CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Dyk, which language would you prefer to use?
MR VAN DYK: Afrikaans, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any objection to taking the oath?
PAUL VAN DYK: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr van Dyk, your application appears in the bundle before the Honourable Committee, your formal application page 124 to page 126. The incident for which you apply for amnesty is on page 128 to 129 and the political motivation is from page 130 to 137, is that correct?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: You have heard the evidence of the previous applicants, you were also in Swaziland, is that correct?
MR VAN DYK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And in Swaziland itself, what exactly did you do there when you arrived at the police station?
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, when we arrived at the police station, as has already been testified, approximately 80 metres past the police station we stopped and we sent back some of the black members to see if everything was quiet at the police station. They returned and said it was quiet. We then took the vehicle, drove back. As I can recall it, on the one side there was a post office and on the other side was the police station and in-between the police station and - we went through in-between the police station and the post office and we stopped behind the police station.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you go into the police station?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, we all entered through the window that Col Eugene opened and I think some of the members, Freek and Deetlefs, went through the door.
MS VAN DER WALT: Were you personally at the cell where Mr Sedibe was detained?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, I was.
MS VAN DER WALT: What did you do there?
MR VAN DYK: I was with Col de Kock.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you have a firearm?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, I did.
MS VAN DER WALT: What type of firearm?
MR VAN DYK: It was a pistol with a silencer.
MS VAN DER WALT: Was this a legal firearm?
MR VAN DYK: No, it wasn't.
MS VAN DER WALT: And after Mr Sedibe was taken from his cell, what did you do then?
MNR VAN DYK: "Nadat Sedibe ontset is het ek en Joe Koole hom gevat en ons is daar na agtertoe na die stasiewa, die land-cruiser stasiewa. Hy't deure wat oopklap na die kante toe ...(tussenbeide)
MS VAN DER WALT: These are the rear doors?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, they ware the rear doors. ... and we wanted to load him in. At this stage it was only myself and Joe Koole. Sedibe held onto the back of the vehicle and he kicked back and all three of us landed on our backs on the ground. Joe Koole and I were also injured. My pants tore. It was quite a struggle to get the man back onto his legs. I then grabbed him from behind, around his chest and I lifted him up so he did not touch the ground and I told Joe Koole "Take one side and we'll hold onto him".
The scarf that I had wrapped around my head, I removed and I put it around his neck and lifted him up. I walked in front and Joe held him from behind, and in this manner we tried to get him into the van or the station-wagon.
The other members arrived there and that's how we managed to get him into the van. I climbed in in front and I pulled him and the other men pushed him from behind.
MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you place the scarf around his neck?
MR VAN DYK: Because he was struggling so much.
MS VAN DER WALT: Was this to get him under control?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, I brought him - I pulled him down with the scarf around his neck so that he could not struggle so much.
MS VAN DER WALT: And is it so that as the evidence was before the Honourable Committee, that he was a big and strong man?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, he was quite strong.
MS VAN DER WALT: And after you placed him in the vehicle did you assault him any further?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, the assault that took place was because he was still trying to get out and we needed to get him under control.
MS VAN DER WALT: What did you personally do to him?
MR VAN DYK: Where we were on the ground before we put him into the vehicle, there was some fighting, we struck him with the fists and kicked him. He almost got away. We did manage to get him back. But the primary matter was there was a big fight.
MS VAN DER WALT: Because this man was fighting for his life.
MR VAN DYK: I would not blame him, if it was happening to me I would have also fought back.
MS VAN DER WALT: And after everyone arrived at the vehicle, Mr de Kock testified that you drove the vehicle, is that correct?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Where did you go then?
MR VAN DYK: From Mankanyane we went to the Nerston border post.
MS VAN DER WALT: How did you pass the border?
MR VAN DYK: We went over the border fence, south of Nerston.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you stop at the border post itself?
MR VAN DYK: I have heard what Col Gene has said, but I cannot recall because the route that I would usually follow from there - I regularly crossed the border, and it was one of the places where we usually went over the fence. And then two kilometres from Nerston we met up with a tar. I cannot recall that we drove back to the lights at Nerston.
MS VAN DER WALT: Mr van Dyk, if a person is taken from a police cell illegally - you have abducted a person, is it possible that a person could take a person through a very busy border post where - would you take him out of the car where everyone could see him?
MR VAN DYK: It was late at night, there were not many people around but there were some guards around, but I would not have done it.
MS VAN DER WALT: You did not do it?
MR VAN DYK: Not as far as I can recall.
MS VAN DER WALT: According to Mr de Kock's evidence he tied him up inside the vehicle.
MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct. I cannot recall how he was tied up, but we did not remove him from the vehicle.
MS VAN DER WALT: And did you see Brig Visser at the border post?
MR VAN DYK: I cannot recall that, I can recall that I saw Brig Visser at Piet Retief. If he was at the border post he would have driven along, but I saw him at Piet Retief.
MS VAN DER WALT: So what are you telling the Honourable Committee?
MR VAN DYK: I saw him at Piet Retief.
MS VAN DER WALT: Was that the following day?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, after we arrived at Piet Retief I did not stay, I went back to my base and I went to sleep.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you undertake any further questioning of Mr Sedibe from the time that he was abducted to the time that he was there in Piet Retief?
MR VAN DYK: No, I did not question him, but what would happen is if the persons questioning him felt that information needed to come to our knowledge, they would inform us.
MS VAN DER WALT: Can you please tell the Honourable Committee - we have now heard the evidence of Mr de Kock, do you know from your own experience whether Mr Sedibe became a police official later?
MR VAN DYK: As far as I recall he was appointed as a fully-fledged police officer afterwards.
MS VAN DER WALT: With which documents - I beg your pardon, Chairperson.
When you went into Swaziland, did you go through the border post?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, we did.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you pass through with legal
documents?
MNR VAN DYK: Ja, van Vlakplaas het ons dokumente gehad wat nou nie - hy was wettig maar hy was op 'n ander naam, 'n vervalste naam".
MS VAN DER WALT: So it was a forged document.
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you did not negotiate any further with Mr Sedibe, except for when you had to exchange information?
MR VAN DYK: I saw him regularly, but I did not put any questions to him.
MS VAN DER WALT: Do you then request the Honourable Committee to grant you amnesty with regard to the abduction as well as the assaults?
MR VAN DYK: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: The illegal crossing of an international border ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I didn't get the second one.
MS VAN DER WALT: Assaults. I believe that would have been assault with intent because it was quite serious. And then the illegal crossing of an international border as well as forgery or fraud with the illegal documents, as well as the illegal, or the possession of an unlicensed firearm or any other offence which might emanate from your action while abducting Mr Sedibe, as well as any delictual accountability.
MR VAN DYK: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Mr van Dyk, you were familiar with Swaziland, you operated there for a long time and you lived there for quite some time.
MR VAN DYK: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HUGO: You will then know that the border post closed at 8 o'clock in the evening.
MR VAN DYK: Nerston border post closed at 4 o'clock, later they changed it to 6 o'clock and then again they changed it to 8 o'clock, so I am not sure at what time it closed.
MR HUGO: So we can freely accept that there would have been no traffic at that stage moving through the border post.
MR VAN DYK: No, as I have said it was later, there was no traffic, there were only the guards there guarding the border post.
MR HUGO: And the guards would have been on the South African side?
MR VAN DYK: On both sides, on the Swazi side and the South African side.
MR HUGO: I do not want to make much of this, but if I heard you correctly - and you must tell me if I'm being unreasonable because you say you cannot recall whether you did stop at the border post, but by implication you cannot deny the opposite.
MR VAN DYK: Definitely we did not stop at the border post. If we stopped there we might have stopped at the border post on the tarmac away from the border post, we would not have stopped under the lights. If we stopped there this would have cause suspicion because the guards would have wanted to know where this vehicle came from. If we used the trail next to the border fence and arrived at Nerston border post they would have been suspicious and wanted to know how did we get there.
CHAIRPERSON: So Mr van Dyk, why did you not say initially that you did not stop there, why do you testify that ...(intervention)
MR VAN DYK: Initially I was certain that we did not stop there, but if it was so long ago then it's easy to be mistaken. If other people say that we did stop I cannot say that that man is a liar, but in my mind - I cannot say so.
CHAIRPERSON: But that was what was put to you.
MR VAN DYK: But I cannot recall that we stopped there.
CHAIRPERSON: So you cannot dispute it.
MR VAN DYK: No, I won't dispute it.
MR HUGO: I have no further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: If I may just make a follow-up for the sake of completeness on this issue, so that we don't ...(indistinct) that when we examine you.
Your evidence is that you don't recall stopping at the border or after you had crossed the border to meet Brig Visser, and that you only met him in the house in Piet Retief.
MR VAN DYK: According to my - as far as I can recall we directly drove to Piet Retief and at Piet Retief I first went to sleep, I only saw him the following. That is as far as I can recall.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. If that's the gist of your evidence in relation to that point, what did you intend to convey by the words you used at paragraph 5 on page 129 of your application?
"On the RSA, Brig Visser waited for us and we went to Piet Retief"
MR VAN DYK: I see that, that is how it is written there. It might be possible then, but as I sit here today I cannot recall it. I did not go through this statement again.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And this statement was written quite earlier on when the facts were still much fresher than they would be today.
MR VAN DYK: Correct, Chairperson.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So which version should we take as we sit here?
MR VAN DYK: Then I would say we would probably have to go along with this one, the one that is in writing.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. Which accords with Mr de Kock's evidence.
MR VAN DYK: As I have said, I cannot dispute it if it is in writing here.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)
MR VAN DYK: I think it was '96, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)
MR VAN DYK: I did not read the statement again. I'm honest when I say that. I beg your pardon that I did not read it again.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm not worried about whether you read the statement or not, but in three year's time you have forgotten certain aspects of what had happened there.
MR VAN DYK: It's possible.
CHAIRPERSON: You know why I ask this, a few minutes ago you described that you illegally came back into the RSA with a person whom you had abducted, it didn't make any sense that you would drive there in the light and you were wondering how these people would know where this vehicle came from this time of the night. What is going on now?
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, this area close to Nerston is a forestry area and the vehicles - they have some lookout posts there and if they see vehicles there, they would ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: So indeed you are asking us to accept your written version, then that is how it happened, then they had to report it, they must have seen you.
MR VAN DYK: Yes, they would have reported it, but the instance is if they reported it and it was quite a wide area, by the time these people came there looking for the vehicle we were gone.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Dyk, in my opinion you wanted to create the impression that there were reasons that you know of, which indicate that you would not have passed through the border as described by Mr de Kock, when you came back into South Africa. And furthermore, could you not think that Mr Visser had waited for you there under the lights? And when it was pointed out to you that it is stated here in your written version that he had indeed waited for you there, then I question your evidence earlier as to the reasons why you thought that you would not have gone through there.
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, I shall put it as follows. If we had met Mr Visser there it would have been at the lights. I would not have stopped there under the lights at Nerston border post.
MS VAN DER WALT: With respect, Chairperson, when one reads the sentence
"On the RSA side Brig Visser waited for us and we went to Piet Retief"
... there is no indication that it was at the border post, it could have been anywhere. And if I can recall his evidence-in-chief he said that if it did happen, it would not have happened at the border post, it would have happened further on.
CHAIRPERSON: It's easy, Madam, to take one sentence and make a point, but read the previous sentence. They refer to a border post there.
MS VAN DER WALT: With respect, they refer to the border fence.
CHAIRPERSON
"We removed Sedibe from the cells and the same night we crossed the border fence in the vicinity of Nerston border post to South Africa"
MS VAN DER WALT: But once again as I have said, he indicates that it was over the border post. I have to point this out to you.
CHAIRPERSON: So Mr van Dyk, where do you want us to believe that you met with Mr Visser, on the South African side of the border?
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, as I have said, if we did meet him it must have been along the road.
CHAIRPERSON: What road?
MR VAN DYK: The Amsterdam/Nerston road probably. Yes, because there's a T-junction Lothar/Amsterdam.
CHAIRPERSON: Then it must be quite a way from any border post.
MR VAN DYK: The road that I refer to where we arrived at was approximately two kilometres from the border.
CHAIRPERSON: But away from the lights?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, away from the lights.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you recall that?
MR VAN DYK: No, that is the usual route that we would have followed.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I want to know if you can recall that you did meet him there.
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, I wrote it here and then it must be as such, but as I have said I will not dispute it.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Dyk, you did not write it as such, that is why I want to know. Can you now recall that you met Mr Visser two kilometres away from the border post or the lights?
MR VAN DYK: As I have said and as I have testified, I cannot recall it, but as it is written here it has to be as such because I will not go back on my word. But it is written as such and I cannot dispute it.
CHAIRPERSON: And if someone comes here and tells us it was at the border post, can you dispute that?
MR VAN DYK: No, that's why I say I cannot dispute it.
CHAIRPERSON: So can you dispute what Mr de Kock said?
MR VAN DYK: No, I do not.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well then.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr van Dyk, you have been present during these proceedings and you heard the evidence of Mr Deetlefs with regard to this pertinent issue.
MR VAN DYK: That is correct, Chairperson.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And do you recall that Mr Deetlefs also stated that you met Brig Visser on the RSA side of the Nerston border? Did you hear him saying that in his evidence-in-chief?
MR VAN DYK: I cannot recall that he said that, but if he said it then it must be true. I cannot dispute this with him, I cannot deny what he has said.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Well my note says that.
MR VAN DYK: Then I would agree.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr van Dyk, I would like to refer you to a paragraph in Mr Bosch's statement. I don't know, or do you know, or is it true that Mr Bosch was with the Vlakplaas group in the Piet Retief vicinity at that stage, can you recall him?
MR VAN DYK: He worked with us quite often, but I cannot recall who specifically was there on that day. It is possible.
MR LAMEY: Very well. What I want to ask you is on page 48 paragraph 2, which basically boils down to the fact that Mr Bosch would recall that after Sedibe's abduction, you went into Swaziland where certain houses were searched for documents and weapons. What is your recollection of this?
MR VAN DYK: Once again I will have to say that after Sedibe's initial interrogation, approximately two to three days afterwards, one morning early we crossed the border at the Oshoek border post. That is as far as I can recall. I heard that Col de Kock said that it was upon another occasion, but I recall it being shortly after Sedibe. We searched the houses of Paul Dikiledi and Tami Zulu for documents and weapons. But I would not dispute it if it is said that it was with another instance or incident.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chair.
Mr van Dyk, at the point where you crossed the border fence, was this in an area where there many trees?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, there was wattle bush - on the Swaziland side there was a soccer field and on our side, on the RSA side, there was wattle bush.
MR PRINSLOO: And once you enter that area with the trees, in which direction would you drive to find a road?
MR VAN DYK: You would drive in the direction of the border and then parallel on a tar road.
MR PRINSLOO: Would that be the Nerston/Amsterdam road? Is it a road through the bush, before you get to the tar road?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, one would move through the bush to get to the tar road.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LEOPENG: Thank you, Chair.
Mr van Dyk, when you met Brig Visser, was it possible for him to have observed the braises or the open wound that Mr Sedibe had on his nose?
MR VAN DYK: I am not certain. As I've said, where we would have met him would have been in the dark and we would not have been able to observe injuries unless someone had cast light on Sedibe's face. At Piet Retief it would have been possible because that was during the day.
CHAIRPERSON: He must have seen, not so?
MR VAN DYK: Well I cannot speak for him, but I saw it ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: All of us are people, we all experience life, if this man's clothing was stained with blood and you were standing in a room with him, then you must have been able to see the blood, not so?
MR VAN DYK: I saw what was wrong with him.
CHAIRPERSON: So if Mr Visser stood in the same room with him when he was still dressed in his bloodstained clothing, surely he must have seen it.
MR VAN DYK: It is possible.
CHAIRPERSON: He didn't have anything covering his eyes.
MR VAN DYK: It is possible, Chairperson, but I cannot speak for him.
CHAIRPERSON: I think it's a bit stronger than possible, wouldn't you agree?
MR VAN DYK: I will abide by possible.
MR LEOPENG: No further questions, Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LEOPENG
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Chairperson.
Just for the sake of completeness Mr van Dyk, in respect of the question of whether Mr Visser was met on the South African side of the border post, I must point out to you that Mr Pienaar in his application to us, at page 142, says the exact same thing that you say in your application in respect of meeting Mr Visser, as does Mr Deetlefs on page 115. I expect your answer would be the same, but just to point that out to you.
MR VAN DYK: Yes, I will abide by what appears in the statement.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any questions?
MS VAN DER WALT: None thank you, Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Dyk, was Mr Sedibe badly beaten?
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, I would say that if one takes the injuries that he sustained during the abduction and the manner in which he was handled, I wouldn't say that it was that serious, but the following day I could see he was bruised ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment. Where on his body was he bruised?
MR VAN DYK: On his chest. We looked at that specifically. He was clothed, but when I looked at it I saw it specifically.
CHAIRPERSON: Why?
MR VAN DYK: This is as a result of the altercation in the vehicle.
CHAIRPERSON: No, why did you deem it necessary to look?
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, I wasn't alone, I don't know who was with me, but we were a number of persons, we wanted to examine his injuries.
CHAIRPERSON: Why, was it that serious that you had to examine the nature of the injuries?
MR VAN DYK: He wasn't complaining about it to me, but we had to see what the nature of his injuries were.
CHAIRPERSON: But that's my point, why did you think that you had to observe his injuries?
MR VAN DYK: It was a precautionary measure because if he had been badly injured he would have required treatment.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you expect his injuries to be severe?
MR VAN DYK: Well one couldn't say in the dark because there were large stones where we had loaded him, they may have knocked against him. He hadn't complained about any injuries yet. I think it was Col de Kock who testified that there was a - a blow was administered to him with a butt of an object.
VOORSITTER: "Goed. Nou jy sê hy het blou kolle op sy bors gehad, ...(onduidelik) jy gewys.
CHAIRPERSON: There was the injury on his nose which I also recall, his one eye was also swollen on the side, but I wouldn't say that these were very serious injuries.
CHAIRPERSON: But he must have been quite sufficiently beaten in order to experience such a level of swelling in the face.
MR VAN DYK: Well we had also sustained a number of injuries.
CHAIRPERSON: But I am not occupied with the injuries that you may have incurred at points in your life, I'm talking about the injuries sustained by Mr Sedibe. Was he clothed?
MR VAN DYK: Do you mean when we visited him, when we examined his injuries? He opened his shirt and showed us.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on. The speaker's microphone is not on.
SOUND SWITCHED OFF
SOUND SWITCHED ON
CHAIRPERSON: What was the condition of his shirt when you examined his injuries?
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, I cannot recall the blood on the shirt as it has been testified to, but I also will not deny it. I did not notice anything like that. I know that we were looking specifically at the injuries on his body.
CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't this the reason why you went to look at these injuries?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, it's possible that we may have seen the blood and then decided to look at the injuries.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you saw that there was a lot of blood and then you thought that it would be prudent to examine his injuries because it might be more serious than what you thought. Were you informed of the plan to abduct him prior to the execution of the operation?
MR VAN DYK: Mr Pienaar from Piet Retief informed Mr de Kock and I before the time. We went through to the hotel where we met Mr Deetlefs, we were further briefed about the situation and that is when we left.
CHAIRPERSON: Was this the first time that you became involved in an abduction?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, of this nature. Previously I had not been involved in such actions, this was the first time.
CHAIRPERSON: The first time?
MR VAN DYK: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: How many more times did you become involved in such operations?
MR VAN DYK: About twice, but those were not of the same nature.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm referring to abduction.
MR VAN DYK: Yes, they were both abductions.
CHAIRPERSON: From the same place, Swaziland?
MR VAN DYK: Yes, one was from Swaziland, the other not.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, there is just another point that I wish to amend, I don't wish to differ with Mr de Kock on this point, but with regard to the G3 firearm there may be a misunderstanding. The firearm was taken and placed in my vehicle. On the following day I found it in the vehicle. The station-wagon had a very strange seat, if one put the seat up in the back there was an opening and that is where I placed the firearm and long after that I came upon the weapon again. So it had spent that whole period of time in my vehicle. I know at a certain stage we started looking for this firearm in the Transvaal and I think it was then that Mr Pienaar said - the firearm was taken to either Middelburg or Ermelo later on.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MS VAN DER WALT: That is all from my applicant, thank you Chair.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I believe that is the turn of my applicants, I will just call Mr Koole. We will probably have to make the necessary changes for the microphones and obtain headsets as well.
