Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: What language will Mr Olifant be using in giving his testimony before us?

MR LAMEY: My instructions are, English, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Olifant, it has been brought to my attention that the administration of your oath was not recorded, so will you please again rise in order to have your oath recorded.

MANUEL ANTONIO OLIFANT: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may take a seat.

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Olifant, in the bundle before you this Panel there is on page 146 to 152, an initial application dated the 11th of December 1996, signed before a Commissioner of Oaths, Andrew Liesk. Can I just lead you on this. Is this the first application that you submitted to the TRC with the assistance of the Investigating Team of the Attorney-General of Transvaal, to which was an annexure listing the incidents that you want to apply for amnesty?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Now could you just have a look at item 15 on page 152, is that the present incident that is to be heard that you mentioned in that annexure?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Now there's further in the bundle on page 154 to 160, a form, an amnesty application form and then after that there is a statement on page 161 up to page 170 in the bundle. I don't see your signature on the statement from 160 to that. Can you just explain how - do you have any knowledge of this and how this came about?

MR OLIFANT: I was approached by two members of the TRC. They requested me to give the statement of the incident, of which I did so.

MR LAMEY: And was it later typed?

MR OLIFANT: It was, yes.

MR LAMEY: But did you ever sign the typed version of that?

MR OLIFANT: No, I didn't.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that you wish to rely in this hearing on the supplementary statement which you have made in consultation, after consultation with your legal representative, Mr Rossouw, which appears on page 171 up to page 209?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Which was signed before a Commissioner of Oaths.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: You will also later when we deal with the particulars, explain and elaborate further on certain aspects that you have provided me with instructions on, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Now the particulars of this incident starts on page 194 and continues up to 200, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Headed "The Murder of Three ANC Cadres", is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Which we all know have been referred to as Nceba, Castro and Elias.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: And we've also heard their full names, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Could you just have a look at paragraph 1 - Chairperson, may I proceed on the basis to move on and just get to those aspects which need further clarification?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you confirm, Mr Olifant, the correctness of the facts contained in the statement that Mr Lamey has referred to, that you signed on the 11th of December 1997?

MR LAMEY: May I just repeat, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Do you confirm the correctness of the statement which you have signed before, on 11 December 1997?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, I do confirm, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: And I will come back to you now on certain aspects that you want to further clarify. The first aspect. On page 195, paragraph 1, you say

"On the 29th of July 1989, Lt Pretorius instructed us to remove Nceba and his two friends who were nicknamed Castro and Elias, from society."

Now can you recall what the precise words of Pretorius were at that stage?

MR OLIFANT: The precise words I cannot remember, but I know for a fact that he mentioned something in relation to what I've stated.

MR LAMEY: What do you mean, what was the essence of the instruction?

MR OLIFANT: Anyway it was to eliminate the three activists.

MR LAMEY: The wording that you've used here, this was your own wording? - in your statement.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: By intending to convey that meaning.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Where are you reading from, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: It's page 195, Chairperson, the paragraph 1 under Nature and Particulars ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I want to know the line, what line?

MR LAMEY: Round about - I haven't counted the lines, it's just after the middle of that paragraph where the date is mentioned, 29 July 19...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR LAMEY: Then if I can move over, Mr Olifant, to page 196. Chairperson, I'm at paragraph 2, the first third of that paragraph. You stated here

"Their mission was to destroy railway bridges with limpet mines. The railway bridges being Midway Bridge, Klipspruit Bridge and Umzimhlope Bridge."

Now you've heard the evidence here about the signal boxes and you have referred here to the railway bridges. Could you just explain here the situation.

MR OLIFANT: Well the signal boxes were in fact next to the bridges. That's the reason why I had to state no, they were the bridges.

MR LAMEY: So the signal boxes were located at these railway bridges?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: So it is correct then as far as you are concerned, that it was also the signal boxes that were actually the intention of the, or the supposed target?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: And not the bridges as such?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Now just more to the bottom - Chairperson, it's in fact the last sentence on page 196, you stated here

"Lt Pretorius instructed Peter Lengene, Monyane and Linda Moni to make sure that the limpet mines were placed nearby ...(indistinct) and if they failed to pull out the pins of the limpet mines they should shoot them with the AK47 rifles."

What do you recall of the instruction of Pretorius?

MR OLIFANT: Well the instruction was as follows. If anything should go wrong they should shoot.

MR LAMEY: Okay. And why did you mention the pulling, the pull of the pins in this context?

MR OLIFANT: Could you please come back.

MR LAMEY: You've mentioned here in the paragraph

"... and if they failed to pull the pins of the limpet mines they should shoot them."

Could you just explain why you've mentioned this.

MR OLIFANT: Maybe that is the way how I had state the matter, to say that no, if anything should go wrong they should shoot.

MR LAMEY: Is it what you had in your mind as something that could go wrong, that they might fail to pull out the pins.

MR OLIFANT: Well we never thought so initially, we thought that everything would go according to the plans.

MR LAMEY: Right, you thought that they would be blown up with the limpet mines, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: But now in the context of anything that can go wrong, did you think yourself that they might fail to pull the pins?

MR OLIFANT: Should anything go wrong with that things, maybe if the activists they tried to sort of like you know, kill the policemen or in any unfortunate event I would say, they would just defend themselves.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Olifant, did Mr Pretorius specifically say if the activists fail to pull the pins from the limpet mines, they should be shot at by Mr Moni, Lengene and Monyane? Did he say that?

MR OLIFANT: No, he didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he specifically referred to the failure by the activists to pull the pins from the limpet mines?

MR OLIFANT: No, he didn't say so, it's what I actually thought.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were thinking here, you were wrong in saying it as a fact, as if these were instructions given by Pretorius to your colleagues.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Then just to carry on page 197, paragraph 5 where you have given evidence about the bodies that were picked up, collected, the bodies of Elias and Castro and thrown into the kombi. How do you know this, were you there?

MR OLIFANT: No, I wasn't there, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Where were you when that happened?

MR OLIFANT: I had remained at the Gys, that was our farm.

MR LAMEY: How did it happen that you didn't go along to collect the bodies?

MR OLIFANT: You know after the incident everyone to convene into the farm, but unfortunately we ...(indistinct) Monyane was not at the farm at that time, so Mr Pretorius suggested no, since Monyane's not here you men must just quickly drive up to you know, to the scene, just pass by you know, in order to check whether you can see whether Monyane's around or what happened to Monyane, or something like that. And at that time while I was away, that happened that Mr Pretorius and Linda Moni, Peter Lengene and a Mr Steenberg, then they went away to go collect the bodies.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was assisting you Mr Olifant, in drawing up this affidavit?

MR OLIFANT: If you may repeat the question, Madam.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was assisting you in drawing up your affidavit?

MR OLIFANT: Mr Fanie Rossouw.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just asking this because I get a little confused when reading your affidavit. You have stated that you had to wait for Mr Monyane and so Mr Monyane couldn't have been part of the delegation that went to look for the bodies of the activists, but then in your affidavit you actually put Mr Monyane as having gone to collect the bodies of Elias and Castro.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you again explain that you did not participate in the group that went to collect the said bodies. It's a little confusing. That paragraph, when you read it, it's very confusing.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, can I just lead the evidence further on this aspect. The Chairperson is referring to I think the first line where you stated that Peter Lengene, Linda Moni, Monyane, Lt Pretorius and Lt Steenberg went to collect the bodies. Could you just explain to the Committee how did this happen. You said that you went to look for Monyane, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you find Monyane?

MR OLIFANT: I never found him.

MR LAMEY: What did you do then?

MR OLIFANT: I went back to the farm.

MR LAMEY: And when you arrived at the farm, what did you find there?

MR OLIFANT: I found nobody there, everybody had gone away and it came into my mind that no - it appeared to myself going to look for Monyane - we had already arranged that no, we should go and pick up the two bodies which were shot.

MR LAMEY: Yes. So how do you know that Monyane went with to collect the bodies?

MR OLIFANT: Well it came to my mind that you know, since Monyane was not there by that time when I came back to the farm, he should have gone with them.

CHAIRPERSON: You are incorrect. What is contained in this paragraph is completely incorrect, isn't it? Because the more I read it the more it doesn't make any sense to me. Do you concede Mr Olifant, that the contents of paragraph 5 are incorrect?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I think in all fairness could we just point out what is incorrect in that statement. I think the situation ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Can I do that, Mr Lamey? Can I point out what is a problem to me?

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr Monyane present when amongst others, Mr Pretorius, Mr Steenberg and Mr Moni went to the various sites, that's Kliptown and New Canada, to collect the bodies of the activists? Was Mr Monyane present?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, he was present.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you know that?

MR OLIFANT: I learnt afterwards when they came back to the farm with the bodies.

CHAIRPERSON: So why did you have to remain at the farm and not go with Steenberg, Pretorius, Moni and the others?

MR OLIFANT: Before they could go to collect the bodies, Mr Pretorius he sent me to go look for Monyane who went missing you know, nobody knew where he was. But at that time while I was away, it happened that Monyane came back to the farm and sometime while I was away ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: They proceeded to Kliptown and New Canada.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: So these are facts that you later came to hear about?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That are not within your personal knowledge. And you also state that there were police which were already at the scene of the explosion at Midway railway bridge. Is this to your own knowledge, or is this what you heard from your colleagues?

MR OLIFANT: No, what I've seen.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Proceed, Mr Lamey, I think this point has now been clarified.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Just to move over to page 198, you stated that you remained then at Gys Farm, to wait there, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Did everybody then arrive later, while you waited there?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: You stated here on the top of page 198

"When they arrived on Gys Farm, Elias was still alive"

Do you have personal knowledge of this, and if so, what did you observe?

MR OLIFANT: That was almost everybody's worry when I arrived at the farm, because Elias was still alive and Mr Pretorius said that no, Elias was still alive, Moni said that no, Elias was still alive and as well as Peter Lengene said so. And that was everybody's concern, that Elias was still alive. Not that I went next to him and touch his body and felt his blood pressure.

CHAIRPERSON: Again this is what was told to you by your colleagues who had gone to pick up the body of Elias amongst others.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Did you yourself see or witness any signs of life with Elias?

CHAIRPERSON: He says he didn't, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Sorry, then I missed it.

Then in paragraph 6, page 198, you have stated that -

"I heard that Lt Pretorius and Capt Coetzee fetched the bones of the burnt corpses the next day"

Now could you just explain here what was the basis of this statement.

MR OLIFANT: That was an assumption which I took when Mr Coetzee made a joke with me, that the police were looking for me, was looking for me and Mr Pretorius and Mr Lengene. So you know I drew an attention that no, maybe Mr Coetzee knew something about the incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Your statement Mr Olifant, reads as follows

"I heard ..."

Not that you or assumed, you heard that Lt Pretorius and Capt Coetzee fetched the bones of the burnt corpses the next day. From whom did you hear that?

MR OLIFANT: What I know of is this, Mr Coetzee made a joke with me. He made a joke with me that the police were looking for me and Mr Pretorius and you know, from there on I drew a ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: An inference?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair. ... that Mr Coetzee might know something concerning the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand you having to draw an inference about Mr Coetzee having been brought up to speed about the incident. What I want to know is, how could you draw an inference that the bones of the activists had been collected by him and Mr Pretorius the following day of the incident? How could you have made such an inference?

MR OLIFANT: I might have got confused, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Mr Coetzee make any reference to the bones of the deceased having been collected by Mr Pretorius, in the process of making that joke he shared with you?

MR OLIFANT: No, he never made any.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how could you make such a deduction based on what he had said to you? Because if I understand you correctly, it's that he said the police were looking for you.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And that you should not be worried because things will be taken care of.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair. So I thought that saying so he might have gone to the scene and removed all the bones.

CHAIRPERSON: Why? That statement refers to nothing, it does not allude to the bones having been collected. Maybe we don't understand on what basis you drew that inference.

MR OLIFANT: I may not recall exactly what he might have said to me, but what I recall from him is this "The police are no longer looking for you ..." I mean "The police is looking for you and Mr Pretorius and Mr Lengene" and I should not worry because everything was under control.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR OLIFANT: So I was under the impression that no, since everything was under control, he might have gone to the scene and collected the bones from wherever ...(indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: You know I'm just interested in this because in my culture the bones of somebody who has died in this nature is very important. It's very important for the family to know if this indeed happened, because this has already been to Pretorius and Mr Pretorius has refuted having been at the scene the next day or any day thereafter and he has also denied that he ever collected any bones of these young people. Now that's why I want to know from you, you are the person who came with this intimation that the bones of these young persons were collected the following day by Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius. And this is an issue that's emotional, it's of emotional value to the victims' family. Like I just can't get any basis on which you could have drawn an inference that from the joke which you shared with Mr Coetzee, you then come with the issue that the bones must have been collected by him and Mr Pretorius a day after the occurrence of the incident.

MR OLIFANT: Madam Chairperson, I might have confused myself during the investigating process, because before I could apply to the amnesty, Capt Liesk has been investigating about the whole matter. So somewhere I might have made a mistake.

CHAIRPERSON: I just don't understand you could have made a mistake. You may proceed, Mr Lamey, there is no point in belabouring this issue.

MR LAMEY: I think it's a matter for argument. If that was his subjective belief, whether that was a reasonable belief of not, I think that is something open for argument. As the Chair pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, I have to explore this point because I don't understand. You can't say this was his belief. On what basis could that belief have been arrived at? This is what I'm trying to canvass. And you can't canvass that during argument, you must lay a basis on which you will be able to take the issue up during legal argument.

MR LAMEY: Let me just then ask him.

What was the basis for your belief that Pretorius and Coetzee fetched the bones of the burnt corpses the next day? Why did you believe.

MR OLIFANT: Because he said that everything was under control.

MR LAMEY: Is it because Coetzee said to you that everything was under control?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: That was the basis for your belief?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I will step on.

Then in paragraph 7 you stated that -

"The officer on duty from the Security Force's Head Office was Major Grobbelaar."

Is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: You further went on to say

"Major Grobbelaar was present at the scene of the explosion at the Midway railway station."

Is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Right. Then you say

"Before the operation, Lt Pretorius had phoned Maj Grobbelaar and informed him of the planned operation."

And then you stated further -

"As he was the officer on duty he had to involved in all operations concerning State security and I suspect that it was under his command that the other two limpet mines which did not explode were removed."

Now I just want to get to this aspect here where you stated -

"Before the operation, Lt Pretorius had phoned Maj Grobbelaar and informed him of the planned operation."

What is the basis of that statement, Mr Olifant?

MR OLIFANT: Before Mr Pretorius and myself could go to Hillbrow in order to go and observe Moni, Linda and Monyane ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: Where was this now?

MR OLIFANT: At the office.

MR LAMEY: Where was this?

MR OLIFANT: Kibler Park office.

MR LAMEY: Yes.

MR OLIFANT: So Mr Pretorius phoned Mr Grobbelaar saying that ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: Were you present?

MR OLIFANT: I was present in the office, in the same office with him.

MR LAMEY: Tell the Committee what did you hear. What did you observe with your own senses? Exactly what did you hear?

MR OLIFANT: Exactly what I heard is this, "Mr Grobbie, can I carry on with my operation?" That was the only words which I heard.

MR LAMEY: And did you know at the time that he was the officer on duty?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And according to your own knowledge what was the duty of the officer on duty at the Security Branch?

MR OLIFANT: Well to be responsible for any terrorism act which may occur during his duty hours.

MR LAMEY: Then I'd like to move on to page 199, where you've stated that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Before you move, Mr Lamey, may I just interpose. The second line, paragraph 7, when Mr Olifant you state thereat that Maj Grobbelaar was present at the scene of the explosion at Midway railway station, is this what you assume or is this what you know as a fact?

MR OLIFANT: It's what I assumed, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Olifant, on page 199, paragraph 10 - before I proceed to that. You have set out from your own perspective the political objective on page 199, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Do you confirm that?

MR OLIFANT: I do confirm that, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: You've also heard the evidence here of particularly Col Pretorius, about the broader political objective that preceded the decision to eliminate the three victims. Do you in any way dispute that?

MR OLIFANT: I don't dispute that.

MR LAMEY: You've mentioned here in this statement that you received a bonus of R500 "... for my involvement in this operation", is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: I stated so.

MR LAMEY: Okay. Do you want to explain that further, is that correct as it's stated there?

MR OLIFANT: No, it's not correct.

MR LAMEY: Okay, could you just state the reason for the mistake there.

MR OLIFANT: After the operation, let's say after two or three days, Mr Pretorius tasked me and late Peter Lengene to go to Durban and eventually he gave me R500, he gave Pete R500 for petrol expenses and accommodation expenses in Durban, where we were supposed to have gone to collect the SR824.

MR LAMEY: What is SR284(sic)?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: No, what is SR ...(intervention)

MR OLIFANT: It was an agent.

MR LAMEY: Was there anything apart from that instruction, told to you by Pretorius? What made you initially think that this R500 had a connection with this incident?

MR OLIFANT: Because it was just after the incident, so I could properly recall about the whole matter, I thought maybe that was part of the operation.

MR LAMEY: During instructions you also said to me that ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: With respect, Chairperson ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You can't say that, Mr Lamey. Just lead Mr Olifant. You definitely know as an attorney that you can't do that. Just lead him on what you want him to say, without having to put leading questions or telling us about information you received in your capacity as an attorney, which is very confidential. Isn't that privileged information? We don't want to hear privileged information, we are not interested in the consultation you had with him. As far as we are concerned, those are privileged consultations. Give us the facts insofar as this incident is concerned and insofar pertinently as the issue of the bonus and how the mistake occurred in Mr Olifant having to state quite clearly, unequivocally in his application that he received a bonus of R500 for his involvement in this operation, how that mistake could have occurred. We want to know, we want that explanation.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I have put during the examination of Mr Pretorius what my instructions were, I perhaps approached it just wrongly now, but I just intended to make an attempt to elicit further from Olifant as to what I've in fact put to Mr Pretorius. But I'll approach it ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do so without having to put leading questions.

MR LAMEY: I'll approach it differently, thank you.

You've now stated that Pretorius gave you and Lengene each R500 and that the task was to pick up somebody, an agent SR and the number that you've received, in Durban. Is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR LAMEY: Was that the total of what Pretorius told you? Do you understand the question?

CHAIRPERSON: So far Pretorius has said nothing except to give him the R500 to go pick up the informer in Durban.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Is that all that Pretorius stated?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, do you have any questions to put to Mr Olifant?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Madam Chair, there's just one aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry I made a mistake Mr van Heerden, you will come last and not first. Let's proceed with the applicants' legal representatives.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to be afforded an opportunity to put another question?

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I just omitted one thing and that is, I will just perhaps deal with that more in argument.

But Mr Olifant, you wish to apply for amnesty for offence or delict concerning your involvement in this whole operation, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser on behalf of the three applicants.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Olifant, let me see whether I understand where you fitted in and how you fitted in into this incident.

Am I correct to say that Lengene was the one who had personal contact with these three victims and you never had personal contact with them? Am I correct in saying that?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Am I correct in saying that you were never present at any training in firearms of these persons?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: And you were not present when an inspection was held as to where the limpet mines had to be placed by the three activists.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And you were not present when their bodies were picked up.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR VISSER: So wherever you refer to any aspects concerning these contacts or issues, the best you can do is speak from what somebody else had told you, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Were you instructed at any stage to kill Linda Moni?

MR OLIFANT: No.

MR VISSER: Right. Now I just want to talk to you about Coetzee and Grobbelaar. Where precisely did you see Col Coetzee, when this joke was made that you talk about?

MR OLIFANT: At his home, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Where was that?

MR OLIFANT: In Vereeniging.

MR VISSER: In Vereeniging. Where were you living at that time?

MR OLIFANT: Klipspruit, Madam Chairperson.

MR VISSER: How far from Coetzee's home is that?

MR OLIFANT: Plus-minus 40-something kilometres, Madam Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Where was Coetzee working at the time?

MR OLIFANT: He had been transferred to Pretoria, Madam Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Would you deny that he had been working at Security Headquarters in Pretoria for at least 18 months prior to April 1989?

MR OLIFANT: Plus-minus.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry, July 1989. He was transferred at the end of 1997, Mr Olifant.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR VISSER: '87, sorry. 1987. Now what I want to know from you is why did you go and see Coetzee in July of 1989?

MR OLIFANT: I cannot precisely recall what I had gone there to do, but I know for a fact that I went to his place and I had something else to do there at his place.

MR VISSER: Well let me understand this. You don't know what the prime reason was why you went but you do remember a conversation, as you tried to explain to us here.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Mr Olifant, it's your evidence and therefore I've got to ask you this question. Have the police been looking for you at points in time in your life?

MR OLIFANT: No, Madam Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Never?

MR OLIFANT: No.

MR VISSER: Were you never arrested by the police?

MR OLIFANT: No.

MR VISSER: Right. Did you go and talk to Pretorius after this joke by Coetzee, to find out from him what had happened?

MR OLIFANT: No, I didn't.

MR VISSER: Weren't you concerned?

MR OLIFANT: Well after he has told me that everything was under control, I wasn't any longer concerned.

MR VISSER: I just want to put it to you that you actually gave five different versions of what occurred here. It's on the record, I'm not going to repeat it all to you, I'm going to argue it. But I want to put it to you that Coetzee denies that this conversation ever took place, as you gave evidence here.

MR OLIFANT: Well I don't dispute that.

MR VISSER: You don't dispute it? He says it didn't take place, he never spoke to you about this joke that you're talking about.

MR OLIFANT: Maybe he was relating something else in place of the incident.

MR VISSER: Yes, alright. Now let's get to Grobbelaar. And I want to put to you that at page 198 you gave the evidence that Pretorius phoned Grobbelaar and informed him of the planned operation, is that right?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Where were you - where was Pretorius when he made this phone call?

MR OLIFANT: In his office.

MR VISSER: At where?

MR OLIFANT: Kibler Park.

MR VISSER: Kibler Park.

MR OLIFANT: Johannesburg.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I just want to correct you. He didn't inform Grobbelaar, he actually was asking for Grobbelaar's go-ahead.

MR VISSER: First I'm reading from page 198, Chairperson

"... and informed him of the planned operation"

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see. His viva voce ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: I'm coming to his evidence - there are three steps, Chairperson, I'm coming to the second one in a moment.

At page 198, to make it clear to you, what I read here in paragraph 7 is that -

"Before the operation, Lt Pretorius had phoned Maj Grobbelaar and informed him of the planned operation."

That's what I'm referring to, I don't want to confuse you. Okay? And you said that was from Kibler Park.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chair.

MR VISSER: Were you present when this telephone call was made?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Could you hear what Grobbelaar was saying?

MR OLIFANT: I never heard anything, but since there was an operation to take place, I immediately reflected no, he might be informing him about the operation which we were supposed to have done.

MR VISSER: So were you drawing an inference that he might be telling Grobbelaar about the operation, is that what you're now saying?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR VISSER: So he didn't say listen Grobbelaar, we are going to kill three activists tonight.

MR OLIFANT: I agree with you.

MR VISSER: He didn't say that. Alright. Are you fluent in Afrikaans?

MR OLIFANT: No, no, very little, I know very little Afrikaans actually.

MR VISSER: And what language was Pretorius speaking to Grobbelaar?

MR OLIFANT: In Afrikaans. You see the thing is that you repeated here today the question of the planned operation, but you then said he requested permission, if I understood you correctly, from Grobbelaar to carry on with the operation. Could that possibly be true? Because I'll tell you why I ask you the question, to be fair to you. If on your version, Grobbelaar wasn't informed of the details of the operation, how could he give authorisation for the operation? And what is more is, why would he have to give authorisation, the General had already given authorisation? Can you explain that?

MR OLIFANT: Well I thought since he was phoning Mr Grobbelaar, he was actually informing him about the whole operation.

MR VISSER: You thought so.

MR OLIFANT: Yes.

MR VISSER: Isn't the truth of the matter that this also never happened, as you tried to put it in paragraph 7? Can I put it to you this way. If you to page 168, paragraph 26, isn't this far closer to the truth? The last sentence

"I overheard him (that is Pretorius) talking to Col Grobbelaar over the phone, who told him that he was on duty the whole night and that Lt Pretorius may carry on with his work."

Note please, not operation, work. Isn't that far closer to the truth?

MR OLIFANT: Well it's possible.

MR VISSER: Well you know you're the applicant, you go to different conflicting versions. I'm asking you, did Grobbelaar say go on, carry on with your work, I'm on duty tonight, or did Grobbelaar say I give permission to continue with this operation to kill these victims? Which is it?

MR MALAN: In all fairness, there was never any evidence that he said that Grobbelaar gave him permission to kill the victims. I'm just quoting your words.

MR VISSER: Maybe I'm unfair. Did Grobbelaar - can I put it differently Did Grobbelaar not - if there was a telephone conversation which Pretorius has conceded there might have been, which is true? Did Grobbelaar say carry on with your work or was Grobbelaar informed of a planned operation and did he give permission for it? Which of those two is it?

MR OLIFANT: Carry on with the operation.

MR VISSER: I see, so you want to stick with that. Alright. How do you know what Grobbelaar says if you can't hear him?

MR LAMEY: I don't think he stated that that is what Grobbelaar said, he overheard what Pretorius stated.

MR VISSER: How did you know that Grobbelaar said carry on with the operation? Pretorius didn't say that, Grobbelaar that.

ADV MOTATA: But in all fairness, I think the question you asked Mr Visser, he said he could only hear Pretorius, he could not hear what Grobbelaar was saying to Pretorius. I think we've got that evidence on record.

MR VISSER: The question is now precisely on that evidence. How can he say, how does he know what Grobbelaar said, carry on with the operation, carry on with the work or whatever.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know Mr Olifant? Did Mr Pretorius tell you what Grobbelaar had said pursuant to his discussion with him telephonically? Or you again assumed.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just come in here. His evidence is not that Grobbelaar said carry on with the operation. That is not his evidence, with all respect. And I don't know ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: His evidence is that Mr Pretorius asked for permission from Mr Grobbelaar if he could carry on with his operation.

MR LAMEY: Ja, he overheard a conversation into the phone of Pretorius saying that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: I will leave it. If it's now conceded that Grobbelaar didn't say anything of the kind, well then the question falls away, Chairperson. That's not how I understood his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Visser, I think in his viva voce he's been quite clear that it was Pretorius who asked Mr Grobbelaar if he could proceed with the operation and he didn't take it any further than that.

MR VISSER: Lastly, you say Grobbelaar was present at the scene of the explosion at Midway, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Do you intend to say by that that he was there when the explosion went off, or that he visited the scene later?

MR OLIFANT: He visited the scene later.

MR VISSER: I see. Thank you, Madam Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser. Mr van der Merwe?

MR VAN DER MERWE: I have no questions, thank you, Madam Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I do apologise, my attorney has been frantically sending me notes and I've been ignoring them. May I perhaps just comply with some of his requests? I have one issue that I have to raise.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Olifant, Mr Pretorius tells me that after Mr Liesk had spoken to you, you told Pretorius what had happened, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, yes.

MR VISSER: And he says that you told him that Liesk showed you a parcel, a bag in which there were human bones.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, yes.

MR VISSER: And that he asked you, or that he told you that these are the bones belonging to the victims in this incident. Is that also correct?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And is it correct that you also told him that you felt compelled to work with the Attorney-General in order to safeguard your own position?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, that's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Who is Mr Liesk?

MR OLIFANT: He's an investigating officer from the Attorney-General's office.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what bones are you ...(intervention)

MR VAN DER MERWE: Excuse me Madam Chair, maybe just to assist, page 151 of the bundle. This applicant's application was fill in initially by Andrew Gordon Liesk who is from the Special Investigating Team of the Attorney-General, the super squad.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now what bones - when did he show you these bones?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just come in. I want to know what the reason for the remark of Mr van der Merwe is, because I've led this evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no he was assisting me because I had put the question who is Mr Liesk.

Mr Olifant, what bones did Mr Liesk show you?

MR OLIFANT: Mr Liesk he called me to the Attorney-General's office in Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: When was this?

MR OLIFANT: This was two-and-a-half years back if I'm not mistaken.

CHAIRPERSON: That's in 1997.

MR OLIFANT: Somewhere there, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR OLIFANT: And he said that "Okay, we have discovered the activists bones and here are they in the bag".

CHAIRPERSON: And proceeded to point them out to you?

MR OLIFANT: No, he never showed me, he never really opened the bag but he just showed me the bag which contained the bones. That was it.

CHAIRPERSON: Now was this prior to you applying for amnesty or shortly after you had lodged your application for amnesty?

MR OLIFANT: Madam Chairperson, I cannot recall whether it was before I had applied. ...(indistinct) it was after.

CHAIRPERSON: Couldn't this have been a reason that compelled you to apply for amnesty or probably made it easier for you to find the process more appealing to apply for amnesty?

MR OLIFANT: Well he is the one who helped me to apply for amnesty actually.

CHAIRPERSON: So was that before you were shown or told about the bones of the activists?

MR OLIFANT: After, after I was shown the bones about the activists.

CHAIRPERSON: You then applied for amnesty.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And he assisted you in your application for amnesty.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR MALAN: That was after he had shown you the bag which he said contained the bones?

MR OLIFANT: The bones, yes.

ADV MOTATA: And would that be during - because the assistance from Liesk in your application is on the 11th December 1996, of the application for amnesty. So you would be entirely certain when you saw him?

MR OLIFANT: I cannot precisely be certain about the date, but I know for a fact that he first investigated me, interrogated me, and thereafter I was open to him about the whole issue and he then said okay, that's good, now I will help you, the Attorney-General has instructed me to apply amnesty for you.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So it must have been after your many meetings with him that you proceeded to apply for amnesty.

MR OLIFANT: Yes, that's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loader, do you have any questions to put to Mr Olifant?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LOADER: Just one dealing with the same aspect, Madam Chair.

I'm instructed to put to you Mr Olifant, that Mr Moni says you had a conversation with him, he can't recall precisely when it was, when you said exactly the same thing, that you had seen Mr Liesk and if he recalls correctly, you mentioned that it was in the lift at the Attorney-General's office when he was holding one or two boxes you indicated and that he indicated to you that those boxes contained the bones of the activists. But that's the extent of that conversation. Do you confirm that?

MR OLIFANT: Well I might have said something similar to that to Linda Moni. I don't dispute that.

MR LOADER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LOADER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van Heerden.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair, just one aspect.

Are you willing to assist the family to point out the place where this incident took place?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, I am willing.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you. No further questions, Madam Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Madam Chair, no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Mr Olifant, in terms of assisting the family, this last bit of evidence that came out under cross-examination about the bag which according to you, Mr Liesk said contained the bones of the two activists. Has that ever surfaced again in communications with the Attorney-General's office? Have you heard of that again, or was it only at this one occasion?

MR OLIFANT: I've never heard about it, it was only on one occasion.

MR MALAN: The fist statement which Mr Lamey referred us to, and specifically page 161 and further, you said this was a statement typed by the TRC people after they had discussions with you.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Madam Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Did they read it back to you, can you remember that?

MR OLIFANT: No.

MR MALAN: Now again on this issue of the bones, this is a very, very, it's not only sensitive but I think is a very important aspect to bring closure in some way or another, especially to the victims and relatives but also to getting to the truth. Are you pretty sure that Mr Liesk said this? Is there any other evidence except your word on this score? Do you know of anyone else who has knowledge of this?

MR OLIFANT: Not that I know of.

MR MALAN: You haven't had any contact with any of the relatives before the amnesty application?

MR OLIFANT: No.

MR MALAN: Before this hearing.

MR OLIFANT: No, Madam Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Chair, I don't think I can take it further with questioning, but I think we should at least in some way find assistance in taking this further, as far as the victims are concerned. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It is my feeling that it is a matter of cardinal importance to the victims and we will be directing Mr Steenkamp on behalf of the Committee, to liaise with Mr Liesk, who is in the office of the Attorney-General in Pretoria, and Mr Steenkamp would be requested that Mr Liesk's assistance be sought in this regard immediately. And we would request Mr Steenkamp to come back and report to this Committee as to what has transpired during his conversation with Mr Liesk.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I'll gladly do so. I can maybe just state on record as well that we had previous dealings with the Attorney-General's office, not in this matter but in other matters, but the normal view of the Attorney-General is that officers of his office are not willing and able to come freely and voluntarily to the hearing. So they will probably have to be subpoenaed as well for this hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying Mr Liesk will not be in a position to assist you with regard to the question of the bones that allegedly were shown to Mr Olifant, which were contained in some bag or a box or some container of some kind?

ADV STEENKAMP: No, Madam Chair, what I'm saying is it will probably have to take a subpoena from this Committee to get information or any information, or at least get the presence of Mr Liesk here at this Committee. That is my personal practical experience so far until today.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe we should try to be a little optimistic, Mr Steenkamp. Try and make contact with Mr Liesk. Should you experience any difficulty come back to us and the necessary action will taken by us to ensure that they do give us and the family some kind of co-operation. It is a matter of vital importance to the family.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair, I'll do so.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Chairperson, I wonder whether I might ask for an indulgence, just to put one brief question to Mr Olifant and then to make some contribution if possible, to this issue about what should be done as far as the Attorney-General is concerned. May I just put one question, a further question to Mr Olifant?

Mr Olifant, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, you may.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But I am not very happy in granting you that opportunity, I'm doing it for the second time. But you may proceed.

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson, we are trying to get at the truth here and it's only from that point of view.

Mr Olifant, isn't it true that because of this experience which you had with Mr Liesk, because of the fact that you thought it better to assist the Attorney-General, that you then thought up this version of the meeting with Mr Coetzee?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, or no, Mr Olifant?

MR OLIFANT: You know the answer is getting difficult to me because I know for a fact that I was under severe interrogation by Mr Liesk and somewhere I might have extracted some passages you know what I have said to Mr Liesk during that interrogation into the amnesty application.

MR VISSER: That's not the question. The question is, was it after the severe interrogation by Mr Liesk and having been shown this bag and told what is in it that you decided to tell him this story about the meeting between yourself and Mr Coetzee?

MR OLIFANT: Well it's possible that I might have taken up from, I might have made a conclusion that you know Mr Coetzee told him about this, that everything was under control, and anyway he might have taken up the bones the scene.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have a discussion with Mr Coetzee at all?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, I had a discussion with Mr Coetzee, that I'm sure of.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson. Chairperson, perhaps what could be established from the Attorney-General is whether there was a post-mortem, a legal post-mortem held, whether there's a docket. That would be very helpful. I'm not suggesting that we should postpone this matter in order to hear Mr Liesk, I believe that there's sufficient evidence before you here to deal with the amnesty applications, but only as far as assisting you inasfar as the family is concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I think Mr Steenkamp has already been directed by this Committee and will do in accordance with our direction and hopefully report to us when we commence with our hearing on Tuesday next week.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I'm sure during the adjournment I will probably be able to contact Mr Liesk and get an answer from him today.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and in the process of our short leave as a Committee, when we are not sitting, you may revert to me at any time prior to Tuesday should you experience any problems.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: I've got no re-examination, thank you Chairperson.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: I've got no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Olifant, you are excused as a witness.

MR OLIFANT: Thank you, Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe, I take it that it is now your turn to lead evidence in respect of your three applicants.

MR VAN DER MERWE: That is correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: They are all present today.

MR VAN DER MERWE: They are all present and available and willing.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe this will be an appropriate time to take the lunch adjournment before you proceed to lead their evidence. Who are you going to start with?

MR VAN DER MERWE: I'm going to start with Brig Wybrand Andreas Lodewikus du Toit, who shouldn't be long. But I'm in your hands.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. No, we will be guided by you. So we'll then proceed to hear Mr du Toit upon our return from lunch. We'll have a 45 minute lunch adjournment, thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, did we adjourn when it was - no, it was Mr van der Merwe's turn to lead evidence and we'll be starting with the evidence of Mr du Toit.

ADV STEENKAMP ADDRESSES: Madam Chair, maybe just before we proceed, if I may be allowed a minute or two. Madam Chair, in the break I had the opportunity to contact Capt Liesk, in the presence of one of the witness protectors, and he informed me that currently he is in Mozambique or on the border of Mozambique. I explained to him just quickly what the reason was for the Committee to get him to the hearing. He will avail himself next week, and the date so far that's had been, or the time that's been arranged with him is between one and two next week Thursday. I've requested that an investigating officer, apparently an Inspector Peet van der Merwe, will also accompany him and he will also be present at the hearing next week, depending on whether or not everybody else can be present next week Thursday between one and two o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Steenkamp, I think there is no need for everybody to be present, it's the Committee who would like to speak to them pertinently with regard to some of the side issues relating to the interest of the victims' relatives with regard to the bones, the existence or non-existence thereof.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We thank you for having quickly attended to the matter, Mr Steenkamp.