RECORDING STARTS AFTER PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AND IN THE MIDDLE OF MR RICHARD'S EXAMINATION
MR RICHARD: Who gave the order to shoot, was it your own decision or somebody else's order?
MR HALL: The firing order came up from our senior rank officer, Lieut Cowboy Ferreira.
CHAIRPERSON: What did he tell you?
MR HALL: Judge, he gave the order to fire and to respond when the enemy came into the "doodsakker". So he gave the command to fire.
MR RICHARD: Now did anyone else besides you shoot?
MR HALL: Yes, there was other people firing as well to the command within the platoon.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that before you - now who did you shoot at, with the platoon now, when the other people in the platoon also shot? Who were those shots directed at?
MR HALL: Those shots were directed at the people who walked into the "doodsakker". In other words, the enemy.
MR RICHARD: In other words they were the wounded terrorists or enemy that you saw there?
MR HALL: Correct.
MR RICHARD: Now did you have any option but to comply with the order?
MR HALL: Correct, I had not option than to comply with the order.
MR RICHARD: Now we turn the page and there's a description of a big hole, now could you describe this hole? Paragraph 15 on page 16.
MR HALL: Yes, I can describe this situation circumstance. In the centre of the base was a hole approximately eight foot by square by seven foot deep. This hole was ...(indistinct) place of safekeeping of arrested persons for interrogation purposes.
MR RICHARD: Now what were you doing at the hole?
MR HALL: I was put on duty to safeguard the issue on concerns.
MR RICHARD: Were you alone or were there others with you?
MR HALL: There was two of us.
MR RICHARD: Now you then carry on to say at paragraph 16
"Whilst I was guarding them some troops poured boiling water over their heads. Another trooper of whom I cannot remember the name, jumped into the hole and cut off the left ear and centre finger of the right hand of one of the prisoners."
Now could you have done anything to stop what was happening?
MR HALL: No, unfortunately not, it was most probably a terrifying issue because being - the base being a big base and different units were covering within the base and people were just doing what they wished at time periods.
MR RICHARD: Wasn't your function there to safeguard the prisoners?
MR HALL: Correct. My function was there, but with the uncontrol of these same racial issues and ethnic groupings, it was really difficult.
MR RICHARD: Did you participate in the pouring of hot water or the mutilation of the dead bodies?
MR HALL: No, I had nothing to do with that.
MR RICHARD: Now at page 17 you describe a trip you made on behalf of your employers, to Pinetown, do you recall that?
MR HALL: Yes, I do.
MR RICHARD: Now when you collected that truck, did you have any idea what was in the back?
MR HALL: No, nothing at all.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just repeat that Mr Richard, I didn't get it.
MR RICHARD: The question is, he collected a truck from the police ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: When was that?
MR RICHARD: At John Vorster Square, and that was in July 1986.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja. You collected that truck, why did you collect it? How did it come that you collected it?
MR HALL: Well I was on duty unfortunately that day and I was just - I was an available driver at the time and I was asked if I could do delivery duties on that specific date.
MR RICHARD: Who told you to do that?
MR HALL: Well that was requested of my Unit Commander at the time, if I did mind to take the vehicle.
MR RICHARD: Now did anyone explain what the purpose of your journey was?
MR HALL: Nothing was explained officially to me, I didn't know at the time what was going on.
MR RICHARD: Now my question was, did you have any idea of what was in the truck that you were taking to Pinetown?
MR HALL: Nothing, I had no clue.
MR RICHARD: Now to whom did you take them in Pinetown?
MR HALL: I delivered this stuff to a Mr Strydom, a person, Mr Strydom.
MR RICHARD: And what was Mr Strydom?
MR HALL: I don't know if he was the Commander or what or who he was of any unit or whatever.
MR RICHARD: Now how was ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Is this the same person that you delivered the envelope to?
MR HALL: Sorry, Judge? Could you repeat the question.
CHAIRPERSON: On your delivery you delivered whatever you had to in Pinetown, is that not so?
MR HALL: Correct. Mr Strydom.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you give the envelope to Mr Strydom as well?
MR HALL: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: According to your application you gave it to a Mr Smit. Is that a mistake?
MR HALL: Well Mr Strydom was there when I arrived, but he - the envelope was for Mr Smit.
CHAIRPERSON: Whom you gave it to?
MR HALL: I gave it to him, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: To who?
MR HALL: Mr Strydom to give it to Mr Smit.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but you see at paragraph 22 on page 17, it says
"Upon my arrival at the given address in Pinetown, I handed the sealed envelope to Mr Smit, who was unknown to me."
So is Mr Smit the actual person to whom you handed the envelope, or Mr Strydom?
MR HALL: I gave the envelope to Mr Smit.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Now what did you hand to Mr Strydom then?
MR HALL: Mr Strydom was supposed to have got the stuff in the vehicle and the envelope, but I didn't see him. I was ...(indistinct) the impression what was envelope, written on the envelope.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh I see, okay. Carry on.
MR RICHARD: Thank you.
Now who was Mr Anderson?
MR HALL: Mr Anderson was the sole Director of SACPS at the time.
CHAIRPERSON: SA?
MR HALL: SACPS.
CHAIRPERSON: What's that?
MR HALL: South African Community Protection Services.
MR RICHARD: Now how do you know he was a supporter of the IFP?
MR HALL: Well what I witnessed at the time during my service is that I saw Mr Anderson walking with the leader, Gatcha Buthelezi, under the banner "IFP" in Main Street in Johannesburg.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, maybe you know more than is contained in the documents, but what I need to know is, the incident involving the delivery of what may have been, or what turned out to be rifles, was that a crime?
MR RICHARD: I believe that what I've led is sufficient to exclude that it's not a crime and it should not be in the papers, he didn't know anything about it at all.
CHAIRPERSON: Well aside from that I mean it may have been a legal consignment.
MR RICHARD: Yes, it hangs in mid air, it doesn't take us anywhere. He didn't know what was in it and I thought that for the purposes of this morning, to completeness, just to record that he knew nothing about it.
MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Richard, and from paragraph 19 it also appears that he was privately employed.
MR RICHARD: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Whether he committed a crime or not, the political objective may be something that one has to consider.
MR RICHARD: I've finished that point, I really don't believe it takes it further. The witness says he didn't know what was in the truck, so ... And he's confirmed what he said.
Now when you joined the South African Defence Force, did you do so voluntarily or were you conscripted?
MR HALL: I was conscripted by law under the Defence Act, and being called up under the defence situation to do military services.
MR RICHARD: Did you ever query whether it was correct or incorrect to serve within the South African Defence Force?
MR HALL: No, I didn't query it at the time. Being my age I had no clue in the ...(indistinct) what the circumstances were going to be - outcome.
MR RICHARD: How old were you at the time?
MR HALL: I was 17 years of age.
MR RICHARD: Did you have any political thoughts at the time?
MR HALL: No, unfortunately not, no.
MR RICHARD: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD
ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hall, you found these three badly injured people?
MR HALL: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And you shot them thereafter.
MR HALL: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you the only one that shot them?
MR HALL: Who?
CHAIRPERSON: Them.
MR HALL: The three what are you talking about?
CHAIRPERSON: Ja. After you discovered that they were injured, severed limbs, were you the only one that shot at them? At that stage.
MR HALL: No, no, I'm talking of when ...(indistinct) came into the ...(indistinct) the fifteen men shoot-out.
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I'm talking about after that. Look there was a shoot-out, the rest of the night proceeded ...(intervention)
MR HALL: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: ... and then in the morning there was a sifting of the area.
MR HALL: Correct, correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And you discovered these three.
MR HALL: Correct, I discovered ...
CHAIRPERSON: You're the only one that shot then?
MR HALL: There you're correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you ordered to shoot them or did you do that on your own?
MR HALL: Well the order came from command that you do not return an enemy back to base.
CHAIRPERSON: Good, but why did you kill them yourself?
MR HALL: Because Your Honour, as I've stated in my statement they were badly suffering and at this time I could see the people were - circumstances that I don't think any medical circumstances would have, at the time, saved these people. Even medical help at the time would have maybe not survived the people, Your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you killed them for human reasons?
MR HALL: That's correct, the suffering what I saw going on and what had happened.
CHAIRPERSON: Any other reasons?
MR HALL: I had no other reasons, Your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: What interests me is the order that you had to return no live people. When you shot them, did you perhaps have that in mind, or was only the fact that they were suffering and that you needed to put them out of their misery? Was that the only reason you shot them, or was it a combination of both, or one of them?
MR HALL: No Your Honour, what I saw, for the suffering that was going on and the re-thought that was going through my mind what I had recollected of myself to help what was going to be the outcome in the end if the people had to carry on with their lives. There would be abnormal situations and suffering further for family and circumstances. It was terrible, it was this thing what you don't ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: How did they land up like that, was there a bomb or just shooting?
MR HALL: No, there was a shoot-out at the time of the contact, Your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: And as a result of the shoot-out they lost limbs like this?
MR HALL: Correct, 'cause I can imagine Your Honour, the fifteen people are shooting, what would be the outcome on the end, especially when you've got heavy calibre weaponry in your possession as well.
CHAIRPERSON: Capable of taking off limbs of people?
MR HALL: Yes, sure Your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: How many people died in that incident, aside from the three you shot?
MR HALL: Only the three what I shot and the others did get away. There was others who got away.
CHAIRPERSON: And when the shooting occurred earlier, in the middle of the night, before you discovered this three, did you shoot yourself?
MR HALL: Yes, in ...(indistinct) we were all shooting by orders.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, as a result of being told to do so?
MR HALL: Correct, Your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: Now the incident for which there can hardly be an application, but I need some information on that. Where about in Pinetown did you deliver these firearms?
MR HALL: It was just this side of Pinetown, it was a home which I took these things to.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember the address?
MR HALL: Excuse me?
CHAIRPERSON: The address, can you remember it?
MR HALL: Now today? Maybe, maybe not, depending how big the place has been built up and so on.
CHAIRPERSON: No but I mean, would you not able to give us an address now?
MR HALL: Not unfortunately now.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you see any of those Directors again after this incident?
MR HALL: No, I only heard through talk of our fellow people that I was in contact again with, that Mr Marsh, Vic Marsh was dead, passed away and Mr Bruce Anderson has left the country.
CHAIRPERSON: When you returned after making delivery, did you speak to one of them again?
MR HALL: No, I haven't seen them ever again.
CHAIRPERSON: Where did you go to after you made the delivery?
MR HALL: After I made the delivery I came back and I went home after that.
CHAIRPERSON: But didn't you go back to work again?
MR HALL: No, I didn't go back after work, it was late when I had returned.
CHAIRPERSON: No, the next day, did you not report for duty?
MR HALL: No, I didn't report for duty, it was my day off on that day.
CHAIRPERSON: And then? Okay, never mind - did you ever report for duty again after that?
MR HALL: Yes, I did report when I came onto duty.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
MR HALL: I did report back.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you not see Mr Anderson or Mr Marsh again?
MR HALL: No, I didn't see Mr Marsh or Mr Anderson after that, I only saw my junior level fellow workers.
CHAIRPERSON: Who did you report to?
MR HALL: My OPM Manager, Mr Thys Lourens.
CHAIRPERSON: Now who is the person that asked you to make those deliveries?
MR HALL: I was put through Mr Vic Marsh who spoke to me about it and he asked me if I could do the trip.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Now, when this box fell and it opened, were you not surprised to see what it contained?
MR HALL: Correct, when I saw the box I was very surprised.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you worried?
MR HALL: I was very worried at the circumstance.
CHAIRPERSON: Why?
MR HALL: Because I realised when I saw what I saw, then I realised with the contents what was happening.
CHAIRPERSON: What did you think was happening?
MR HALL: Well I was under the impression that ...(indistinct) doing the wrong thing supplying weapons out for the wrong situations.
CHAIRPERSON: What situation did you suspect you were providing arms for?
MR HALL: I was suspecting that these weapons were going to be used in a political situation and a non-political situation.
CHAIRPERSON: So you were worried about this?
MR HALL: Correct, Your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: And were you worried that you were being used to transport these things and you didn't even know what you were transporting?
MR HALL: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Now when you got back to your workplace, why didn't you then ask to see Mr Marsh or Mr Anderson, to ask them "You used me to transport these things, what's happening here"?
MR HALL: Well I actually ...(indistinct) well that should I approach them the thing would have grown into a bigger problem and I thought I would keep it to myself, to the circumstance, because should they have known what was going on, they should have told me out of their own circumstances.
CHAIRPERSON: What would you do then if they sent you on another of these trips?
MR HALL: Well after the first instance I wouldn't have done the next one.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but then you'd be in the same problems, isn't it?
MR HALL: Correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So hence I ask you, why didn't you then question your abuse, or their abuse of you by sending you on a trip and not warning you of what the possible consequences of it were?
MR HALL: Well this is the thing, Your Honour, being the elder persons in a higher ranked official capacity of my employee, they should have known better and told me in the beginning. If they didn't tell it to me in the beginning I wouldn't have known.
CHAIRPERSON: And you never reported this to anybody thereafter?
MR HALL: Yes of course, due to my statements that I've made to the TRC, in the official capacity I did discuss it.
CHAIRPERSON: But before then, I mean this happened in 1986, the TRC was only established in 1995.
MR HALL: Ja, but I ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: In-between that, those more-or-less 10 years, did you not report what you had done to anybody?
MR HALL: Well I did discuss it with Mr Thys Lourens. Once upon a time we did have a discussion, the OPM, but it didn't go further than that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.
ADV SIGODI: In regard to the second incident, what exactly was your crime as far as you are concerned, when the people poured the water and cut off the ear and finger?
MR HALL: ...(indistinct) what was the crime?
ADV SIGODI: What was your crime?
CHAIRPERSON: What were you guilty of?
ADV SIGODI: What were you guilty of?
MR HALL: I was guilty of nothing, I was just doing my job because doing what I was employed to do and what had to be carried out, I did under the prospective of the law, nothing else.
ADV SIGODI: In other words - and you had no control over the people who were doing that, who were pouring the boiling water and cutting of the ear and chopping the finger?
MR HALL: No, there was no control because as I stated in my statement, the bases are big and there was a lot of different units and that concerned, and a lot of people were curious and they'd come around there - and there was a lot of people, not only one, ten, twenty, it could have been more and they just jumped in and just did things and it was uncontrollable.
ADV SIGODI: So your duty to protect, you couldn't exercise that?
MR HALL: No, there was no way of exercising - I mean it was the same culture issue, ethic grouping, white to white and I could imagine if I had approached the whole issue what would have happened.
ADV SIGODI: Did you agree with what they were doing?
MR HALL: No, I didn't agree with what they were doing.
ADV SIGODI: So in other words you did not consider yourself part of that crime and you are not guilty of any crime insofar as that incident is concerned?
MR HALL: Correct, I was not guilty of a crime, I wasn't involved with it neither.
ADV SIGODI: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Richard.
MR RICHARD: No further questions and no further witnesses.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD
ADV STEENKAMP: No further witness, except maybe Mr Chairman, if I may just at this stage just inform you that the Namibian Government was - the Embassy was informed about this incident and the application of Mr Hall, on the 29th of May 2000. The office of the Ambassador was informed by the CEO and the Legal Department of the Truth Commission. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Who were the victims of the shooting? They were Namibians, isn't it?
MR HALL: Your Honour, it's for me hard to answer that because they could have been also other citizenship, or maybe they could have also been Namibians at the time.
CHAIRPERSON: Now when you were told to shoot at them, that's an earlier stage, you were part of a platoon under the auspices of the South African Defence Force.
MR HALL: Correct, Your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: At that time as I recall, and I speak under correction, Namibia had its own political problems at the time, not so?
MR HALL: That I couldn't answer, maybe they would have had their own political problems at the time as well, but I know the South African Defence Force was involved in South West and Angola at the time period of - the same time.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know of what benefit shooting up those people in Namibia would have been to South Africa?
MR HALL: Your Honour, I have thought about it and I recollect it now to the circumstances what we are in now at the moment.
CHAIRPERSON: Now I'm talking about then. Of what benefit could killing those people have been to South Africa, the South African Government of the time maybe?
MR HALL: No, I had no clue then.
CHAIRPERSON: So when you shot you shot purely because of the instruction you had?
MR HALL: Correct, I carried out orders.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes we'll reserve this judgment. You're excused. We will deliver it in due course.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson. No address.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
MR RICHARD: Chairperson, there's not need for an address, I think it speaks for itself.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
MR RICHARD IN ARGUMENT: His reasons, as I hear his evidence, were twofold. Firstly he had received the instruction, the command to take no prisoners ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, I've got no problem with the initial shooting, he did that as a result of an order, but I'm talking about shooting the three injured people.
MR RICHARD: As I heard the applicant's evidence, he had received an order, "Take no prisoners" and they were very badly wounded and the humanitarian reasons then interceded.
CHAIRPERSON: He did it purely for humanitarian reasons?
MR RICHARD: Chairperson, he did say that he did it for humanitarian reasons. That is ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
MR RICHARD: I would argue that against the backdrop, that he saw the humanitarian position and he also had the order not to take prisoners and made the decision for humanitarian reasons that killing them was the better option than leaving them suffering in the bush.
CHAIRPERSON: Well I gave him the options specifically, to tell us exactly why he did it, one or the other or both, and he chose humanitarian reasons only.
MR RICHARD: That is correct, Chairperson, that was his answer, but I don't believe that it would be correct to exclude the fact that he had the orders as well, because he in fact did what he was told to do. He might have in addition, decided that in the situation, for humanitarian reasons, he would leave the orders aside and still shoot, but ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: We're not talking about motion papers here, we're talking about actual evidence under oath.
MR RICHARD: ...(inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON: Press that thing please, put on your ...
MR RICHARD: Sorry, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: We are talking about actual evidence in which the applicant was given all the opportunity, I think, to say what he wanted to say to indicate why he shot these three people. Now with all the good intentions that he may have had - and I feel for him on that score, we've got to apply the law. That's why I'm asking the question. Can we assume anything in his favour, in the light of the evidence that he has given?
MR RICHARD: Chairperson, I cannot avoid the answer that he gave to the question put by the Chairperson, and that was
"I did it for humanitarian reasons"
but in addition, I don't think we can ignore the fact that he had been given an order not to take prisoners.
ADV SIGODI: But is it not true that he realised that they were going to die anyway? They were in such a bad state that he need not have shot them?
MR RICHARD: It is quite correct, he could have made the decision to do nothing at all, to just leave the situation to take its natural course. However, he made a decision to shoot for humanitarian reasons, as his evidence bears out.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you arguing that he pre-empted eventualities in any event?
MR RICHARD: I don't believe it would be fair to speculate as to exactly what was thought in the minutes or seconds before the decision was made. He knew that his platoon would take no prisoners, he knew that the people before him were so severely injured that they would not survive, and decided that would intercede and pre-empt whatever else might happen by putting an end to the situation, for humanitarian reasons, with the authority of the order behind him.
Sorry, the applicant indicates he would like to say something. I don't believe I should preclude him.
MR HALL ADDRESSES: Your Honour, I would just like to come back to that incident. I've looked at it in further factors as I did mention it, that I'm not looking at the suffering and the circumstances of those people, it was terrible for me at a young age to experience and see that and not only that, coming back to those people, the family should have been outside of the South West people, citizens or people out of other organisations coming back and to be hospitalised and to be treated and to find that suffering still to the last end for their families and the country and whatever at tax payer's cost, hospitalisation, taking professional people to look after these people and to see them going through the hell and the suffering and to be most probably vegetables for the rest of their lives, to me it was a real thinkable issue and I clarified them as already within the next five/ten minutes they would have already been dead already. So that's why I came into the incident or the thing incident where I got involved to taking their lives and shooting them.
MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: He's only applying for the murder of these three unknown people?
MR RICHARD: On the other scores there is no act for which application can be made. The ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
MR RICHARD: If one looks at paragraph 9(a)
"acted on instructions of command of SADF"
and then it says:
"as per attached statement"
Now the attached statement does not say "I apply for amnesty for murder", it simply narrates a sequence of events.
CHAIRPERSON: On that score, in my view, would you agree that he is only capable of, on his own statement, making an application on murder on three people?
MR RICHARD: I agree with that proposition.
CHAIRPERSON: That's the only three crimes that we have to consider?
MR RICHARD: There is no evidence of any other act. The evidence does not establish any other actus reus ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: So would you be satisfied if we said that he's applied for three counts of murder of unknown people?
MR RICHARD: I believe that would be correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And we make a decision on that only?
MR RICHARD: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: May I just ask you, Mr Richard, in terms of the pouring of the hot water "we had a duty to guard those people", wouldn't you argue that he also had a duty to protect them, and that he could at least be guilty of some offence, standing by and not acting and becoming an accomplice through his omission?
MR RICHARD: I did contemplate and think about the situation. The applicant was then a soldier put to guard the prisoners, however his comrades who he describes as many in number and out of control, interfere with the situation ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Yes we heard all that, Mr Richard, but did he not at least have a duty to report it and to complain?
MR RICHARD: I believe, as the papers bear out, it was reported and the matter was carried through. It wasn't through his agency though, he wasn't the instrument by which the matter was taken further. Those are the facts.
MR MALAN: Where do you get that information from that it was investigated? It's not in the papers. In fact, paragraph 17 probably refers, as I read it, to those who were in custody that were removed by Intelligence for interrogation. It wasn't the perpetrators of these deeds. Let me put it differently. Do you have the mandate from your client to drop an application for amnesty on the second incident? Or do you leave that to the Panel?
MR RICHARD: Chairperson, the question before the Panel is whether an act which constitutes a crime or a delict was committed. The only act which might be considered is his failure to discharge his duty as a guard in relation to the prisoners. Now on the evidence, the applicant says there was nothing he could do to stop the situation. That evidence stands uncontroverted. The question is, is there an act? I believe for me to argue that there was an act which constituted an offence, would be stretching imagination.
MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr Richard.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
