Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: ...there has been this delay in starting.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson. We shall start with the amnesty applicant, Mr Greyling, Chairperson.

DANIEL JACOBUS GREYLING: (sworn states)

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Greyling, your application is in bundle number. Your formal application is from page 198 to 200. The incident for which you apply is on page 201 till 203 and the political motive from 204 to 215.

MR GREYLING: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have heard the evidence from the other applicants. You were here everyday.

MR GREYLING: That is correct, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: If you look at your application on page 201, it seems as if you were not at Piet Retief during that day.

MR GREYLING: That is correct, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Where were you?

MR GREYLING: I was in Swaziland. I was busy with investigative work.

MS VAN DER WALT: Where were you stationed at that stage?

MR GREYLING: I was at Nelspruit at that stage Mr Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: At the Security Branch?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And your rank?

MR GREYLING: Inspector, Warrant-Officer.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you go to Piet Retief?

MR GREYLING: Because I was in that area, we usually went to go and greet the people. I went through and then I heard at the office that September was there and I wanted to go and talk to him. I then went there.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was that at the house, outside on the small holding?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you have anything to do with the planning of this operation?

MR GREYLING: No, not at all.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then, when you got to this house, what happened there?

MR GREYLING: When I got there, some of the members were standing outside and I heard that people with explosives and weapons are going to infiltrate into the Republic and Eugene de Kock then said that I had to go with them to arrest these people.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have heard now that the questions that were put to the other applicants and what Col de Kock testified about the planning and that the plan was to eliminate them. Why do you say that the people had to be arrested?

MR GREYLING: At that stage they told me that. When we went to the scene where we planned the ambush, I cannot remember if it was de Kock, I asked him how this arrest will take place. They then said that we are going to eliminate and I stood with that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was that at the scene where you heard this?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And how did you feel about these instructions that you had to eliminate the people?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, I accepted it as such because it was instructions that I received.

MS VAN DER WALT: And were you armed at that stage?

MR GREYLING: Yes, I had an R1 rifle.

MS VAN DER WALT: Where did you get this weapon?

MR GREYLING: It was given to me at that safety or Security building before.

MS VAN DER WALT: You had insight in Exhibit B where Mr de Kock drew a picture of where the vehicle was and that is the people that were lying on the left or the southern side. In relation to the vehicle, what was your position?

MR GREYLING: My position was more or less at the left back wheel of the vehicle.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you also heard the evidence that when the vehicle stopped, you opened fire on it.

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You do mention in your application on page 202 Mr Chairperson paragraph 6 that the driver immediately jumped out and ran round the back of the bakkie while one passenger jumped out on the left-hand side with a pistol in his hand.

MR GREYLING: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You already heard the questions concerning this aspect. What do you say about that?

M GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, where I was lying at that stage, the bakkie stopped and I saw a person getting out with a pistol in his hand.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you say now that you were lying on the left back side of the vehicle and so you had a direct - you could see if the door opened or if it was slightly ajar, so you do stand?

MR GREYLING: Yes, I do support what I said in my statement.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did anyone say to you, did anybody tell you that somebody got out of the bakkie?

MR GREYLING: No, nobody did.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Greyling, did you fire at these people, because the person was getting out of the bakkie with a weapon or what was the position?

MR GREYLING: No Mr Chairperson, the instruction was to eliminate the people and that is what I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the question was, as I understood, did you fire at the person, is that not to eliminate him?

MR GREYLING: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Well did you fire at the person who jumped out of the bakkie?

MR GREYLING: Yes, I did fire at him.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you would have fired at the people even though nobody would have climbed out then?

MR GREYLING: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were not involved, according to your application, in any arrangements with the informer. You do not carry any knowledge about what happened at the T-junction where Mr van Dyk was?

MR GREYLING: No I do not know anything about that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you still remember how many shots you fired?

MR GREYLING: I cannot remember exactly. I would say it would be between 6 and 10 shots.

MS VAN DER WALT: And do you have any knowledge of the weapons as indicated in Exhibit C?

MR GREYLING: After the incident I looked in the back of the bakkie and I saw some of these weapons.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you have any knowledge of the fact that Mr Labuschagne had to kill or shoot the informer?

MR GREYLING: No, I didn't know about that. No I was not involved in that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you then ask this Honourable Committee for amnesty for the death of the people, the three people in the bakkie?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you have any knowledge of the person that was shot at the T-junction?

MR GREYLING: Yes, I knew about that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you see that person at the scene at a later stage?

MR GREYLING: Yes, I did.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you then also ask for amnesty for the fact that, for that person that was killed there?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And do you have any knowledge of Mr Sindane's injury at the T-junction?

MR GREYLING: Yes, I do know about it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you also then ask for amnesty for the attempt of murder on Mr Sindane?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And any other offences that may come from your actions concerning this operation?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: As well as any other responsibilities that you may have concerning this. No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MY HATTINGH: Mr Greyling, you heard Mr de Kock's evidence, is that correct?

MR GREYLING: Yes I did.

MR HATTINGH: You also heard that his evidence was that no instructions were given that people had to be arrested and that right from the beginning the intention was to eliminate them?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct, Mr Chairperson. As I said, I got there after the planning and I then understood that we had to go and arrest the people.

MR HATTINGH: But I understand now that in your evidence in chief you now said that Mr de Kock asked you to accompany them and then to arrest the people?

MR GREYLING: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that you could be wrong and that he could just ask you to just go with in this operation and you made your own inferences in that you thought that you were supposed to arrest them?

MR GREYLING: Yes, it could have happened that way.

MR HATTINGH: Because why would he say at one stage that we are going to arrest them but then at the scene after inquiries say: "No, we're going to eliminate them."

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: It does not make sense.

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You then heard his evidence that the left-hand side door of the car did not open and no one got out.

MR GREYLING: Yes, I heard that.

MR HATTINGH: And do you still ...(no translation)

Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what was your answer to - you heard Mr de Kock said nobody got out. What is your comment on that?

MR GREYLING: I stand by what I said in my statement Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you say not only did the door open, but you saw somebody with a pistol in his hand jump out.

MR GREYLING: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you are sure that is correct?

MR GREYLING: Yes, I stand by what I said.

CHAIRPERSON: It he'd opened the door and jumped out and you fired at him, there would probably have been bullet marks on the inside of the door.

MR GREYLING: It could possibly be so, yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Greyling, the man with the pistol, did he jump out or did he slowly get out of the car?

MR GREYLING: As far as I can remember when the bakkie stopped, the door opened and the person got out with a pistol.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did he jump out or just climb out?

MR GREYLING: No, he climbed out of the car.

CHAIRPERSON: He climbed out?

MR GREYLING: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you had just confirmed the contents of your application where you said: "Hy uitgespring het", is that climbed out?

MR GREYLING: I do not quite understand. As far as I remember the door opened and he got out, or he got out very quickly, or he jumped out.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Greyling, I just want to know exactly what happened. Did the person open the door and climb out as if he was going somewhere, or did the door fly open and he jumped out in a quick movement?

MR GREYLING: As far as I can remember, when the door opened he jumped out very quickly.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well and you say that you saw him with a pistol in his hand?

MR GREYLING: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Which hand was the pistol in?

MR GREYLING: The pistol was in his right hand.

MR DU PLESSIS: In his right hand? Can you specifically remember that?

MR GREYLING: Yes, I can remember it in that way.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember in what position he was when the first shot hit him?

MR GREYLING: No, I cannot remember Mr Chairperson, it happened very quickly.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but was he more or less a few feet away from the vehicle, or was he close to the vehicle?

MR GREYLING: No, I believe he was still standing there where he got out, or jumped out.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was he ready to shoot at that stage?

MR GREYLING: No, I do not believe so.

MR DU PLESSIS: But where was the pistol then as he was standing next to the bakkie?

MR GREYLING: The pistol was in his right hand.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but was the pistol facing to the ground or into the air, or was he holding it in - was he ready to fire at that stage? What was the position?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairman, I cannot quite remember but as far as I remember he got out, the pistol must have been pointing straight down.

MR DU PLESSIS: And both of his feet were on the ground before you shot him?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is how I remember it.

MR DU PLESSIS: So if we must understand your evidence Mr Greyling, until this person got out, placed his feet on the ground, stood up straight and I accept that the driver on the other side of the vehicle already got out and was moving towards the back of the vehicle.

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, these things happen within seconds. The person got out, jumped out, climbed out and we immediately started to fire.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but my point is, you know I understand that things happen within seconds but if a person gets out of the vehicle, then you must move from a seated position into a standing position, but he had to do that before the door can open and you evidence is that the door opened, he moved from a seated position to a standing position, standing on the ground with both feet before the first shot hit him. Is that your evidence?

MR GREYLING: Yes, I think that is as far as I can remember.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Well if we accept that that is correct, then that means that the people who fired the shots had to wait until he was in that position before they fired the first shots.

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, no I do not believe that we specifically waited for that. When the person got out we immediately fired.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but you see there had to be a second or two that elapsed, that is from when the bakkie stopped up until the time when he stood up straight next to the bakkie with his two feet on the ground. Do you accept that?

MR GREYLING: Yes, I do, I agree. He had to stop and then get out and then we started to fire.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you also then would agree with me that where you were lying and where the bakkie stopped, you could have started firing earlier on and that is what you said now, before the door opened?

MR GREYLING: I cannot put it that way. No I cannot remember it in that way.

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I'm asking if it is possible?

MR GREYLING: I think it is possible, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well then you can make the inference that you had to wait until the person got out of the car with his two feet on the ground, standing straight up before the first shot was fired. That is the only logical assumption that we can make.

MR GREYLING: No Mr Chairperson, I do not believe that we waited for the person to get out of the car.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well if you did not wait, Mr Greyling, then you shot him through the door?

MR GREYLING: That is correct. I fired towards the door and the cabin.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, let us get this straight. When you fired, towards what did you fire? Did you shoot at the door or the cabin or the person?

MR GREYLING: I fired to the cabin, the door and the person as he got out.

MR DU PLESSIS: But I do not understand it, the door was then open.

MR GREYLING: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you fired at the cabin but the door was already open, is that correct?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is because the door is attached to the cabin.

MR DU PLESSIS: So the person was standing in the opening where the door was?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then you fired the first shot?

MR GREYLING: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well my question is, do you agree that there was maybe a second or two that elapsed between when the bakkie stopped up until where the person was standing with his two feet on the ground next to the bakkie, before you fired your first shot?

MR GREYLING: Yes, I will agree with you there.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, that was my question. Why?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, I do not know.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see, why I'm asking you this, this is just not likely. Why would you wait for the person to stand straight up with his two feet on the ground next to the bakkie in front of an open door before you start firing? It is simply not possible.

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson when the bakkie stopped the person got out and I fired at him and the cabin and that is as I can remember.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, now if you look at Exhibit E, that is the photograph of the bakkie.

MR GREYLING: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you see there on the left-hand, or left door, you can see that there are bullet holes.

MR GREYLING: I can see it yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you can see that the window is also out?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: In other words if you simply look at that picture, would you agree with me that shots were fired against the door. Mr Chairman, I don't have the original. May I perhaps just have a look at the original? Do you agree with me that shots were fired from outside against the outside panel of the door?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And if it was so and if you look at the original you will see it is actually much clearer on the original, that there are bullet marks on the outside of the door, then you would agree with me...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Can you identify those bullet marks as coming from the inside going out, or from the outside going it?

MR DU PLESSIS: It looks to me like that Mr Chairman, but obviously I'm not an expert. Could you just look at that please?

MR GREYLING: I can see, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And do you see that some of the bullet holes appear as if they have dented the outside of the bakkie door?

MR GREYLING: No I cannot see that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, I can see it quite clearly Mr Greyling. Very well, let us examine the other possibility. Where precisely were you positioned in relation to the bakkie when it stopped?

MR GREYLING: I was near the left back wheel of the bakkie.

MR DU PLESSIS: The left back wheel of the bakkie?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: In other words, you fired from a diagonal angle at the man who was standing there?

MR GREYLING: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you state that the door was open?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall at which angle it was open, or was it completely ajar, was it slightly ajar?

MR GREYLING: As I can recall, it must have been diagonally. I am not completely certain.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see, the question is, Mr Greyling, if those shots were not fired into the door from the outside, could they have been fired as a result of the angle from which you fired and thus struck the door and have gone from the inside of the door to the outside?

MR GREYLING: Yes, it is possible.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. May I ask you this, you would agree with me that a bullet could not have struck the inside of the door at a 90 degree angle? From where your position was, the bullet would have had to hit the inside of the door at a more acute angle than a 90 degree angle?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct, but you will see that on the bodywork on the door there are far more shots, so I accept that I may have fired in that direction as well. May I just see the original photo once more?

MR DU PLESSIS: May I just ask you, in terms of the photo and how it appears to me, it does not really seem as if some of the bullet marks, or bullet holes on the left side of the door were fired at a diagonal angle into the door.

MR GREYLING: I don't know it may have entered from the inside of the door or from the outside of the door. I am not an expert on that field.

MR DU PLESSIS: And where was this particular person after the shooting?

MR GREYLING: He was inside the bakkie.

MR DU PLESSIS: And how had he managed to get back into the bakkie?

MR GREYLING: I accept that he was shot back into the bakkie or that he attempted to flee back into the bakkie. That is how I have interpreted it.

MR DU PLESSIS: You did not see him flee into the bakkie again?

MR GREYLING: No, I did not see it.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see what I find quite strange is that there have been three witnesses who were quite clear about it that no person jumped out on the left side wielding a pistol and then there is one witness, Mr Deetlefs, who isn't really certain about anything regarding this, when it comes to his evidence. Then we have Mr Pienaar who maintains that the bakkie's door was only slightly ajar and then we have you and you say that the door was completely ajar and that the man had climbed out of the door with both feet on the ground.

MS VAN DER WALT: He did not say completely ajar, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Or at least somewhat ajar.

MR GREYLING: That is how I recall the incident and I will stand by what I have stated in my affidavit. I cannot substantiate the statements of others, I can only stand by what I have said and what I saw.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but you see Mr Greyling, this creates problems for all of us because now we have to make a decision about what the truth is. Is it true that the man climbed out, is it true that nobody climbed out, what is the truth?

MR GREYLING: I am here to tell the truth, that is why I applied for amnesty and that is why I'm telling the truth and I'm telling you about the incident the way I saw the incident.

MR DU PLESSIS: But what I am examining is the possibilities inherent to your version.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it you're not suggesting to him Mr du Plessis, to make matters easier, he should deny what he says he remembers and say a version that would agree with others?

MR DU PLESSIS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: He has said categorically this is what he remembers.

MR DU PLESSIS: I'm suggesting to him that he's not speaking the truth, Mr Chairman. Mr Greyling, what I am going to put to you ultimately and what I will argue ultimately is that you are not telling the truth when it comes to this aspect.

MR GREYLING: Chairperson, I don't know why I would have come here if I didn't want to speak the truth in the first place. I will stand by my affidavit of the version as I saw it. I have come here to tell the truth. I cannot see any other reason why I would not tell the truth.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Greyling, we know that the driver of the bakkie knew, or thought at least that there would be an arrest and that you had to stop at a determined place and that he knew that all of you would be there, is that correct?

MR GREYLING: I didn't know about the planning. I was not involved in the planning.

MR DU PLESSIS: But you have heard the evidence and there is no dispute about this.

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. If he had not said anything to the other persons in the bakkie with regard to the impending arrest and he had stopped and disembarked to urinate, as we have heard the evidence already, why would the man on the left side have jumped out wielding a pistol in his hand? Can you explain that to me?

MR GREYLING: I cannot explain it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And then you have the other possibility which is that Sithole, the driver, told the other two in the bakkie about the impending ambush and that this could possibly have been the reason why he jumped out of the bakkie wielding the pistol.

MR GREYLING: I wouldn't know, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see the only problem with that version is the question as to why a person who knew that there was an ambush would stop in the middle of an ambush and jump out wielding a pistol.

MR GREYLING: I wouldn't know.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well it sounds completely improbable, doesn't it?

MR GREYLING: I wouldn't be able to say what took place in the bakkie, whatever was discussed or speculated there, I was part of the ambush team.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well then I would like to put it to you that it seems to me upon examining the facts and the question as to whether or not it is probable that a person in such a situation would jump out wielding a pistol especially in the light of the indisputable facts, all of this seems quite implausible.

MR GREYLING: well as I have told you previously, I will stand by my statement.

CHAIRPERSON: What Mr du Plessis if he suspected the driver and thought this story about stopping to urinate was a concoction?

MR SIBANYONI: Or another possibility that when the driver said he wanted to go and urinate, for safety measures the other passenger thought: "Let me go out and keep watch for him".

MR DU PLESSIS: I must concede for argument purposes that obviously may be possibilities. The only question is that according to, well I don't want to argue the matter. I'm taking the point that there may be other possibilities, but the argument that I will raise pertaining to this, will still be that it sounds improbable that any of those possibilities can be regarded as probabilities and that would be the argument. I won't go further with it.

MR LAX: Don't you have much stronger aspects to argue than that?

MR DU PLESSIS: My examination of this witness is finished. Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Greyling from a different angle I would like to observe and perhaps clarify this aspect pertaining to you. Before this specific incident, had you ever been involved in previous contact situations?

MR GREYLING: Yes, on the border I was involved in contact situations.

MR LAMEY: How many?

MR GREYLING: I think three, if I have to think about this quickly.

MR LAMEY: Three? Did you also experience any personal stress or tension before the time, before the contact situation, knowing that it would be an ambush?

MR GREYLING: Are you referring to the Nerston Ambush?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

MR GREYLING: Tension?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

MR GREYLING: I wouldn't call it tension. I was just carrying out orders and all of us were together.

MR LAMEY: No, what I really mean is tension in the sense that there was anticipation and that there were always things that could go wrong in such a situation. You were going to be shooting people. There was also the inherent risk for you yourself. This wasn't necessarily something that one would approach quite comfortably, especially if one was quite inexperienced in terms of previous situations.

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct, it is possible.

MR LAMEY: Do you still have an independent image in your mind today that the person disembarked, as what you have described?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it possible Mr Greyling that this image is something that you have a bona fide belief about and that you believe this to be true about the situation but that in actual fact this never really happened?

MR GREYLING: No, I recall it as I have stated it in my affidavit. I recall the incident as such.

MR LAMEY: So then I just want to put it to you that if one has a bona fide belief in something like that, one wouldn't be really willing to concede to its impossibility.

That is all that I wanted to put to you. Isn't it possible that due to the stressful situation and so forth that in retrospect if you think about it calmly and collectively, the possibility exists that you may have imagined this and that you still believe this to this very day?

MR GREYLING: No, Chairperson, I recall it as such. It is possible that this could happen to someone else, but I recall definitely that this person disembarked.

MR LAMEY: Do you know whether any shots struck him before he ended up in the bakkie again?

MR GREYLING: No, I wouldn't know.

MR LAMEY: Did you yourself fire at him?

MR GREYLING: I was firing at the entire cabin and everything that was moving, as the person disembarked and at the cabin itself.

MR LAMEY: Very well, what was Mr de Kock's position from you?

MR GREYLING: I cannot recall that.

MR LAMEY: Who lay next to you?

MR GREYLING: I think Mr Botha lay next to me.

MR LAMEY: On your right side?

MR GREYLING: Yes, on my right side.

MR LAMEY: And to the left of you?

MR GREYLING: I cannot recall.

MR LAMEY: And your position was opposite the left back wheel?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Very well. I would just like to put it to you that the position in which Mr Fourie was and he did not observe it as such, it is quite favourable for him to make such an observation, if the door had opened, he would have seen it because the door would have opened to his side, from his position of observation.

MR GREYLING: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

MR RAMAWELE: Mr Chairman, I've got no question.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR RAMAWELE

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: In the front cabin of the bakkie according to the other witnesses, an Eastern Block origin pistol was found.

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So in your opinion in all probability the person must have posses that weapon in the cabin of the bakkie. It wasn't in the back of the bakkie with the rest of the weapons?

MR GREYLING: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Greyling from your point, was there any attempt to make a cover-up regarding the evidence of this matter before the Truth Commission?

MR GREYLING: No there was no such attempt.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NTHAI: When you heard about the information about the people who were supposed to infiltrate the country, were you told where this information came from?

MR GREYLING: No, I was not informed.

MR NTHAI: And you are saying at the time you were then requested by Col de Kock to help?

MR GREYLING: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: This incident took place on the 14th of August. Do you remember when was that that the request was made to you?

MR GREYLING: The precise date?

MR NTHAI: Yes.

MR GREYLING: I would have to consult my affidavit, I wouldn't be able to tell you off the top of my head. I cannot recall precisely.

MR NTHAI: Do you recall the time?

MR GREYLING: Chairperson I think that it must have been between 4, half past four or 5 o'clock that I arrived at the safe house, so it must have been at approximately that hour.

MR NTHAI: After that information, how many days lapsed until you went to the incident on the 14th, do you still remember?

MR GREYLING: No, it was on the same day. on that day I arrived from Swaziland at approximately 4 to 5 o'clock. That is when I arrived at the safe house and it was then that I came to hear of the persons who would be infiltrating.

MR NTHAI: And you were then told about the plan. What was the plan? What were you told?

MR GREYLING: Chairperson, as I have stated, while the persons were standing there, I was informed that persons with weapons would be infiltrating and that we were to go and arrest these persons. When we arrived at the scene, I asked how the arrest would take place and either Col de Kock, or Col Deetlefs told me that we would not be arresting these persons, but that we would be ambushing them instead and eliminating them.

MR NTHAI: No, no, no, I mean were you not told where you were going and what firearms you should carry and how you were going to stand there? Were you not told about that?

MR GREYLING: I was issued with an R1. It was said to us that we would set up an ambush for these persons.

CHAIRPERSON: Where were you issued with the R1?

MR GREYLING: At the safe house.

MR NTHAI: So how long did it take after you were told and then issued with a firearm, for you to go to that place? Did you go there immediately, or there was some lapse of time?

MR GREYLING: No, I think that three hours must have elapsed approximately.

MR NTHAI: What did you do within those three hours, what did you do?

MR GREYLING: Chairperson, I was chatting to everyone there and in the meantime I also spoke to Glory Sidebe.

MR NTHAI: And during that three hours, you never chatted about more details about the plan itself?

MR GREYLING: It is possible that we spoke about it, but I cannot recall precisely what we spoke of. It is possible that we may have spoken about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Surely you would have wanted to know more details and the other people there, you would want to know how many people would be coming, what sort of weapons they would have, was shooting contemplated and that sort of thing?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is so Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Yes, can you give us the details? You should remember that. I mean you were going to get involved in an operation involving armed, trained ANC people.

MR GREYLING: Chairperson I cannot recall what we spoke of in precise details. As I stated, in the meantime I also went to speak to Glory Sidebe. I cannot recall how long I spent talking to him, but it is possible that we may have discussed the routes that these persons would be following, what they would be bringing in and so forth.

MR NTHAI: But did you discuss with Sidebe about this? Did he know that there would be people coming?

MR GREYLING: No, Chairperson, I did not discuss this incident with Sidebe. I discussed other aspects with Sidebe.

MR NTHAI: Yes, so you want to tell us that you actually went to that place without knowing the exact details of the plan, is that correct?

MR GREYLING: No, Chairperson, I didn't say that I went there without knowing anything.

MR NTHAI: Did you know ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The question was the exact details, not that it was put to you you didn't know anything. The question you were asked was, did you go to the scene without knowing the exact details of the plan?

MR GREYLING: Chairperson, I don't really know the vicinity of Nerston and this was the first time that I visited that area and when we arrived at the point of the ambush, we took up position there and waited for the vehicle and it was the first time that I was travelling in the Nerston environment.

MR LAX: You still haven't answered the question. It's really quite simple. Did you or did you not know the exact details of the plan, yes or no? It's quite plain. We're not asking you whether you knew the area. We're not asking you whether you knew Nerston. We want to know, did you know the details of the plan, the exact details?

MR GREYLING: I knew that there would be an ambush and that we had to eliminate these persons.

MR NTHAI: You knew before you went to the scene that there will be an ambush. That you knew.

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR NTHAI: You knew that these people were not going to be arrested before you went to the scene.

MR GREYLING: It was at the scene that I asked how the arrest would take place and I was told that these persons would be eliminated.

MR NTHAI: Mr Greyling, I don't think we should play around here. What do you understand by ambush? If you knew that there was going to be an ambush before you went to the scene, what do you understand by the word ambush?

MR GREYLING: ; Chairperson, let me explain to you. I arrived at the safe house. The information was that people would be coming in and that we would arrest them. That is what I accepted. When we arrived at the ambush point, I asked how we would arrest the persons. I was told that they would not be arrested but that we would eliminate them.

MR NTHAI: So you ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But didn't he say a moment ago ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Greyling, I have great difficulty with what you're saying here because I was very clear to you. I was very clear to you. I said you went to the scene without knowing the exact details. You then explained, I asked you to give me a simple yes, or a no, and you insisted on explaining that in fact you knew there was going to be an ambush, you knew that you were going to go there and shoot people.

CHAIRPERSON: Not shoot, eliminate.

MR LAX: Eliminate.

MR GREYLING: That is correct.

MR LAX: Thank you. Well therefore you knew that before you went there.

MR GREYLING: If we can put it that way, yes, I didn't really understand.

MR LAX: Well then how does that accord with your earlier evidence that you only found out about the elimination at the scene?

MR GREYLING: That is correct. It was at the scene that I asked: "How are we going to arrest these persons, because there is an ambush?" and they said: "No, we are not going to arrest these persons, we are going to eliminate them". It wasn't clear to me how we would arrest persons within an ambush and that is when I asked how would we arrest them, who would arrest who? And that is when I was told that we would be eliminating them and not arresting them.

MR LAX: Well then why did you not answer me, when we said to you: "Did you go to the scene without knowing the exact details"? You kept on insisting that you knew the exact details. in fact you didn't know the exact details.

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: Well explain to us why you wouldn't concede that you didn't know the full details.

MR GREYLING: I don't really understand.

MR LAX: Please tell us why you did not concede that you did not know the precise detail of the plan when you went to the scene of the incident.

MR GREYLING: I knew about the ambush, if I can put it as such. You say that I did not concede.

MR LAX: At the stage before you went to the area where the ambush would take place.

MR GREYLING: At the safe house?

MR LAX: Yes. The question was, did you know the precise details of the plan at that stage?

MR GREYLING: No, I did not know the precise detail because I was not involved in the planning stage of this operation. It was only later that I arrived there.

MR LAX: Yes, but we asked you whether before you arrived at the ambush point, you were aware of the precise detail.

MR GREYLING: No, that is why I stated that it was at the scene that I asked how we would be arresting these persons.

MR LAX: If there is something that you don't understand completely, please tell us before you answer the question.

MR NTHAI: Mr Greyling I will try to go a bit slow with you because I don't want you to get confused, I want you to help us. We want to understand what happened there.

You knew before you went to the scene that you were going for an ambush and that's why you carried an R1 rifle, is that correct?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR NTHAI: Now, the mere fact that you knew that there was an ambush and that you were also carrying an R1 rifle, was that not strange to you that you were told about the arrest and there's also a talk of ambush and you were given an R1?

MR GREYLING: No, it wasn't strange to me. We also used regular R1s with regular arrests.

MR NTHAI: But is there any reason why you didn't ask somebody as to how do you reconcile the arresting part of it and the ambush before you went there?

MR GREYLING: No, I cannot remember.

MR LAX: Let's put it another way. The word ambush is a pretty clear thing. You know what an ambush is? You don't arrest people in an ambush, not so?

MR GREYLING: That is correct, yes.

MR LAX: So once you knew there was an ambush, there couldn't have been any doubt in your mind that you were going to arrest these people, correct?

MR GREYLING: That is correct.

MR LAX: Because an ambush is an unambiguous concept. You create an arc of fire and in that fire it's a killing zone and nobody is supposed to survive. Correct?

MR GREYLING: That is correct, yes.

MR LAX: Consequently, there could have been no doubt in your mind once you knew there was an ambush, that there was any talk of arrest. You have to concede that, it's just plain logic.

MR GREYLING: That is correct.

MR LAX: And therefore flowing from that, there would have been nothing for you to ask about an arrest at the scene if you knew about the ambush before you left the safe area. I'm afraid it's just plain and simple. You see the problem?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, no. I remember that it was clear to me that at the scene I asked : "How are we going to arrest these people?" and then they said they are going to be eliminated.

MR LAX: Please carry on Mr Nthai.

MR NTHAI: Let me put it another way. I mean, I put it to you that it is very strange that you are still telling us that at the scene you still thought that there was going to be an arrest, despite the fact that there was a talk of ambush before you left and you were also carrying an R1 and also there was talk of eliminating people. I put it to you, that's very strange, you agree?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, at the scene I asked the people, "How are we going to arrest them? Who is going to arrest whom?" and either de Kock or somebody else told me that we are not going to arrest them, we are going to eliminate them.

MR NTHAI: Mr Greyling, well I'm gong to put the question again, because you are not answering my question.

MR LAX: Mr Nthai, is the point not made? Can we not move on?

MR NTHAI: Okay, we can leave it Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you a moment ago say it was de Kock or Deetlefs who said you were going to eliminate them?

MR GREYLING: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So you can't remember who it was who told you at the scene?

MR GREYLING: I cannot remember exactly who told me.

MR NTHAI: That's fine. I would like now to take you to the scene. I'm asking for the original photos, I don't know whether you still have them with you, of the vehicle.

So according to what you are saying, when this person jumped out with the pistol, after how long, the time that elapsed between the jumping out and the first shots that you had? Do you still remember? It happened very fast.

MR GREYLING: It happened very quickly, I cannot say it was a minute or 5 seconds.

MR NTHAI: But you were not the first to fire, is that correct?

MR GREYLING: I do not know, we started together.

CHAIRPERSON: Hadn't instructions been given that Mr de Kock was going to fire first?

MR GREYLING: That is correct, yes.

MR NTHAI: You knew about those instructions, is that correct?

MR GREYLING: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: Mr de Kock is the first one to fire, is that correct?

MR GREYLING: It had to be him, yes.

MR NTHAI: And if this vehicle ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Just hang on a sec. What do you mean it had to be him? That means you're assuming that. Either you know it or you don't know it. Either you recall it was part of the plan, or you can't remember, but your assumption frankly is no use to us. Do you remember what the plan was, yes or no?

MR GREYLING: I knew what the plan was.

MR LAX: And what was the plan?

MR GREYLING: The plan was that Col de Kock would fire first after which the other people would start firing.

MR LAX: Then why did you say it must have been him?

MR GREYLING: I do not know.

MR LAX: Sorry, carry on.

MR SIBANYONI: Why did you say the firing started, you started together? You didn't say de Kock started and you people followed, you said the firing started - you all started together.

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, these things happen very quickly. If the first shot is fired everybody starts firing. It happens within a few seconds.

MR NTHAI: But Mr de Kock says he's the one who fired first. The other witnesses say he's the one who fired first and from what you are describing, if the vehicle came to a standstill and this person jumped out, it should have been Mr de Kock who started firing at this person, is that correct?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that was the plan. I accept that he fired the first shot.

MR NTHAI: And from the position where he was, he should be the first one to have shot at this person. Do you still remember where Mr de Kock was positioned, if you look at the sketch that Mr de Kock - do you have the sketch that Mr de Kock gave us there?

MR GREYLING: Yes, I have it in front of me.

MR NTHAI: And according to him he was the first there on the extreme left, do you see that?

MR GREYLING: It is written in red that the person on the far left is Mr Fourie.

MS VAN DER WALT: ...(not translated) "Ek het dit soos wat die getuie getuig het daarop geskryf, dis nie soos dit op die kaart is nie, want Mnr Fourie het gister so daaroor getuig dat hy heel links gelê het. Ek weet nie of ..."

MR LAMEY: Mnr Fourie se getuienis, Mnr die Voorsitter, was dat hy heel links of tweede van links af gelê het. Hy was ook nie presies..." He was not quite sure. It was either him or somebody else.

MR LAX: The original annotation of that picture by Mr de Kock shows him as 1, Deetlefs as 2, Fourie as 3 and Pienaar as 4. You can see it written on the exhibit.

MR GREYLING: I accept if Mr de Kock said it, it must be so.

MR NTHAI: So if you look at that picture and you accept that picture of Mr de Kock, obviously if there was a person who came out of that door, the person who shot him first was Mr de Kock.

MR GREYLING: That is possible, yes.

MR NTHAI: Now, Mr de Kock should be the person who should have seen this person, because he was the first one to start firing, is that correct?

MR GREYLING: Yes he must have seen him.

MR NTHAI: And Mr de Kock told us that nobody came out of that because these people were shot back into the vehicle, nobody came out.

MR LAX: It's not a question of them being shot back into the vehicle, that's this witness's explanation, how they ended up both in the vehicle together. On Mr de Kock's version the man was always in the vehicle.

MR NTHAI: Yes, okay. So I mean Mr de Kock who first fired, according to him this man was always in the vehicle, he never came out.

MR GREYLING: No Mr Chairperson, as far as I can remember the person did get out.

MR NTHAI: But from where Mr de Kock was positioned in relation to your position, obviously Mr de Kock had a better view of the people who were in the bakkie, not so? Is that not correct.

MR GREYLING: Chairperson, I was at the left back wheel of the car and as the door opened, I had a very clear perspective as the door opened.

MR NTHAI: How was the visibility that day? That night.

MR GREYLING: It was dark. I cannot remember if it was a full moon or a half moon.

MR NTHAI: When the vehicle came to a standstill, were the lights still on, or the lights were off of the vehicle?

MR GREYLING: I cannot remember.

MR NTHAI: What was helping you to observe this person with a weapon?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson we were two or three metres from the people.

MR NTHAI: Yes. And this person, when he was coming out, where was he facing, I mean when you started firing at him and the cabin and the door, where was he facing? It's either he was facing on the direction where Mr de Kock was, or he was facing more towards your direction. Which direction was he facing?

MR GREYLING: I'm not quite sure but I would accept that his back was towards my side, or his side as he got out of the vehicle.

MR NTHAI: And he had his pistol on his right-hand side, you said.

MR GREYLING: That is correct, yes.

MR NTHAI: So his pistol, from what you're saying, if the back was on his side, this pistol would have been in between the seat of the vehicle and the door, is that correct?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, I said it is possible that he was with his back towards me or his side, but I definitely saw that when he opened the door and got out, I definitely saw that he had a pistol in his right hand.

MR NTHAI: And the pistol was facing down?

MR GREYLING: I'm not quite sure if it was pointing towards the ground or if it was level with the ground.

MR LAX: Can I just ask something while we're on this? How did he get out of the vehicle? You observed him getting out of the vehicle. Did he swing his legs out while still seated and then stand up? Did he put one leg on the ground and then stand up?

MR GREYLING: No, Mr Chairperson, I'm not quite sure. I cannot remember the details.

MR LAX: But you've told Mr de Plessis, when he was questioning you, that you remember the man with both his feet on the ground, that you're clear about.

MR GREYLING: That is correct, yes. He got out with both feet on the ground.

MR LAX: So there are a number of possibilities of how he could have been standing, but if we assume that he got out of the car quickly, we can narrow those possibilities. He was either standing with his back to you, or he was standing facing with his back to the place he just got out of. Because it's highly unlikely he would have had time to turn right around and face you.

MR GREYLING: That is correct, yes.

MR LAX: So you can't help us there?

MR GREYLING: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: You see, the reason why I'm asking you this question, it appears from what you explained, it should have been very difficult for you to see the pistol, from what you are saying, do you agree?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, I saw the pistol. I saw the pistol in the person's right hand. I am convinced of it.

MR NTHAI: And you can't remember whether the pistol was pointing to fire or he was just carrying it facing down, you can't remember that?

MR GREYLING: I cannot remember, Mr Chairperson.

MR NTHAI: Did you also have tracer bullets?

MR GREYLING: No, I did not.

MR NTHAI: You didn't have tracer bullets? Did you check your firearm?

MR GREYLING: I would have seen if I had tracer bullets while I fired.

MR NTHAI: Mr Greyling, I'm asking you whether before you fired when you were issued with the rifle, you checked the bullets that were inside, in particular did you check whether they were tracer bullets?

MR GREYLING: No, I did not look.

MR NTHAI: Where did this firearm come from? Did it come from the Piet Retief police station?

MR GREYLING: I accept from the Security Branch of Piet Retief.

MR NTHAI: And on your way, or while you were still at the house or the farm, whatever you call it, you never tried to check the magazine, take it out to check whether everything was okay? You didn't do that?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, the magazine was out, you cock the weapon to see if it was working. I did not take out the rounds to see how many rounds there were or if they were tracer bullets. I didn't do it. I accepted that that weapon was in a working state.

MR NTHAI: You assumed that it was in a working state even before you fired? You assumed it was okay?

MR GREYLING: That is correct, yes.

MR NTHAI: And you say you were involved in another ambush somewhere else, is that correct?

MR LAX: He said a contact.

MR NTHAI: A contact, yes.

MR LAX: Just an engagement with enemy forces.

MR NTHAI: Yes. You were involved in another contact, is that correct?

MR GREYLING: That is correct, yes.

MR NTHAI: And when you went for that contact, you had information that there's going to be a contact, is that correct? Or it just happened?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, that was at the border in Zimbabwe and now Namibia. From time to time there were ambushes planned and executed.

MR NTHAI: Well I'm talking about - you were not involved in many of them, I'm talking about specific ones that you were involved in. Did you know that there was going to be a contact or it just happened? It could happen when you are patrolling, then there is a contact? But it can happen in such a way that you have information prior, that there will be people coming and as such there will be a contact?

MR GREYLING: That is correct, yes.

MR NTHAI: You knew that there would be a contact?

MR GREYLING: In some instances yes, some instances no.

MR NTHAI: Yes, but the one, one of the incidents that you were involved in, you knew that there was going to be a contact before, is that correct?

MR GREYLING: That is correct, yes.

MR NTHAI: Now, do you remember whether in that particular case you checked your firearm, whether it was in a working condition or no?

MR GREYLING: That is correct, Mr Chairperson. If you leave the base you look at your weapon to ensure that it is in a working condition.

MR NTHAI: That is the normal procedure, is that correct?

MR GREYLING: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, but the situation is completely different than this situation.

MR NTHAI: Well Mr Greyling, Mr Greyling, you had three hours before you went there and you were going to ambush and eliminate people, you were not interested to know whether your firearm was working or not?

MR GREYLING: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR NTHAI: What is correct?

MR GREYLING: I did not check the weapon.

MR NTHAI: Strange ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Before we go on, can I come in here. When you were talking of these other instances, was the weapon your responsibility?

MR GREYLING: That is correct. It is issued to us for three or six months, it was your responsibility.

MR LAX: Can I just ask a question before you proceed?

MR NTHAI: Yes.

MR LAX: Surely when you're issued with a weapon, even if it is not your responsibility, when you're going into a situation which you've already conceded to us you knew would be an ambush at the very least, surely you check your magazine to see if it's full, check how many rounds you've got? What if it only had two rounds in it?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, I think I said in my statement that this specific incident where the weapon was given to me at Piet Retief I cocked the weapon to see if it was working and you can see if the magazine is full or not by pressing with your thumb down on it, so I wouldn't have taken it if there were only two rounds in it. They handed it over to me.

MR LAX: Your evidence has been that you just cocked the rifle, you didn't do anything else to it. That was your evidence earlier. Now that I'm drawing your attention to this, the magazine being full or not, you've not told us you took the magazine out, you've not told us you checked how many rounds were in it or pressed it down. You can't do that if you don't take the magazine out.

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, you have to take the magazine off to cock the weapon, to see if it is in a working condition. You have to take the magazine off.

MR LAX: Not necessarily, you can cock the weapon with the magazine on. It will eject a weapon - it will put something in the chamber or not. You can do that perfectly fine.

MR GREYLING: I believe it would have been very unsafe to do it where there were people around.

MR LAX: Please continue.

MR NTHAI: Well Mr Greyling, I mean, you will agree with me that it was strange for you not really to check whether the firearm was in working condition, in particular the bullets that were inside.

MS VAN DER WALT: May I just correct this, just after what Mr Lax said. The applicant said that after a question from you, he did cock the weapons but he did not count the rounds and that was his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: I think he also said that the magazine was out at the time.

MS VAN DER WALT: That is correct, yes.

MR NTHAI: Well that's fine. Let me proceed with another point.

CHAIRPERSON: It happens to be a convenient stage. We now take the short adjournment.

MS LOCKHAT: All rise.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

DANIEL JACOBUS GREYLING: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NTHAI: (Cont.)

I just want to come back a bit on this person who jumped out, as you say he was standing outside. How far did he move from the vehicle, in relation to the seat, you must give me the distance in relation to the seat and in relation to the opened door. How far did he go?

MR GREYLING: As far as I can recall, he climbed out, he didn't move. He climbed out of the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: So was he still between the door and the vehicle, in that gap?

MR GREYLING: The door was open and he climbed out from the seat.

MR LAX: So the question is, was he in the arc, so to speak, formed by the door having opened and the sort of outer body, if you like, of the car? Can you imagine a triangle in that space. Was he standing in that triangle more or less?

MR GREYLING: Yes, as I can recall.

MR NTHAI: I just want you to go to your statement on page 202. That will be paragraph number 1, 2, 3, 4, the last two sentences.

MS VAN DER WALT: Would that be paragraph 6, or is it paragraph 7?

MR NTHAI: Paragraph 7, I didn't realise that they were numbered, I'm sorry. Paragraph 7, where you are talking about the three people seated being killed. Do you see that?

MR GREYLING: Yes, I see it.

MR NTHAI: Why are you talking about three people seated being killed, because there were two people, not so?

MR GREYLING: Yes that is correct. What I actually meant is that there were two persons, there were three passengers. Two were killed inside the bakkie and the other was killed at the back of the bakkie, that is where he lay after the incident.

MR NTHAI: Look at paragraph number 8 also. You're talking about a hand grenade that was found inside the vehicle. Is that correct?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the pistol found in the vehicle?

MR GREYLING: Chairperson, there was a pistol inside the vehicle when I looked into the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR NTHAI: That was beside the pistol that the other person who jumped out was carrying, so there were two pistols? Is that one pistol?

MR GREYLING: It is one pistol. I accept that the pistol which was there was the pistol which was wielded by the person who jumped out of the vehicle.

MR NTHAI: And at the time, who was your Commander?

MR GREYLING: At the scene?

MR NTHAI: Well, your Commander at the area?

MR GREYLING: At that stage at the scene, with regard to this specific incident, I fell under the command of Eugene de Kock, the divisional Commander was Brig Visser. My Branch Commander in Nelspruit was Mr Visser.

MR NTHAI: So if you were involved in an incident of this nature, you would report to him because de Kock was not coming from the area, not so?

M GREYLING: Chairperson, what would usually happen, is a senior officer at such a scene would be the person to report about this incident.

MR NTHAI: Did you - okay let me put it this way, did you report this incident to your senior?

MR GREYLING: I did not report it to him.

MR NTHAI: Why? Is it because you made an assumption that the senior person would report?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that was the custom which was followed.

MR NTHAI: Now, let's come to something else. You were saying that you are also applying for amnesty for the attempted murder of Mr Sindane, is that correct?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR NTHAI: Now, did you know that Mr Sindane was going to be killed, there was going to be an attempt on his life? Did you know about that?

MR GREYLING: No, I did not know.

MR NTHAI: What did you know about him? So you knew that he was going to be arrested?

MR GREYLING: I knew that on the following day or on the same evening, I cannot remember which, that he would be arrested.

MR LAX: The question was, did you know that someone was going to attempt to kill Mr Sindane? We're not talking about his arrest or anything like that?

MR GREYLING: As I've stated previously, I didn't know about the other groups, I couldn't even recall that Mr Bosch and Mr Willemse and Mr Nofomela were there. I cannot even remember seeing them there.

MR LAX: So you didn't know that there was another group at the T-junction at all?

MR GREYLING: Let me put it as such, I think that we might be misunderstanding each other, I was not involved in the planning phase. I found these members at the safe house and they moved off to their point and we moved out to our point, so I knew that they were going to a certain point, but I didn't know precisely what their plan was.

MR LAX: And you didn't know what they were going to do?

MR GREYLING: No, I didn't know.

MR NTHAI: Now if you did not know what they were going to do, why are you applying for amnesty for this attempted murder? Why do you associate yourself with things that you did not even know about?

MR GREYLING: Chairperson, the entire operation is consistent, that is why I have applied for everything.

CHAIRPERSON: But you didn't know anything at all about this other operation as I understand your evidence, you were asked by Mr de Kock, whom you met quite by chance at this house, to come on the operation with them to ambush/arrest certain people who were going to infiltrate the country and that is all you knew about and all you agree to participate in. What common purpose did you have with people who were carrying out an operation you knew nothing about at all?

MR GREYLING: Chairperson, the following day or with the other person who was also killed, I accepted that I was also then "involved" in this entire operation, that is why I have applied in this case.

MR NTHAI: But now do you realise that it is wrong for you to apply for something like that, you realise that you didn't know what was happening and why do you associate yourself with things that you did not know?

MR GREYLING: As I have stated, I accepted that the entire operation was collectively planned and that is why I have applied for this case. I don't believe that there could be any other reason why I would have done so, that is why I am here, that is the reason for my application.

MR NTHAI: Is it because your application was submitted by your lawyer as a group, is that the reason?

MR GREYLING: No, I don't believe so. I consulted with my attorney solely.

MR NTHAI: Did you tell you attorney that you did not know about the plan the other side? Did you tell your attorney that?

MS VAN DER WALT: But his evidence was led as such, that he was no involved in the planning. His response to the question regarding why he states that he's applying for the attempted murder and for the murder of the other person is that he believes and accepts that the operation was one operation in its entirety, that he was involved in although he was not present at the T-junction. His evidence furthermore indicated that he found the person who was shot there at the bakkie directly after the shooting and that he regarded this as one operation.

MR NTHAI: Well, even though he may have regarded this as one operation, Mr Chairman, I believe that his application is very clear as to what he was applying for. It's not very clear to me why should he associate himself with things that he did not even know especially that when he made the application, Mr Chairman, he was assisted by his lawyer. This is not just an application made by a lay person who may not have known legal technicalities and legal principles and I submit, Mr Chairman, that it's quite correct for me to put this question to the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Where does he say in his application what he's applying for amnesty for?

MS VAN DER WALT: On page 198 he makes a statement for all the applications that he has submitted and he has one form where he mentions

"Murder as well as any other offence or unlawful deed based upon my involvement in the matters as in Annexure A."

MR NTHAI: And of course Mr Chairman, he amplified that today when he was giving evidence in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - mike not on) Carry on.

MR NTHAI: Yes. Do you now realise that it is wrong for you to apply for the attempted murder of ...(intervention)

MS VAN DER WALT: Is this the viewpoint of the speaker, or is he putting this as a fact?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think what he is putting is in his view.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chair.

MS NTHAI: Yes, can you answer the question?

MR GREYLING: Chairperson, I am applying for amnesty for what I have applied according to this form of mine.

MR NTHAI: But you know that you are supposed to apply for amnesty for what you have done, is that not correct?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct, but as I have stated, I regarded myself as part of the entirety of this operation and that is why I have applied for amnesty.

MR NTHAI: There's just one aspect. Did you know whether the driver, Mr Sithole, was supposed to be killed or not? Did you know about that aspect?

MR GREYLING: I didn't know about it.

MR NTHAI: Did you know that he was supposed to get out and told to urinate or something like that, were you told about that?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR NTHAI: And when you went there to the scene, what did you understand? Did you understand that the driver was supposed to be killed also? What was your understanding?

MR GREYLING: Chairperson, as I have stated previously, I asked how the persons were going to be arrested and I received the order that everyone was to be eliminated.

MR LAX: When did you hear about the driver and him getting out and going to urinate and so on?

MR GREYLING: If I recall correctly, I asked this at the scene of the incident.

MR LAX: But why would you have asked it? Why would you have asked anything about the driver, if you didn't know that there was anything special to do with him? You simply asked whether the people were going to be arrested, you were told no, everyone's going to be eliminated. How did it then arise that you then asked about the driver specifically? What reason would you have had to ask about the driver at all?

MR GREYLING: Chairperson, at the scene I asked how these persons would be arrested and my order was that everyone had to be eliminated, so I accepted the driver would also be eliminated. Everybody with the vehicle had to be eliminated.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you know about the driver stopping the car and to say he was going to urinate? That is not part of a general statement, eliminate everybody. How did you get to know this specific information, is the question.

MR GREYLING: I cannot recall who specifically told me, but I knew about it. I don't know who told me specifically.

MR NTHAI: Even though you don't remember who told you, you were told at the scene, is that correct, about that?

MR GREYLING: That is correct, yes.

MR NTHAI: So at the scene you were told about conflicting things? One the driver was supposed to get out and urinate and then at the same time you were also told that he was supposed to be killed?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, you have to understand, I came from Swaziland. Within a short period of time, I was from the safe house to the scene and there they told us how the people would be arrested, or I asked them how they would be arrested and they said that everybody must be eliminated. The story was that the bakkie will stop, the driver will climb out to urinate, but after Col de Kock told me, or Col Deetlefs told me the people had to be eliminated, they were then eliminated. I cannot specifically tell you about the finer details because I was not part of the real planning of this operation.

MR NTHAI: No, I do understand that. You know what I wanted, I just want what happened, there at the scene. So when you were told about the urinating, were you told that he was going to be eliminated, or he was supposed to go and urinate and be left and later on you got an order from Mr de Kock or Mr Deetlefs that he should also be eliminated? What happened?

MR GREYLING: I cannot remember exactly. I cannot remember the details.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you told about this driver getting out to urinate as an explanation as to why the vehicle was going to stop there? Were you told: "The vehicle is going to stop here, because the driver is going to pretend he's getting out to urinate and we can then carry on"?

MR GREYLING: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: And when you were told about that, were you told that as the driver was getting out to urinate, he was supposed to be killed, or you were told about eliminating later on? Mr Greyling, I just want to understand this thing correctly. Now when you were told about the driver going out to urinate, were you told that as he was going out to urinate, he was going to be eliminated, or he was going to be arrested and then later on you got an order that no, he should also be eliminated, everybody must be eliminated? What actually happened?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, I cannot remember correctly. When the instruction was given that the people had to be eliminated, I fell in with that or I agreed with that and the people were eliminated. I cannot remember the exact details. I was not in the involved in the planning the whole time.

MR LAX: This is not about the planning. This is about what happened at the scene and it is something one would expect you to remember because the whole nature of what you thought you were going to do changed. Isn't that so? You thought you were going to effect an arrest of certain "terrorists", as you would have understood it at the time and suddenly instead of just arresting them, you're laying an ambush for them. Not so? That's a big change in the whole nature of the operation.

MR GREYLING: That is correct yes.

MR LAX: And so it had nothing to do with remembering the planning of the operation where you weren't present. Once you're suddenly involved in an ambush, you know that your life is potentially in danger, you want to make sure exactly what's going to happen, not so?

MR GREYLING: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What I find far more difficult to understand, Mr Greyling, is you tell us now that you were told at the scene that the driver was going to pretend, was going to stop the vehicle and pretend to get out and urinate. Now it was quite clear from that to anybody that the driver was part of the ambush, that he was bringing the people there and going to leave them at the ambush point.

MR GREYLING: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Surely you must have asked, what is to happen to the driver, because you surely would not have expected that you should kill somebody who was working in conjunction with the police.

MR GREYLING: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, but after they told me that the people had to be eliminated, I accepted that everybody had to be eliminated, or everybody is going to be shot. I accepted it.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm asking before then, when you were told about the driver. Surely you then said: "Will we let him go?" Surely you must have asked?

MR GREYLING: No, Mr Chairperson, I did not ask any questions, I was given an instruction.

MR LAX: Did it not even occur to you to ask why an informer is being eliminated? A man who is delivering these people to you?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, I executed the instructions I was given. I cannot give an explanation why I didn't ask that type of question. I just followed the instructions.

MR NTHAI: Mr Greyling, even though you did not know the exact details of the plan, you knew that one of the people who were coming with these people was an informer, is that not correct?

MR GREYLING: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: You knew this before you went to the scene, is that correct?

MR GREYLING: No. At the scene, after the arrest was not clear to me and I asked what must happen.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I perhaps say something in conjunction with what my colleague has just said? You knew that this man was more than an informer. You knew that this was a man who was actively helping the police carry out their operation. Didn't you? At the scene you were told this.

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, I did not know that this person had previous contact with Mr Pienaar. He dealt with him.

CHAIRPERSON: How on earth do you think Mr Pienaar or anybody else knew that this person was going to stop the vehicle at this precise spot and get out to urinate if they hadn't had prior contact? Really Mr Greyling, do you expect us to believe that? That you didn't know if there'd been prior contact when you were told specifically, the vehicle is going to stop here, the driver is going to get out and pretend to urinate.

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, I do not think you understand me correctly. I think you are misunderstanding. I did not know that this person was an informer of Mr Pienaar before, only afterwards did I realise that when somebody told me this, but before I did not know.

CHAIRPERSON: At the scene you were told he was going to stop the vehicle and get out and pretend to urinate which indicates a complete co-operation with the setting up of the ambush, doesn't it?

MR GREYLING: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you knew that.

MR GREYLING: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you not ask, when you were told these people are to be eliminated, why did you not ask the question that I think any person would: "What about the driver"?

MR GREYLING: I did not ask it, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR LAX: Just before you do. Cecil, have you got a problem with the sound system? I beg your pardon? I can't hear you. I just want to make sure that there are no problems with the tape. Can you carry on without it? Are we getting a proper recording? Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I just wanted to make sure we were still getting a proper recording. Please continue Mr Nthai.

MR NTHAI: We have been told that there is a vehicle that came to fetch the bodies. Did you see that?

MR GREYLING: Yes, I saw the vehicle, I can remember that.

MR NTHAI: Do you still remember how many people were in that vehicle that day?

CHAIRPERSON: People or bodies?

MR NTHAI: People, not bodies, people.

MR GREYLING: That were picked up in the vehicle?

MR NTHAI: No, the people either the driver, or whether there was a person there or not, or it was just one person.

MR GREYLING: I cannot remember.

MR NTHAI: Yes. Now at what stage did the other body come from the other side? Did it come with this bakkie?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, I cannot remember that.

MR NTHAI: Now you can't remember anything. Who loaded the bodies, that you should remember, obviously I mean, you should remember, you were there, you should remember that.

MR GREYLING: The people who were at the scene, loaded the bodies.

MR NTHAI: You were also at the scene, not so? Why do you talk as if you were not at the scene? You were also at the scene?

MR GREYLING: No, I have all along said that I was at the scene.

MR NTHAI: Yes, who loaded? You can't say - those people are known to you, those people, they are not strangers.

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, I cannot exactly remember which person did what. I could have helped, Mr Pienaar could have helped, Mr Deetlefs could have helped, I could have helped. I do not know exactly what happened, but I believe I would have, because I was there.

MR NTHAI: So should we assume that you also helped?

MR GREYLING: Helped to load the people on the vehicle?

MR NTHAI: I just want you to remember correctly. You should be able to remember this, you were there. How were these bodies loaded into the vehicle? Was there someone inside the bakkie. It was an open bakkie we are told. Was there someone standing there, take the body, give it to that person, put it down, how were they loaded?

MR GREYLING: Chairperson, I cannot describe it in detail. I cannot remember. I believe that two people or three people picked up a body and put it in the back of the bakkie.

MR NTHAI: No, no. The question is, was there someone else inside the bakkie, in other words, there were other people who picked up the body, gave it to one or two people who were there and then put the body down.

MR GREYLING: I cannot remember in that detail.

MR NTHAI: This you should remember now, you should remember this. Were these bodies thrown into the bakkie? You should remember this, you were there definitely. This you should remember.

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, I accept that if we picked up the bodies, we had to throw them into the back of the body.

MR NTHAI: Well you see, let me put it this way. There's evidence that these bodies were thrown into the bakkie because you didn't care, they were terrorists, I mean there's a difference, there's a big difference. Was that how the bodies were handled? There's evidence here these bodies, people were regarded as terrorists, they were being thrown into the bakkie. Is that how the bodies were handled?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, I heard the previous testimony, but I cannot remember it. I personally wouldn't have done it.

MR NTHAI: No, I'm with you. So you can't tell us whether that happened or not? Do you agree with that witness?

MR GREYLING: I agree that the bodies were picked up from the ground and then thrown over the top into the back of the bakkie.

MR NTHAI: But do you agree with the way that the witness described that the bodies were thrown? Do you agree with that, you were there? I just want to know whether you differ with him.

MR GREYLING: I cannot remember exactly. I personally wouldn't have done it.

MR LAX: Sorry, I'm puzzled here, I don't see the difference. If the bodies were thrown into the back of a bakkie, then that is exactly the same as what Mr Fourie described. He described two people holding the bodies, he indicated sort of arms and feet kind of story, hands and feet, and then swung into the back of the body. That's how you would do it. How else would you do it?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, there's a difference in the body, to pick the body up and to put it over the side. If that happened, I agree but I cannot remember. What I think is that if I was involved, I would have picked it up and just thrown it over the edge into the back of the bakkie, over the side. I cannot remember these details, it was years ago. It is difficult to remember exactly all the details.

MR NTHAI: So I mean, at the time, even at the time, you wouldn't take the attitude of that witness that these people were terrorists, you didn't care about them. You ...(indistinct) approved, is that correct?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, I believed that they were terrorists. Evidence was given concerning that and we were politicised, we were brought up that way.

MR NTHAI: So why do you say you wouldn't have done it, I mean if you were brought up that way? Politicised, indoctrinated, told they are terrorists, why wouldn't you do that, what would prevent you then?

MR GREYLING: I do not know that is just my feeling.

MR NTHAI: It's just not in your nature? You didn't believe in some of the things you were indoctrinated about, correct?

MR GREYLING: If I think about it today, I would say yes.

MR NTHAI: Do you regret what you did?

MR GREYLING: Yes, I do regret.

MR NTHAI: Would you like to apologise to the family members for this?

MR GREYLING: I will apologise to them yes. I have no problem in doing that.

MR NTHAI: Have you tried to do that since this hearing started, because they were here since we started?

MR GREYLING: No, well, I didn't know exactly who is family and who is not. I do not have any problem in it, if I'm finished here I'll do it.

MR NTHAI: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NTHAI

MS LOCKHAT: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

MR SIBANYONI: I've got no questions, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Thanks Chair. Mr Greyling, there's once aspect that still puzzles me and that's the question of how this many who was standing outside the vehicle ended up back in the vehicle with both feet inside the vehicle and with the firearm between his legs on the ground. How on earth was that physically possible for that to happen, even if he was shot back into the vehicle? Because that's the evidence. We are told that's how he was found. Seated back in the vehicle with his body slumped to one side, towards the steering wheel, both feet in a sitting position and the firearm between his legs. Can you give us any possible explanation of how that could have happened?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, I cannot give an explanation. I believe that he was shot and he fell back. I cannot give an explanation for that.

MR LAX: And then the final aspect from me relates to, you said you went to talk to Mr Sidebe. What did you speak to him about?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, before I was busy recruiting Mr Sidebe as an informant and I then introduced myself to him and we talked about the recruiting actions that were taking place at that stage.

MR LAX: When you say before you were busy recruiting him, explain what you mean. I don't understand that.

MR GREYLING: What happened is, I did not personally contact Mr Sidebe in Swaziland. I used an in between person.

MR LAX: So you just went and introduced yourself to him to say: "I'm the man who facilitated this process"?

MR GREYLING: That is correct. I introduced myself and told him who I was.

MR LAX: How long did that take?

MR GREYLING: I cannot remember exactly. We had a friendly discussion. I cannot remember exactly.

MR LAX: So it wouldn't have taken more than 10 minutes to do that.

MR GREYLING: No I think it was longer. We talked about other aspects as well.

MR LAX: Well it didn't take three hours to do that?

MR GREYLING: No definitely not, not three hours.

MR LAX: You see my other difficulty with your evidence is this. You're on this safe property. Even if you spent an hour talking to Sidebe, you still had two hours to do absolutely nothing. You would have know that you had been requested to participate at least in an arrest. For that arrest to happen, you would have known that there had to be a road block at the very least.

MR GREYLING: That is correct, yes.

MR LAX: And road blocks require planning, you would have asked what on earth my role should be in this road block, am I part of the stopper group, am I going to be here, am I going to be there, what provisions are me making? Again, you're an experienced policeman, you know that these things require planning, isn't that so?

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, yes, as far as I can remember it was not a road block but we planned the ambush and not a road block. You must remember that there were people there that I haven't see for a long time. You talk about other aspects, you exchange information etc.

MR LAX: Well you see, this is very interesting, you just told us you planned an ambush, not a road block. If you were planning an ambush, there could have been no doubt in your mind that these people were to be eliminated and then all your evidence about finding out at the scene that that was the case simply cannot possibly be true.

MR GREYLING: Mr Chairperson, I said to you I was not there at the initial planning. I do not really understand what you are asking me. I came here to tell the truth and that is why I applied for amnesty. The initial plan was that we are going to arrest the people at the scene and at the scene I asked, how are we going to arrest them? Who is going to arrest whom and where? And then the instructions came that we have to eliminate them and I did what I was told. I do not understand what you are asking me?

MR LAX: Why have you just told us that as part of your discussions with your colleagues at the safe property, you planned an ambush not a road block. Those were your words, I didn't put them in your mouth.

MR GREYLING: No, that is correct, yes, I said that, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and you have told us many times that an ambush is not an arrest. Do you remember saying that again and again in your evidence?

MR GREYLING: Yes, I did say that, that is why I asked at the scene how must they be arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: But you've just told us that at the house you discussed and you planned an ambush.

MR GREYLING: That is correct, yes.

MR LAX: Chair, I'll leave it at that.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew most of the people at the house, didn't you? You'd worked with them in the past?

MR GREYLING: From the police members?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR GREYLING: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you know about the Sidebe operation?

MR GREYLING: The when I arrived there, I heard about it.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you - what do you mean? You only heard on the day you arrived Sidebe had been taken there?

MR GREYLING: Sidebe, I'm now confused, it was the day before or the day afterwards, that he was there.

MR LAX: Well, it couldn't have been the day afterwards because you saw him there.

MR GREYLING: Sidebe was the day before we arrived there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and did you hear about the operation?

MR GREYLING: Yes, there I heard about the operation and I saw Sidebe there. I was stationed at Nelspruit, they were at Piet Retief.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you know about it before you arrived there?

MR GREYLING: No, I did not know about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, why did you go there?

MR GREYLING: As I said I worked in the Hlangane area and I went from there to Piet Retief to the Security Branch offices and there they told me that I had to go, that he was deployed and I then went to the safe house.

MR LAX: You see, my difficulty with what you are telling us is this. You just told us a few minutes ago that you were one of the people who was busy trying to recruit Mr Sidebe through other agents. As such how could you not know he was going to be picked up? How could you not know he was going to be "abducted", if you were one of the very people who was responsible for recruiting him? It just wouldn't make sense.

MR GREYLING: Let me explain to you. I worked from Nelspruit, the others worked from Piet Retief and Ermelo and by means of a person who worked with me, I established contact with Sidebe and I wanted to recruit him and he agreed at a certain point. After that he was deployed and I spoke to him. It is not that I knew about it because I was in Nelspruit.

MR LAX: Are you telling us that a man as important as Sidebe, as high up as Sidebe, that the efforts to recruit him were not co-ordinated? That you colleagues in Ermelo and Piet Retief didn't know about your efforts to recruit the man?

MR GREYLING: They did not know about it.

MR LAX: I find that absolutely surprising, but anyway.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MS VAN DER WALT: Just singular aspects Honourable Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: When you went to the scene, or when you were at the scene, did you know how many persons would be coming in?

MR GREYLING: No, I don't believe that I knew.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now, when you were at the scene with this operation and you received the order for these persons to be eliminated and you knew that there was another group of persons who were stationed at another point?

MR GREYLING: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now when you realised that the order was to kill these persons, did you foresee that other persons could also be killed?

MR GREYLING: Yes, it is possible that I foresaw this.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, I have nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

MR LAX: Just one question arising. Mr Greyling, you did not know that people were at the other point, that was your evidence earlier, so how could you know or expect that someone might be killed, if you didn't even know where they were going, you didn't even know that they were part of the operation, you only found that out afterwards?

MR GREYLING: Chairperson, that is why I have applied for amnesty in terms of these persons who were killed and so forth.

MR LAX: Well then why have you just agreed with your lawyer who has put a proposition to you that you knew people were going to another place and that you expected that people might be killed there, when you didn't know that and you didn't expect it? Do you understand my difficulty?

MR GREYLING: Yes, I understand your problem, but I cannot offer any explanation for it.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MR NTHAI: Mr Chairman, may I be allowed just to ask one question on this thing of Sidebe? Just one question.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NTHAI: Tell me, when did you try to recruit Mr Sidebe through this other person? When was it?

MR GREYLING: I cannot recall precisely but it was before his deployment.

MR NTHAI: So it was in 1986, it was not before 1986?

MR GREYLING: It may also have been before then, I'm not certain because it was quite a long process.

MR NTHAI: How did you come to know about Sidebe, which made you to recruit him?

MR GREYLING: I was interested in recruiting him.

MR NTHAI: No, how did you know that there's a person called Sidebe?

MR GREYLING: His family lived in our area of jurisdiction.

MR NTHAI: That's fine, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NTHAI

MR LAX: Anything arising, Ms van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. The time is now twenty past twelve. We have still got 4 applicants to go. Is there any purpose Ladies and Gentlemen, in starting one of them now to leave him part-heard till the next hearing? I, in particular, ask the legal advisers of the applicants who have yet to give evidence. In my view it is almost always unfair to someone to make them give evidence and then to be subjected to cross-examination on it a few months later and I think that that is our general view. Should we adjourn at this stage, I would ask those responsible for arranging our resumed hearing, to bear in mind that it has taken us over two hours, about two and a half hours to deal with one not particularly contentious applicant. I think there might be somewhat more questions to some of the others and if the witness who is to be called on behalf of the victims is subjected to any searching cross-examination, that could also take some time. Now I certainly am of the view that we will require more than one day, I don't know what the other views are.

MR LAX: We agree.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the view of the whole Committee and I see certain heads shaking in agreement. So could we please try to make arrangements?

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, Chairperson, we will do so. I just want to make a special plea to all the representatives that it is very difficult to co-ordinate all of us and to get dates that are suitable for everyone and thus far we had a real struggle Chairperson and I just want everybody to go back to your diaries again and see if you can work out something and then we can - because it has been sent down for the 19th, for one day, so we'll have to - which is not going to be appropriate in the circumstances.

MR LAX: Just so people know in terms of planning, I'm scheduled to sit from the 17th in Durban for 3 weeks. They were going to make that hearing stand down for one day, they could probably make it stand down for two. If possible somewhere in that space, so I plead with you to try and see if the 18th or the 20th might be available, then we could possibly do something. But yes, we'd have to leave it to you to work it out, I'm sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: I'd like to thank all of you, not only the legal representatives but all the others who have helped us to get through the work here for the month we've been here and hope that we can manage to finish it all within the reasonable future. Thank you all.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson. All rise.

HEARING ADJOURNS