That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And we know for a fact that the Security Police were involved?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: I think it is also a fact that after Nelson Mandela was released, I think the year afterwards, he appeared in court with Mrs Winnie Mandela when she was accused of the murder of Stompie Sepei and all the other charges?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot comment on that Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: But it was after the release of Nelson Mandela?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't know Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: I will put it to you as a fact that it was after his release.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I will accept it as such Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And you know that she was not in favour with the Mass Democratic Movement, is that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't have any specific knowledge about that Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: But it is a fact that it was indeed the case and you cannot deny it or dispute it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot deny or dispute it because I didn't follow her whole political career.

MR FRANCIS: Were you a member of the Security Police?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: So then you had to be up to date with regard to matters at grassroots level?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: We were up to date with projects Chairperson, but it was not necessary for us to have specific detail of every politician.

MR FRANCIS: At some stage, I think the beginning of 1991/1991 many of the members distanced themselves from Mrs Winnie Mandela?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I know that some of them did indeed do so, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And at that stage she was very "susceptible " for any illegal activities?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Well Chairperson, any person is susceptible.

MR FRANCIS: But she was never charged, that she became involved in robberies?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It was not my duty to charge her Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: I am not asking you whether it was your duty, but I am just saying that she was not charged?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I will accept it as such.

MR FRANCIS: So the fact that Winnie Mandela was involved, is just speculation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I still believe so Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: That it is speculation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, that she was involved.

MR FRANCIS: But you have no proof?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I don't have any proof Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: So despite the fact that you don't have any proof, you continue with the statement that you believe that she was involved?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: I have no mandate to appear on her behalf, but I will put it to you that your evidence with regard to her, is false?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't understand what you want me to answer to that.

MR BAM: Chairperson, there is no substantiation for that. I don't think the statement can be grabbed out of the air and just be made, it is a belief that the witness has, it is a collateral answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Francis, it is so that Mrs Mandela is not directly represented at these proceedings, she might very well have been notified. It is to that end that the panel has raised the question whether she has been prosecuted or not, in fairness to her, to have that on record as well. So perhaps we have covered that to the best of our ability.

MR FRANCIS: I act on behalf of the Mama family. What information do you have about the deceased in the matter?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I am not entirely certain but I imagine that there was a murder charge against Mama and there was direct evidence where he committed the murder and that he was on the run at that stage, but please note I do speak under correction, but my memory wants to indicate to me that he was the suspect in that particular matter.

MR FRANCIS: But now you are speculating?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: There was a dossier Chairperson, if they bring the dossier, then I will ascertain but I know that one of them and I want to imagine that it was Mama, that he was the person.

CHAIRPERSON: This came out after the incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Beforehand I believed that he was a trained ANC terrorist Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: My instructions are that he was not an ANC member.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: At that stage I believed that he was one, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Holtzhausen, you said you believed that Tiso was and that Tiso was the actual target?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I believed that all of them were trained ANC terrorists. What I had said was that Tiso was the most important one because he liaised directly with Mrs Mandela.

MR FRANCIS: I will not deal with your statement, I think the Advocate has conceded that there are different versions with regard to certain incidents and it is on the record, so I will not waste time on that. It is clear that there are indeed differences. But I will ask you with regard to the claims that were put in, you know about that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: You were present when Mr de Kock gave evidence?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I was not present when he gave evidence Chairperson, but I did hear a part of his cross-examination.

MR FRANCIS: You know at some stage I asked him as to what the procedure was with regard to the claims?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And you recall that he mentioned that what would happen was that he would approve the claim?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: It is sent to his Chief?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: From there it would go to some or other division at Head Office?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Finance Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Yes, Finance. There a person would decide whether the claim will be approved?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And they will decide the amount?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Correct.

MR FRANCIS: And in certain instances, they will find that the amount will be decreased?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: In all the instances it was decreased Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And what would happen further is that a cheque would be written out, it is changed, the cash is sent back to Mr de Kock or somebody?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And then I still asked him about this incident, the Nelspruit incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And he admitted that an amount of R20 000 was received. I then put it to him that an amount between R6 500 and R7 500 was given to Mr van Zyl?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: And I asked him what happened to the rest of the money, do you recall that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: He said that the rest of the money was handed over?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: But now you have said that you don't know whether you yourself went to Head Office?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: You may have been there and you could have received the amount, it may have been in an envelope?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And you think that you may have received the money from de Kock?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is possible Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: What is the correct version?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: As I have already conceded Chairperson, I cannot recall exactly from whom I received the money, whether I received it from Sgt Van Vuuren or from Mr de Kock or whether I collected it myself, all I know is that I did indeed receive it, that is the truth.

MR FRANCIS: So you are saying that the fact that - you knew that you received an amount of R20 000?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: You also know that Mr van Zyl was cross-examined in a criminal trail?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And I think Mr Hattingh said that he rendered his evidence while you were still on their side?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And I understand that you gave them information with regard to certain of the aspects?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And I also hear that at some stage you were present during the trial in the court itself?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: So you know that Mr van Zyl denied that I think you said that he was Daniel Mokaba?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson, because he is not Daniel Mokaba.

MR FRANCIS: Or that he had used that name?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall that specific part of the evidence.

MR FRANCIS: I think if we go back to the judgement and if we go through the record, it is a fact that he denied that he was Daniel Mokaba?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I will accept it as such Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Before I continue with the aspect with regard to the claims, you say that the source never sent in the claim himself?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, I would put in the claims.

MR FRANCIS: Can you recall when you drew up this claim?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It would have been after the incident Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Could it have been on the 30th of March?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is possible.

MR FRANCIS: Tell me about the procedures which you would have followed Mr Holtzhausen?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I drew up a report with regard to the event and then I say that the source placed himself in danger and whatever I had said at that stage and I put it in writing and I send it in along with the application for the claim.

MR FRANCIS: And somebody will approve the claim?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And on that document it would say that the person had approved it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Before I - I will show you a document later which was used during the trial, I have copies of it, it was used as Annexure A, you say that the recommendations that you made was an amount of money for R35 000 to R50 000?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I cannot stand by any amount because I cannot even recall what the amount was.

MR FRANCIS: But you were asked sir, you said the money was between R35 000 and R50 000?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't have a clear recollection and that is why I mentioned those two amounts.

MR FRANCIS: But it had to be between R35 000 and R50 000?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It could have been between R20 000 and R50 000.

MR FRANCIS: But somewhere in between R20 000 and R50 000?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It would not have been less than R20 000 if R20 000 had been approved.

MR FRANCIS: We have heard what Mr Klopper said with regard to the aspect of claims?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: To remind you, he said that in certain instances where they received information, the source did not receive the full amount? That is what he said?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is what he said.

MR FRANCIS: And the source would not have known what amount was recommended by his handler?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Not necessarily Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And the source would not have known at any stage how much money was approved?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Not necessarily Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And to a question from Mr De Jager, he asked what would happen if Head Office pay out an amount of R20 000 and the source receives R5 000, do you remember that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: He said that the source would sign something which indicated that he received R5 000 but somebody at Vlakplaas would have signed that the source did receive R20 000?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, this was not my evidence.

MR FRANCIS: No, this was Klopper's.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I just wanted to say this was not my evidence Chairperson. That is not how it worked.

MR FRANCIS: I am not asking you how it worked, I am telling you what Mr Klopper said.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is what Mr Klopper said, that does not mean necessarily, that he is correct.

MR FRANCIS: I asked of Mr de Kock what happened to the balance of the amount?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: If I recall correctly Chairperson, he said that the full amount would have come to me.

MR FRANCIS: Sir, you recall at some stage you said that you were arrested?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: You were at some point in time, in jail?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, I was detained Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: I will I think you also know that there were many charges against Mr de Kock?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And one of them was charge 9, one of them was fraud, alternatively theft?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't know what charge it was, but there were those charges.

MR FRANCIS: With the Commission's permission, I have made copies of charge 9 and I will hand up copies.

MR HATTINGH: Are these new documents Chairperson, which we have not seen beforehand?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it seems "Indictment - Supplementary Bundle Indictment and Summary of Substantial Facts - de Kock trial", CC22/6/94.

MR HATTINGH: There is some of this in the Bundle, but I don't know whether the documents that are being handed up now - oh, it does come from the Bundle then, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR FRANCIS: Can we mark this as Exhibit I.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, Exhibit I, yes?

MR FRANCIS: And then I also have Annexure A, which also comes from the Bundle, if we could also mark this as Exhibit J, I have made copies of this.

ADV DE JAGER: You say this comes from the Bundle, is this the Bundle that we have before us and does it appear on a certain page in one of these Bundles or are you referring to another Bundle?

MR FRANCIS: I received this from the Commission.

ADV DE JAGER: It is not already before us in this style?

MS PATEL: No, it is not.

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, then I once again have the problem which we addressed earlier, because we are dealing with documents which do not form part of the documents before you, which of course appears to be a new document and this is after Mr de Kock has given his evidence. We have new information coming to light, while we haven't even had the opportunity to deal with it. Why is this being done in light of the request that we have lodged previously? May I also mention Chairperson that during the meeting that was held in February, one of the legal representatives from the families said that we are entitled to withhold information, because we could surprise people with it, and that is the only way that we will ever get to the truth. Then both Chairpersons, Honourable Judge Wilson and Mr Malan stated that this is not a criminal trial, that there should be full disclosure of relevant information from both parties and if there are documents which parties wish to use, they are obliged to hand this in before the commencement of the proceedings. That was the agreement at the pre-hearing conference and at this meeting. When we asked during the pre-hearing conference whether there were any new documents, the answer was no. Once again, we requested at the commencement of these proceedings that if there were to be any new documents, that they please be made available beforehand. Now we are confronted by new documents which Mr de Kock has not had the opportunity to deal with, because this has an effect on his case and he should have the right to give evidence about it, to deal with it and to explain it if necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis?

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, sorry, before Mr Francis responds to that, if I may just accept partial responsibility for this. It appears that there was an administrative bungle up in the office and that the documents that were sent to Mr Francis went out to certain parties only, unbeknown to myself. I, myself, also didn't receive a copy of this Bundle that went out, but in fact it does come from our offices.

CHAIRPERSON: This is really our documents?

MS PATEL: Yes, yes absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON: It has been furnished to Mr Francis at some earlier stage?

MS PATEL: That is right, yes, unfortunately.

CHAIRPERSON: But not to, obviously now not to Mr Hattingh's team?

MS PATEL: No, unfortunately, but it does form, I think the source of the documents is the trial record which I know Mr Hugo has a full set of in any event.

CHAIRPERSON: So this comes from the documents in the trial record?

MS PATEL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: There is no attempt to embarrass anybody?

MS PATEL: No, no, it is part of the indictment as well. I mean one of the Exhibits that were tendered, is in fact an extract from the complete indictment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because I think Mr Hattingh's concern was that somebody expressed a view that they could conduct the proceedings by ambush and that this might be one of those instances?

MS PATEL: No, absolutely not, I accept full responsibility for this bundle up, my apologies Mr Hattingh.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, Mr Francis, we have heard what the position is.

MR FRANCIS: Yes Mr Chairperson, I wasn't part of the ambush, I wasn't at that meeting I think when the question of the ambush was discussed, that parties may want to hand in documents to catch the others off guard.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well it doesn't seem as if you were party to the fact that Mr Hattingh hasn't been furnished with this document, that seems to be on the part of the Committee?

MR FRANCIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Hattingh ...

MR HATTINGH: I hear that Chairperson, I have understanding for it, but that does not change the problem that we have now which is that Mr de Kock has not had the opportunity to study this documentation. The criminal trial record ran up to 18 000 pages along with Exhibits, we simply didn't have time to study everything, due to the clusters which run one after the other. It may be that in light of these facts that will come to light, that I will have to recall Mr de Kock to give further evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that may be necessary.

MR HATTINGH: And that I might have to request that some of the other witnesses who had given evidence as well, will have to return for further cross-examination due to this document.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it is important that everyone has the opportunity to deal with all the relevant documents. But this is what happens in circumstances like these, where we are working under tremendous pressure, I have tried to explain to you that we are trying to accomplish the impossible with pressure on everyone, not only you and your parties who have to be in a position to participate in the proceedings, everyone involved is under tremendous pressure, our staff works like slaves and that is unfortunately the reality. I do apologise if any inconvenience has been caused to you, but we will have to attempt if necessary, to compensate for that. Well now I accept that ...

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I please be notified for the sake of clarity from you, in terms of Ms Patel, is there an additional Bundle of documents which was supposed to have gone to everyone but only arrived at Mr Francis and are these two documents that we have received, part of that additional Bundle or what is the exact position? I must tell you that I was not involved during the de Kock hearing and I don't have the level of knowledge about this that others may have, even though my clients are affected by what is put in these documents and if I look at this documentation that we have just received, it appears to be something that could possibly be of benefit to Mr van Zyl and if there is any such document in possession of Ms Patel, I would wish to see it all.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, apparently this is part of the criminal trial documents, so it isn't really anything secret, it would be part of public record.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but if the documentation from that criminal trial which is in possession of Ms Patel, could potentially be used in the amnesty hearing, I believe that it should be placed at the disposal of all relevant parties. I understand how it didn't come to be available, but what I want to know is if there is additional documents, we should be made privy to these documents. I have attempted to obtain the complete record of the de Kock trial and I have tried to study it, but as Mr Hattingh has said, it is masses and masses of documentation which is locked up at the safe in the Supreme Court and one will have to go through the entire procedure with the transcription staff, to get copies of these documents and there simply isn't enough time to obtain the relevant documentation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I agree with you and I wouldn't be surprised if there are other documents which have not been made available to you, it would appear to be a bona fide administrative fault.

MR LAMEY: I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: So we don't really have time to waste on this matter.

MS PATEL: Sorry Honourable Chairperson, I think what I am going to say is going to curtail your, whatever Mr Lamey is saying. It is in fact a part of the set of documents that I handed to you last week, the judgement and it is merely the indictment and the summary of the facts from the docket and it is a couple of annexures, so you have had insight into it already.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, I understand now where it comes from.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Francis?

MR FRANCIS: I think Mr Chairperson, I am not sure, we also I think were given the sentence, I think, you know the portion where the Judge dealt with the sentence. I also intend I think, using it during these procedures. We were also given a copy thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: I see, you were given a copy by the Committee?

MR FRANCIS: Yes, we also got it from the Committee, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if the parties are interested in these things, you know, they must indicate then. If they are prejudiced and they want to recall their clients, want to reopen their cases, then they must motivate it and we will deal with it. At least now I want these proceedings to carry on.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Holtzhausen, you have Exhibit I before you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Which one would that be?

MR FRANCIS: That is the one which commences with page 5. Would you read aloud to us what the charge against you and Mr de Kock was?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: "... Fraud, alternatively theft."

MR FRANCIS: Please continue.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: "... During the period 24th of March 1992 to 30 June 1992, and at or near Pretoria in the district of Pretoria the accused and Frederik Douglas Reid Holtzhausen unlawfully and falsely and with the intention to defraud, agreed that Daniel Mokaba was a police informer, that Daniel Mokaba provided information which gave lead to the police action as mentioned in charges 1 to 5 and or that the factual set-out of the events as they occurred on the 26th of March 1992 at Nelspruit as contained in the motivation to the claim hereto attached as Annexure A, is correct and or that an amount of R20 000 was handed over to Daniel Mokaba and that the accused and Holtzhausen by means of above-mentioned pretences motivated the South African Police to hand over the amount of R20 000 to the above-mentioned Holtzhausen while in truth and in actuality the accused and Holtzhausen pretended as mentioned, that they were thoroughly aware (1) that Daniel Mokaba was not a police informer and or (2) that Daniel Mokaba did not provide information which led to the police action as mentioned in charges 1 to 5 and or (3) that the factual summary of the events of 26 March 1992 in Nelspruit as contained in the motivation to the claim, in Annexure A is not correct and or that an amount of R20 000 was not handed over to Daniel Mokaba to the detriment of the South African Police and or the State, alternatively theft ..."

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Holtzhausen, that is a little bit too fast for the Interpreters, they are struggling to keep up pace with you. If you could slow down a bit.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I beg your pardon.

"... alternatively theft. During the period 24 March 1992 to 30 June 1992 at or near Pretoria the accused and F.D.R. Holtzhausen unlawfully and intentionally stole the amount of R20 000 from the South African Police and or the State."

MR FRANCIS: Then I would like for you to read Annexure J from the beginning.

MR FRANCIS: "... Application for Remuneration ..."

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis, is it all these pages or are there specific paragraphs? We've got the document?

MR FRANCIS: It is three pages?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but are there specific paragraphs that you want to have highlighted that we need to look at specifically, because we've got the document here?

MR FRANCIS: It will be necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: It might be burdening this record unnecessarily, you know.

MR FRANCIS: I won't ask him to read everything Mr Chairperson, not everything.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: What we mean is it is before us, it is handed in as evidence, you could ask him whether he disputes it or not.

MR FRANCIS: I will do so.

CHAIRPERSON: And then focus just on those parts that you really want to deal with.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Holtzhausen, do you admit that you compiled this document?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, it would appear that I compiled the document.

MR FRANCIS: Do you know whose signature appears on page 44?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It would appear to be that of Mr de Kock, 44, yes.

MR FRANCIS: What is the date of this letter, it is on the first page?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: 30-03-1992.

MR FRANCIS: If we look at page 44, that would be the entire page, paragraph 21, could you read that to us?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: "... it is suggested that an intermediary reward of R20 000 be paid out to the source in order to maintain his loyalty and interest. The source is already busy infiltrating the following group of armed robbers with the accompanying danger, the source is keeping his handler up to date regarding the planned robbery."

MR FRANCIS: Is it correct that the full amount was approved?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, it would appear to be so.

MR FRANCIS: That would be R20 000?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: So your evidence a few moments ago when you said that previously that the amount could have been between R35 000 and R50 000 is not correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: As I have stated, I cannot recall the precise amount for which I applied, I placed it between the course of R35 000 to R50 000, but I was not sure.

MR FRANCIS: And you say that you paid the full amount of money to Mr van Zyl?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: I think that we have also heard that Mr van Zyl denied, or that he will deny that he received the full amount.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is not correct.

MR FRANCIS: I think before I leave these documents, I see that the source is indicated as Daniel Mokaba, that is on page 42?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct, yes.

MR FRANCIS: And I have also consulted the record of the criminal trial and Mr van Zyl denied, I think, that that was his, he denied that he was Daniel Mokaba.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Well, his real name isn't Daniel Mokaba, Chairperson, but that is the name that I gave to him.

MR FRANCIS: You would certainly remember, Mr Holtzhausen, that during the criminal trial, someone signed on behalf of Daniel Mokaba, someone received the money on behalf of Daniel Mokaba?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: I don't have a copy of the document, but Mr van Zyl was confronted with this?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I believe he was.

MR FRANCIS: Once again he denied that he had received that amount?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall that, but I would accept that.

MR FRANCIS: Furthermore I have also studied the judgement of the Judge?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I haven't heard that yet.

MR FRANCIS: And I have also made copies of that for the Committee. This is from the judgement.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Francis?

MR FRANCIS: I am sure we can mark this as Exhibit K?

CHAIRPERSON: Please continue.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Holtzhausen, let us turn to page 12311, that is the judgement of the Judge on page 12311 from line 10.

"... finally with regard to the admissions in Exhibit AA, admissions with regard to charges 8 to 10 in terms of the stipulations of Section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it was admitted that the South African Police paid out an amount of R20 000 in consideration of a claim which was constituted on behalf of a so-called Daniel Mokaba. This affects charge 9."

Can you turn to page 12624 of the same Bundle, where the Judge spoke about charge 9 and the following appears -

"... on behalf of the accused (and I assume that the accused was Mr de Kock, is that correct)?"

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: "... it was conceded that the State has proved its guilt beyond reasonable doubt with regard to this charge. Apparently with the objective on sentence, it was argued that Ben van Zyl with regard to the Nelspruit incident, was a true informer of Holtzhausen and provided information to him about prospective robberies."

And I think on the same page, line 19 -

"... the false version was placed on paper not to deceit, but to disguise the action of members of C10 as argued."

Then I will read further on the same page, the following appears -

"... I have previously indicated that Exhibit 100 the application for remuneration for the unregistered source, Daniel Mokaba, was compiled by Holtzhausen and was signed by the accused. According to this, remuneration was requested for Mokaba for the amount of R20 000, the amount which was recommended by Gen Engelbrecht."

It isn't necessary to read any further.

ADV DE JAGER: I think there is one sentence which may be relevant, and that is the sentence in line 17, just before the sentence that you read. On page 12624

"... further it was argued that the actual informer, van Zyl, did indeed receive the remuneration."?

MR FRANCIS: As it would appear from the evidence, Mr Holtzhausen argues that he did receive it, although Mr de Kock was found guilty on these charges and his legal representative admitted that the State had proven the case beyond reasonable doubt. You would not be able to dispute this, Mr Holtzhausen?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Would you repeat the question please.

MR FRANCIS: You would not be able to dispute that Mr de Kock was found guilty on this charge?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I don't know whether he was found guilty on this specific charge, according to my opinion, it would be unfair.

CHAIRPERSON: You wouldn't know?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I really don't know exactly of which charges he was found guilty.

MR FRANCIS: Yes, he was found guilty on these charges, you would not be able to deny it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I cannot deny it or confirm it.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Holtzhausen, I put it to you that this was the modus operandi that you followed regarding such incidents.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't really understand what you mean when you say modus operandi?

MR FRANCIS: That you would institute false claims and that Vlakplaas' members would take a portion of that money as given evidence to by Mr Klopper?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I would deny that.

MR FRANCIS: I think the documents speak for themselves?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I would deny that.

MR FRANCIS: I will abandon that point at this time. Mr Holtzhausen, you have also submitted a supplementary affidavit?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't know which supplementary affidavit you are referring to.

MR FRANCIS: It was handed in as Exhibit D, is that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't know what Exhibit D is.

MR FRANCIS: Then ask your Advocate next to you to assist you, I don't know whether he has a copy of the document.

MS PATEL: Mr Holtzhausen, perhaps I can assist, it is the document that you handed to me at the very start of these proceedings.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, I understand now Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: I would just like to know, I am uncertain, I don't know which document is being referred to here. Do we have a copy of this? Yes, we do, thank you very much.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Holtzhausen, you were examined by Mr Hattingh, under cross-examination regarding the Carousel incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And you answered his questions, is that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, certain of them.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to Mr de Kock that the events surrounding the Carousel and Nelspruit, indicated that there was a pattern which was followed and I will put to you what I put to him. Firstly that the informer was Mr van Zyl in both cases?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: That you were the handler of Mr van Zyl?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: That the robbers made use of a Toyota Cressida?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: That information was obtained that indicated that they were ANC members?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And I think that you would also know that at a certain stage there was talk that a string of beads was found around the neck of one of the deceased and this led to the question of this person being an ANC member or not?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't know anything about that.

MR FRANCIS: Those three robbers were also shot dead?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And I think that you were asked whether or not weapons or any other such items were planted with them and you were not certain about that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I denied that.

MR FRANCIS: Let us look at Exhibit B, page 4. Let me ask you, on page 5, is that your signature?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't have the document in front of me, he wants me to confirm whether or not this is my signature. That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Please read to us what appears in paragraph 12, but before you begin, I see that this was attested to on the 16th of August?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot hear you.

MR FRANCIS: Your affidavit was attested to on the 16th of August of this year?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Please read to us what appears on page 4, paragraph 12.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, this is about the Carousel incident about which I was originally subpoenaed when it was still submitted to the Commission. It is no longer served before the Committee and I don't understand why I should answer any questions about this incident.

MR FRANCIS: Very well, you don't have to answer anything, I will read to you what appears here.

MR BAM: Chairperson, it may form part of the record, my client has already stated from the beginning what his attitude is regarding the Carousel matter and he is aware that he does not have to answer any questions pertaining to the matter, and he should first be asked whether or not he is prepared to continue with this aspect and answer any questions about that aspect, before anything else is placed once again on record, whether it is read or whether he is asked.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis, do you want to put a portion of that document?

MR FRANCIS: I only want to put a portion of it and obviously if he doesn't want to comment, I think he could say "look, I don't want to comment on it".

CHAIRPERSON: All right, go ahead.

MR FRANCIS: Thank you. Mr Holtzhausen, the following appears on page 4, paragraph 12

"... handguns were found with two of the robbers and at the body of the third, I planted a handgrenade in order to brand the entire incident as political of origin. There was no clear or physical indication or proof that the robbers had a political motive for the robbery, although all my information indicated that."

And you don't wish to comment on that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I have nothing to say about that.

MR FRANCIS: Later I will argue that there is evidence before this Committee that the two incidents are more or less the same, and what is contained within this document ...

MR BAM: Chairperson, with the greatest respect, he can argue what he wants to, but he has the opportunity to put questions to my client. With respect, I would request that he just go ahead.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps you can leave that and argue it in the end. I know that perhaps under normal circumstances, the witness would have had an opportunity to respond to a possible question, but he seems to have said that he is not going to comment on this, so there is no sense in it.

MR FRANCIS: I think I will leave it.

CHAIRPERSON: I think, pursuing it, if you want to argue it eventually, it is fine.

MR FRANCIS: Yes, it will serve no purpose I think, to tell him what I will argue then. Mr Holtzhausen, tell me when did you become a member of Vlakplaas?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: During 1990 if I recall correctly.

MR FRANCIS: When in 1990?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: In September I think.

MR FRANCIS: And before that, where were you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I beg your pardon?

MR FRANCIS: Where were you before that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I was a member of the Diamond and Gold Unit.

MR FRANCIS: Therefore you have Detective experience?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And if I understand correctly, at a certain stage Vlakplaas did not have Detectives?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And that is why you went there, to assist them with detection?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is not entirely correct.

MR FRANCIS: What is correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I went to Vlakplaas because I knew most of the people there, I myself was a former Koevoet member as many of the others were, and with regard to the experience that I had gained with the Diamond and Gold Unit and shifting over to a Unit that was going to be undertaking crime prevention, I felt that this would be beneficial to me. I even presented lectures at certain times.

MR FRANCIS: To whom?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Mainly to the askaris, but some of the white members also sat in on the lectures.

MR FRANCIS: Who of the white members participated?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, it is impossible for me to say who, when and where.

MR FRANCIS: Some of the applicants?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It is possible that some of them were there from time to time.

MR FRANCIS: Is it correct that Gen Engelbrecht at a stage told you that the activities of Vlakplaas would have to change?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He did tell us that we would have to start focusing on crime in order to improve the image of Vlakplaas and to change the image of Vlakplaas.

MR FRANCIS: And at the beginning of 1991, he said that Vlakplaas would have to focus entirely on crime prevention?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I never received an order for us to focus completely on crime. However, during my time at Koevoet, it was also said that Koevoet had a bad name and that we had to start moving away from that. We were given new uniforms and the name changed to SWAPOLTIN, but we still continued to hunt down people in exactly the same fashion and we dealt with people in exactly the same way.

MR FRANCIS: After the ANC was unbanned, and the PAC was unbanned, there was not more talk of terrorism, was there?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, that is not correct. Many still continued with their activities, and many of them still continue today with their activities.

MR FRANCIS: Just as many of the Vlakplaas members continue with their activities, I am sure that some people would regard Vlakplaas members as terrorists?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That may be so, but Vlakplaas no longer exists.

MR FRANCIS: Well let us just pause, in which activities was Mama involved?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't understand.

MR FRANCIS: He was one of the deceased from the Nelspruit incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I believed that he was a member of the ANC and a trained terrorist.

MR FRANCIS: But in which activities was he involved, were they of a terrorist nature?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't have firsthand knowledge of his precise activities, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And less so even Mr van Zyl would have knowledge of his activities?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot speculate about that.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Holtzhausen, you said that after you had spoken to Captain Davel in Nelspruit, you made sure that you would find him in the canteen?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: He had begun drinking at that stage?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: And you knew that there was no possibility that his members would become involved?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I did not have the assurance, but I foresaw that that is how the circumstances would be.

MR FRANCIS: That was your plan?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: Why did you take Murder and Robbery from Pretoria with?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: These were members who I could trust with regard to what was going to happen ultimately.

MR FRANCIS: Some of them had also been Koevoet members?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, some of them had been Koevoet members, but - I was still busy with my answer.

MR FRANCIS: You may proceed.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Because the set-up had already been shaped to colour this Murder and Robbery.

MR FRANCIS: But all the members who were involved, had some or other connection with Vlakplaas, that would be Captain Geldenhuys, Gouws and I have forgotten the name of the third, Boshoff?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Gouws did not have direct connections and Boshoff neither and nor did Geldenhuys.

MR FRANCIS: I will consult their statements later, but I would imagine that this is the case. However, I speak under correction.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: None of them ever performed duty at Vlakplaas, to the best of my knowledge.

MR FRANCIS: But you say that the reason why you did not want Murder and Robbery from Nelspruit to be involved in the matter was you would not have been able to continue with the trap and the shooting?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And I think I imagine that you said that you didn't really have much faith in the Nelspruit people, that you had more faith in the Pretoria Murder and Robbery Unit?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Nortje yesterday testified and said that he acted under the orders of Mr de Kock at the Drum Rock Hotel and that he received the order to go and buy petrol. He was not certain of the precise amount, but he was certain that he received that order from Mr de Kock, would you deny this?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, as I have already testified, I don't have a clear recollection regarding the petrol, and I would imagine almost that I was the one who requested the petrol, however I have no clear recollection about this.

MR FRANCIS: It is a simple question, would you deny what he said regarding the fact that he received an order from Mr de Kock to buy the petrol?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot deny it, but I sincerely doubt it.

MR FRANCIS: You have heard what Mr Klopper said? He said that when he and Mr de Kock arrived at Nelspruit, they were both rather drunk?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Not one of the members was at any time inebriated as a result of the alcohol that they had consumed under my observation.

MR FRANCIS: I don't really trust your observational capacity, because ...

MR BAM: Chairperson, these questions are aimed at an argument. The version has been put and the answer has been given, I really don't know what Mr Francis wants my client to say any further, with the greatest respect.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that he is putting the complete picture to your client.

MR FRANCIS: That is correct and it is also about credibility Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, of course there are limits to the relevance of that for our purpose, especially if it is a collateral matter, I think Mr Bam has indicated earlier if it is a collateral matter, of course the answer of the witness is final, you cannot go into a dispute on that.

MR FRANCIS: I accept that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR FRANCIS: Furthermore he testified, this is Mr Nortje, that he knows for a fact that Mr de Kock was in his room when the incident was planned?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I have no recollection that I ever saw him in that room.

MR FRANCIS: When you refer to no recollection, are you saying that it did not take place or that you just don't recall it taking place, it is possible, but you don't know?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I didn't see him, I don't recall seeing him, so I don't believe that he could have been there, seeing as I had only seen him earlier that afternoon.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Nortje furthermore gave evidence and stated that when the kombi was under observation by him, Mr de Kock arrived there at a certain stage, you wouldn't know about that?

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

MR FRANCIS: I think that at a stage after the shooting desisted, he arrived there at the scene and Mr de Kock said that one of the persons who had been tossed out of the vehicle, had to be shot by Nortje and Nortje refused?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Would you repeat the question please.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Nortje gave evidence that when he arrived at the scene after the shooting had taken place, Mr de Kock told him that he had to shoot one of the persons who had been hurled out of the kombi?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't know about that.

MR FRANCIS: And Mr de Kock also gave evidence and stated that at a stage he wanted to shoot the person, but then Geldenhuys stopped him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot comment on that Chairperson, I don't know about it.

MR FRANCIS: When you say that you do not know about it, do you say that it may have taken place but that you simply don't know?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I had many things to do at that stage, I wasn't watching every single person or listening to every person either. I had to fire shots within the minibus, plant the handgrenades, the vehicle had to be set alight, all those things were done within a matter of seconds. I did not pay attention to any of the other members at that stage.

MR FRANCIS: Furthermore Mr Nortje testified and said that Ben van Zyl arrived there at a certain point, at the scene and that is when he spoke to you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And you and Nortje then went to Mr de Kock and you told him that Tiso was not in the kombi?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: As I have already testified, I don't have a clear or direct recollection that we went to him before the time, I know that we went to him after the time, but I can no longer recall, I am not certain whether we went to him before the time, I really cannot recall it. At that stage many things were going through my mind, there were lots of things to do, including the fact that Tiso was not there. This created even more problems.

MR FRANCIS: Let us look at page 319 of your statement, paragraph 46. The following appears there

"... Ben van Zyl approached me, he appeared anxious. Ben told me that Tiso was waiting next to the road and that he had to be found, or otherwise he, who was Ben, would be a dead man. Ben and I went to Lt-Col de Kock where he was standing. I think the handgrenades exploded during this time. Bullets also began going off as a result of the heat inside the kombi. On the way to de Kock I asked him with what sort of weapons the robbers had been armed and he told me that they had handguns. He said that he had seen when one of them had tucked a pistol in the front of his trousers when they climbed from the Cressida to the kombi. When we arrived at de Kock, I explained to him that Tiso was not one of the persons in the kombi and that according to Ben van Zyl, he was waiting at Hall's Gateway. Nortje and I as well as Simon and Eric were sent to look for him."

You recall that now?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I still don't recall that this is the way it took place. As I have already said previously, this statement was compiled many years after the incident, it was not my own handwriting, it was over a period, that is all that I can say.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

ADV DE JAGER: But the compiler would have had to obtain this information from you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson, but as I have stated, not everything is in the correct sequence. Such as for example, according to the information within the statements, it says "I think the handgrenades began going off", and that indicates that I didn't know whether it was at that time or before that time or later. That means I wasn't really sure when this statement was compiled.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn and reconvene at two o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

FREDERIK DOUGLAS REID HOLTZHAUSEN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. Mr Francis, have you got any further questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FRANCIS: (continued) Mr Holtzhausen, before we adjourned, we were busy with paragraph 46. Mr Nortje confirmed what is said in this paragraph, he says that he went along with you to de Kock and informed him that Tiso was not part of the robbers, or amongst the robbers?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I cannot deny or confirm it, I do not have a clear recollection about it.

MR FRANCIS: When you made the statement, your recollection was clear?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, because as I say here clearly, "I think the handgrenades went off during that time", it is not clear, I was not one hundred percent certain of my facts.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Holtzhausen, let us test that. You say because you included the words "I think", it is indicative that you were not certain?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: I will put it to you that any unclarities with regard to the handgrenades which exploded at that time, but you are clear that you accompanied Ben van Zyl to Col de Kock, the only thing that might be unclear is whether the handgrenades exploded at that stage, please have a look at that statement.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I have seen it Chairperson, that is how it is noted.

MR FRANCIS: Do you agree with me that in the third line which starts with "I think that the handgrenades exploded during this period", that was the only uncertainty with you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, as I have said already, this statement was not drawn up by myself, it was drawn up by the person who questioned me and at times, I was questioned by several people during drawing up of the statement.

MR FRANCIS: But that person did not tell you what happened there?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, I conveyed a version, I was questioned about it, and it was noted. It is not a word for word note that was taken down.

MR FRANCIS: I will refer you to Exhibit B, on page 5, paragraph 13 and this is with regard to the Nelspruit 4 and Tiso.

"... In this regard I refer to my statement dated the 21st of August 1995 in which all the information is embodied (page 306 to 321 of the documents). I wish to stand by what I have said in that statement, I confirm it as true and correct."

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is so Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: So the inference that I draw is that you had read the statement, read it once again, because it was attached to Exhibit B and you confirmed it as correct and true?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is so Chairperson, although I did read the statement and I did not go and sit down and think about every small point, I did not dissect it in that sense, I did not want to go through that trauma again of drawing up another statement and this is as close as to what my memory will allow me.

MR FRANCIS: You don't know why Nortje will say that you went along with him to de Kock about Tiso, before you went to look for Tiso?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot speculate about that Chairperson. I do not have a recollection of that.

MR FRANCIS: In your evidence-in-chief you said that you spoke to Mr de Kock about Tiso?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, at some stage I did talk to him.

MR BAM: I beg your pardon Chairperson, that was not in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: I just wanted to say, I think that would have been under cross-examination by Mr Hattingh.

MR FRANCIS: May I put that correctly, under cross-examination by Mr Hattingh you said that you had indeed - let me just make sure - under cross-examination you said that, and I do speak under correction, that you had indeed approached Mr de Kock before you went to look for Tiso and I think at a later stage you gave another version?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I was not certain about it Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: But why do you testify about things when you are not certain?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Because I am questioned about it Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Was your intention to lie to the Commission?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Not at all Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: I think that is his problem, he said it a hundred times, but the Advocate continues. I do not blame you, I know that is your work, but nobody stood by an answer that he said, where he said "I am not sure, I don't know", questions are continually asked about it.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Holtzhausen, I put it to you that what is entailed in your statement which is dated, the one that you made in 1995 is the true version is certain aspects?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, Mr Francis answered it himself, in certain aspects true and correct, there are parts of which I am not certain of.

MR FRANCIS: And you would probably not be able to tell us why there are differences between your version and Mr van Zyl's version?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, every single person has his own perception as to how he observes something, no two witnesses make the same observations and no two persons express themselves in the same manner.

MR FRANCIS: I am not referring to perceptions or observations, I am referring to information which Mr van Zyl gave to you with regard to Tiso.

MR BAM: Mr Chairperson, I think it is unfair to expect of my client why another person differs from him, I think at the end there can be an argument so that the Commission pays attention to it and considers it, but I do not think it is a fair question to this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: How important is this to your case?

MR FRANCIS: I think I will rather leave it there.

CHAIRPERSON: Are those on the record?

MR FRANCIS: The record speaks for itself.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock testified and said that you approached him with information that Ben van Zyl had informed you about that a trained member was the driver of Winnie Mandela and he was in the process of smuggling weapons?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson ...

MR FRANCIS: Did you mention it to him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I cannot recall that I spoke of weapon smuggling, the inference can be drawn from the weapon smuggling because it was embodied in my Intelligence note which I had drawn up at that stage.

MR FRANCIS: No, but your Intelligence note was drawn up on the 24th of March 1992 and Mr de Kock said he could not say exactly when in 1992 it was, so he says during 1992, he could not have said when it was.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I believe that during the preparations Mr de Kock was in possession of these documents and he could have based his recollection on these documents. I cannot pertinently recall that I told him about the smuggling of weapons, but it is possible.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Nortje on page 157 of his statement, that is paragraph 3 said the following - or before I ask that of you, at which stage did you realise that the kombi belonged to somebody else?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, right from the beginning I knew that the kombi would belong to somebody. Only during the trial of Mr de Kock, I surmised who the kombi belonged to.

MR FRANCIS: Did you also know that Mr de Kock made sure that the vehicle was insured?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't know about that Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And I think once again it is on record that some other person said that they later surmised that Mr de Kock had ulterior motives with regard to the kombi.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot speculate about that Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And that he wanted his friend, I think Mannie or somebody spoke of Fatman, who would later put in a claim.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, it did not carry any weight with me and I was not interested if there were any ulterior motives.

MR FRANCIS: This Daniel Mokaba whom you used as a source, what happened to him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I think it is common cause that this was a fictional person, no such person existed.

MR FRANCIS: Was there no talk that at some point in time he was a taxi driver who disappeared?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't know anything about that Chairperson, as I have said as the English will say it was figment of my imagination, the name.

MR FRANCIS: Sir, can you tell us at which stage did Mr de Kock become involved in the operation, or was he involved in the planning of the operation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: As my Commander he was involved, because first of all I had to get his permission, I submitted my list and all those types of things Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: You kept him up to date at each stage?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: As far as possible. I would not say directly, but on occasion when I could inform him, I did bring him up to date.

MR FRANCIS: Before you departed for Nelspruit, you informed him of the request of Ben van Zyl that the robbers be killed?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, as I have already said I don't have a clear recollection of that, I am not sure.

MR FRANCIS: If I refer you to your paragraph, you also will not have a recollection, if I refer you to your statement, you will also not have a recollection?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Where in my statement?

MR FRANCIS: If we look at page 309, paragraph 13

"... I kept my Commander, Lt-Col de Kock up to date of my discussions and information which was given to me by Ben, the request with regard to the killing was conveyed and he said he wanted to speak to me about the killing. I had the impression Mr de Kock wanted to clear out the statement, the information later."

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't have a clear recollection about that Chairperson, as I have said.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Holtzhausen, I put it to you that you are now misleading us about these incidents and that you are hiding behind the fact that you are saying that you do not have a recollection of the events.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Mr Chairperson, I have no reason to try and mislead this Committee. I cannot draw any benefit from it, so I will deny that.

MR FRANCIS: I think eventually I will just be wasting ... (tape ends) ... put any questions to you because it is clear that you will not tell the truth to us.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: With respect, if Mr Francis wants somebody to agree with him, he will find one.

MR FRANCIS: That we are lying? Excuse me, I don't have any further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR FRANCIS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Francis. Mr Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. Mr Holtzhausen, there is just two

aspects that I would like clarity on. The information that you had at the time when you took over Ben van Zyl as a source, about him being handled by Craig Williamson, did that have a bearing on your relationship with him, on whether or not you trusted him or can't you recall?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, the information that he had indeed been handled by Craig Williamson, caused me to handle him with caution in a sense that I would not take any chances with him by trying to con him as in regard of his money.

MS PATEL: Okay, but it didn't have a bearing on you in terms of whether you would trust him or not, he didn't become a more trustworthy source to you simply because he was handled by Craig Williamson at some stage or not, that is all I am asking?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I am not sure, I am not entirely certain if at that stage what I had thought or what weight it carried with me. It could have played a role, but I am not certain.

CHAIRPERSON: I do not understand what you mean when you talk about conning, when you thought that when you heard that this man had connections with Craig Williamson, I am not going to try to con this person?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, no, maybe I have expressed myself incorrectly, there is no way that that played a role or if there was any intention to con him, and the allegation is being made here that I stole money and so forth, and I mean there was no way that that could happen.

CHAIRPERSON: But was there an issue with regard to Craig Williamson and the conning?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So you did not intend to say that when you found out about this man's background, that you thought no, it won't help me to con this man?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, not at all.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not think about conning at all?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Not at all Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That was of what was said here during these proceedings?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That you rendered that response?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, and then just finally I just need some clarity in my mind about the distinction in your modus operandi between the first Coin Security incident, the aborted attempt and the second one. Do I understand you correctly that the intention with the first one would have been if at all possible, to arrest rather than to kill?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson.

MS PATEL: And with the second incident, the intention was to kill?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Okay. Do I also understand you correctly that the reason why the intention to kill came about the second incident, was primarily because of Tiso's link with Winnie Mandela?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Okay, thank you Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Patel. Coin was arrest rather than kill and Nelspruit was kill rather than arrest?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You could also arrest them if you wanted to?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: In regard with which one do you refer to?

CHAIRPERSON: Nelspruit, where it was kill rather than arrest?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Arrest is always or is chiefly usually possible Chairperson, but there was no intention to arrest them at the second incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what I mean is there was no situation which prevented it, it was a conscious decision that was taken?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Kill rather than arrest?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Just another aspect, is it indeed so that you never investigated whatsoever in this regard with regard to the background of these robbers?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, I depended totally on van Zyl's judgement and the information that he conveyed to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Your position is so much so that you are not able to with regard to what was put to you with regard to the personal circumstances of these robbers, to dispute from personal knowledge?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, I have to depend on what I have heard and what was later put to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any other questions from the panel?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairperson, may I put a question emanating from Exhibit J which was now put or handed up?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Holtzhausen, Exhibit J, do you have it before you? I note that this document is classified "Top Secret"?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Correct.

MR LAMEY: Is that the most secret classification which is attached to documents?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: So everyone who handled the document in the channel, would they have handled it on that basis?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It would have been expected Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Because of that fact, why could you not use the name Van Kloosder?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Because I think there is much evidence led about Operation Vula, it is not unknown that there were spies in the police and still remain today, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Johan van Kloosder was also a false name, or an informer's name under cover, so you have double security with the source, firstly another name for the source and secondly you have a top secret channel?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is true Chairperson, but Johan van Kloosder was the name Ben van Zyl was to use, and this name was also known to other members and this included the askaris and some of them had double agenda's.

MR LAMEY: Why do you say that, why would the askaris have known that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Because there is much talk amongst the members from time to time.

MR LAMEY: Was the principle of need to know not applied very strictly Mr Holtzhausen?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: To a great extent Chairperson, but indeed it did happen that certain bits of information came about.

MR LAMEY: I have no further questions Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey.

ADV DE JAGER: Just one question, was there any other claim for a source handed in other than this Mokaba claim?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: With regard to Nelspruit?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: No claim was handed in in the name of Van Kloosder?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: So two claims were not submitted?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

ADV DE JAGER: If he had received money, whether it be R1 or R100, it would have come from this money?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: May I also put questions Chairperson, and may we also note that we have not received the full Bundle of which was mentioned, and I have heard that it is before you. Ms Patel has said that she would make copies for us and it might be that questions may also emanate from there, as soon as I know what was this about and thank you Chairperson. Mr Holtzhausen, I would also like to discuss Exhibit J with you. If one looks at Exhibit J and the contents thereof, then it contains false statements?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: For example in paragraph 2 there is the statement that the AK47s which they would have allegedly fetched from Komatipoort, was to be used during an armed robbery in Pretoria?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is false Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And for example as well that there was a mobile roadblock as well as observation points which were used, the roadblock section was false?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, that is false.

MR HATTINGH: And on paragraph 7 that the mobile roadblock was brought into position before the incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is not true Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And that the silver colour BMW decreased speed and it seemed as if it would stop and then all of a sudden accelerated?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is not true Chairperson, he accelerated immediately because he knew what would happen.

MR HATTINGH: And that somebody fired on you with automatic weapons, that is also false?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is also false Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And that after the vehicle had stopped, once again shots were fired at you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is not true Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And that AKs were found in the vehicle as if it was found there for the first time, that is also not true?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is not true Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And strictly speaking the informer was not Daniel Mokaba?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is not true Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: That is what the information in the indictment is based on and the judgement to which is referred to, the judgement of His Worship Judge Van der Merwe where he says at page 12624, he says

"... apparently with the intention of sentencing Ben van Zyl with regard to the Nelspruit incident was a true informer of Holtzhausen and had provided information to him with regard to the prospective robbery and it is argued that if the true facts had come around, then van Zyl was justified in receiving his money although it might have been less because Tiso and company were real robbers and were intended on committing robbery and it indicates that van Zyl had indeed received his rewarding. The false version was not to mislead, but in order to cover up members of C10's involvement."

Nowhere do I find a judgement that the money had not been paid over?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: The use of a false name, let's call it a false name for an informer, I think you have already given the answer, was that to prevent that his correct identity could be determined?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And when one uses such a false name, under what name does the person sign the receipt, which name does he use to sign the receipt?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Sometimes Chairperson, he uses the name that you use for him and sometimes a separate set of receipts is kept and he has to sign it in order to balance the journals and cash books.

MR HATTINGH: In this case where it says Daniel Mokaba, does it sometimes happen that he signs Daniel Mokaba?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It does happen Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You cannot recall what happened here?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall Chairperson, in this instance.

MR HATTINGH: If you grant me a moment Chairperson. May I ask something which does not emanate from the new documents, which I have omitted to ask the witness, I will not be long, it is only a singular aspect, thank you Chairperson. The fact that in your statement you mention that the robbers were involved in a dispute with Mrs Mandela and that they wanted to commit this robbery for themselves, you have heard Mr de Kock's evidence that such information was not provided?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is it true that you did not convey that information to him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't have a direct recollection that I indeed did so Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. Mr Bam, do you have any re-examination?

MR BAM: I think Mr Van den Berg said that there were two aspects? I can continue if you can grant me the opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van den Berg is satisfied, so you can conclude.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BAM: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Holtzhausen, you have testified that if there was any danger, it was a standing order that the police should fire first and explain afterwards? What do you mean if there was danger?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, when someone is armed with a weapon in his hand, it is not a friendly gesture, therefore I will fire first and explain later.

MR BAM: So you mean if somebody came to rob with a firearm in his hand?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BAM: The Intelligence note which was sent through, I think it is on page 375, this Intelligence note goes to the officers through the channels, is a stamp put on this Intelligence note that it is approved, approval is given to what is proposed there? What is the position?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, the Intelligence note serves to give information. What is approved is the travelling plan and the travelling plan states that an operation is planned, because of the information. The information is not approved, that is just information, but the travelling plan is approved and approval is given that one can continue with the arrangements for travel.

MR BAM: So there would not be approval to you that you can go and catch smugglers between Mamelodi and Komatipoort?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, not verbally. No Chairperson, by implication it is that one can continue with the work as it is proposed in the Intelligence note.

MR BAM: There has been contradictory evidence which has been made, you say that he received R20 000 with regard to Mr van Zyl?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR BAM: Do you know what he does with the R20 000 if he receives it, do you know what he does with it? Does he use it for himself, does he put it in his pocket, what does he do with it, do you know? What did he usually do?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, he has to pay his own sources and I believe that they insisted upon a part of the money. He had to divide it and on occasion when I was present in his office, he had after he had counted the money, put a part of it in his desk and the rest he gave to his secretary to take to the bank.

MR BAM: So for example if you had given him the R20 000 it does not mean that he will use that R20 000 for himself and put it in his pocket or in his banking account?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, he would have to share it.

MR BAM: Was there any other contact with regard to the Nelspruit incident, I think the names have been mentioned?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Hamilton was definitely the middle man between Tiso.

MR BAM: Who had to pay Hamilton, you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, it was van Zyl's duty to pay his people.

MR BAM: At the scene, after the shooting had taken place, and you determined that Tiso was not there, let me ask you as follows, how long did this incident take place from the time when you fired the first shots up to the time when you determined that Tiso was not there?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, it was very fast, it is a matter of minutes.

MR BAM: And when you found that Tiso was not there, did you if I understand your evidence correctly, realise that he had to be traced?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson. It was an urgent matter.

MR BAM: Did you have opportunity to stand around before you looked for Tiso?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR BAM: And you say it was urgent?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is so Chairperson, because he may have heard the shots and departed because Hall's Gateway is not very far from there and the clouds were quite low that evening, so it was a tremendous noise. I think people later on said that 20 kilometres from there, they had heard the shots fired.

MR BAM: I think you have said that you regarded Mr van Zyl as an A1 informer, was there any reason for you to doubt the information which he gave you that the robbers actually wanted to commit robbery in order to bolster the ANC's coffers?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Not at all Chairperson.

MR BAM: This act as you have described it, coupled with a political crime activities, how did you regard it, was it a common robbery, was it a terrorist activity, how did you regard it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Mr Chairperson, I considered it as an act of terror. I have come a long way with terrorists and it goes completely against my grain and that is what moved me to take this action ... (transcriber's own interpretation)

MR BAM: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BAM

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Bam. Mr Holtzhausen, thank you very much, you are excused.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I want to call Mr van Zyl, but I would like to say that I would like to have insight to those documents before his evidence is led.

CHAIRPERSON: Which documents?

MR LAMEY: The documents in Ms Patel's possession, which now serves before the Committee. I am thinking about it in terms of the evidence which Mr Holtzhausen has given here, I don't know, I did not take it up with Mr Cornelius, I don't know whether any of his clients are ready to begin?

MR CORNELIUS: We have arranged Chairperson, that van Zyl would be next and that is how I did my planning.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is what I want to see happening.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Chairperson, may I request a short adjournment so that I can have a look at those documents to see if there is anything?

MR HATTINGH: Before you adjourn Chairperson, may I ask that Mr de Kock has to be back early today, we have no problem if he could be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, we will excuse Mr de Kock, so you can take him back.

MR BAM: Chairperson, before you adjourn, sorry to interrupt, will you please officially excuse myself and Mr Holtzhausen.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think the parties have a problem with that, you will be available if needed, thank you, thank you for your assistance Mr Bam and you, Mr Holtzhausen as well, thank you very much. Please give us an indication, we are adjourned.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS