Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: For the purpose of the record, I am Judge Pillay. I am going to ask my colleagues to announce themselves for the same reasons, and thereafter the respective representatives.

MR MALAN: Wynand Malan.

ADV SIGODI: Adv Sigodi from the Amnesty Committee.

ADV STEENKAMP: André Steenkamp, the Evidence Leader, thank you.

MR KOOPEDI: My name is Brian Koopedi, I appear here for the family of Nkadimeng.

MR VISSER: May it please you Chairperson and Members of the Committee. My name is Louis Visser, I am instructed by Wagener Miller to act for various applicants, Chairperson. Would you find it more convenient that I announce the applicants for whom we appear at the time when their cases are called?

CHAIRPERSON: You appear for both applicants in this matter?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, are you referring to the Rogers Nkadimeng matter?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Yes, indeed. Can I continue?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee, on your roll for this week a few matters have been placed consisting of six incidents and it is, I think proper for me to give you some kind of short introduction in order to attempt to make your bird's eye view of the matters as a whole, a little easier.

Chairperson, of the six matters, the Krugersdorp arms cache and the Lengene matter are the only two matters in which members of the Security Police actually acted in the incident itself. In the other four matters, their contribution to the incidents and why they are before you here, is that they gave information to Special Forces for Special Forces to use in order to either eliminate persons in Botswana or to destroy property.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, would that, that information I suppose depends on the quality of that information, exactly what the information was, it would either bring them into stark confrontation with murder allegations as opposed to what they call in Afrikaans, conspiracy in some cases?

MR VISSER: Yes, indeed Chairperson, yes. It will be my submission that it matters not whether it is the one or the other because what we are here for is to ask for amnesty for all offences, omissions, offences and delicts committed due to their conduct, in a particular incident. We have argued this before, and we say again Chairperson, that that is really what the Act is about, is the granting in terms of the words of Section 20 of amnesty for all offences and delicts in regard to their conduct pertaining to a particular incident.

We will certainly not require you to specify what offence you believe that they may or may not have committed.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps I can just tell you that you may apply your mind to the problem that we would have in that event, the decision of the Cape Division of the High Court in respect of the ANC Application, what is known as the ANC Application that was reversed, where that decision clearly states that as in some of these cases, I imagine it would be, that you have this blanket amnesty for things you don't know actually happened.

I am not saying that you are wrong, I am saying that at the appropriate time you may be faced with that kind of question.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I will deal with it immediately, in fact. There is a vast difference between the cases that are going to serve before you here and the so-called 37 applicants in the ANC application, because there they were not in a position to identify the incidents. Here, we are in a position to identify the incidents, so that point does not come up for consideration at all.

CHAIRPERSON: There is an identifiable incident? Okay?

MR VISSER: Oh yes. For example, you have an incident that affected Mr Rogers Nkadimeng, Mr Serache, Mr Naledi and we will give you pretty accurate dates which we have been able to find out from our research Chairperson. All, except for the matter of Johannes Mnisi, where we were not able to give you an exact date, but for the rest, we've got exact dates, Chairperson.

You will run no risk if you granted amnesty for all offences, omissions or delicts concerning that particular incident, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: If we can identify the dates and the offences, then there is no need to give an effective blanket, then we can mention the offences?

MR VISSER: Certainly. We will not ask for a blanket, for a blanket amnesty. The only point that I am making, and perhaps I am confusing you by having said this, is that it is not, it has never been necessary in our submission, although the Amnesty Committees have done so, to specify what offences particularly, amnesty has been granted for. We say that is not what the Act requires of you and certainly that is not what a Court of law will require if the Attorney-General later decides that he wishes to prosecute any of the persons for whom you have given amnesty, and we will sort out that problem when the time comes, if it ever comes.

Chairperson, all the matters that are before you, have directly something to do with the activities of the ANC and particularly their armed wing, Umkhonto weSizwe in Botswana during the relevant periods of time.

You would have noticed that Peter Lengene's matter was in 1982, the exact date was the 6th of February 1982 and Chairperson, apart from that incident, we submit that the arms cache was in 1988. Those are the only two dates that are out of sync if I may put it that way. The others are all in 1985. The ones that you will be hearing, except for the arms cache, which I am told, we were asked to do tomorrow morning.

The arms cache was on the 28th of March 1988, if you want to make a note of that, but we will certainly repeat that to you. Because Chairperson, all these matters relate to Botswana, we thought that it might be convenient just to refer you at the beginning then, and as a basis for all these applications and in order to save time, to two exhibits.

The one is the well known Exhibit A, "General Background to Amnesty Applications", (transcriber's own interpretation) which you now know - sorry Mr Chairman, I haven't got my military brain (microphone not on)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, subject to what Mr Koopedi has to say, we are of the view that we have heard that bits of evidence so many times before, we have even made findings on it already, it is not necessary to lead it, unless Mr Koopedi is going to dispute anything about the history and background relating to the political aspect of what the applicants have done.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, that would be most helpful, and Mr Koopedi can then decide at the appropriate time to inform you whether he does or does not.

CHAIRPERSON: I want to propose, if nobody has any complaints, that we accept it as read and if Mr Koopedi wants to ask questions about it, he is so entitled to do.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson, that is an eminently reasonable ruling.

Chairperson, may I then refer you just to the pages in Exhibit A, the general background, which we have again placed before you, at page 14. There is a very brief summary, starting from 1977 with Mr Marius Schoon and it runs to ...

MR KOOPEDI: If I could, if I could interrupt you, Mr Visser, I would Chairperson, greatly benefit, if I would be afforded an opportunity of looking at the exhibit.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, it has been handed in at the pre-trial conference, I wasn't aware that Mr Koopedi hasn't got a copy.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you not got the Bundle?

MR KOOPEDI: I have the Bundle, and I do not have Exhibit A.

MR VISSER: May I, Mr Chairperson, we will certainly attempt to find a copy somewhere for Mr Koopedi, and he can go through it, it is one and a half pages, which he can go through in his own time. As you have already indicated, we will not go through it now.

Chairperson, and then something which you have not seen before, by way of an exhibit, is a document which is included in the Naledi Bundle. In the Naledi Bundle, Brig Willem Loots attached to his application at page 14 of that, I am told it is 13, sorry, oh okay, my page 13 isn't here, it starts at page 13, Wikus Johannes Loots, and let me just explain to you what this purports to be. In 1988 I believe it was, Chairperson, he was instructed by Head Office to set out in a document, the problems which the Security Police had with authorities in Botswana in order to attempt to curb invasions from Botswana of people as well as infiltration of arms and ammunition.

I see the document is not, it is dated, it is dated the 21st of October 1988. What we have done Chairperson, because we will certainly ask all our applicants whether they agree with the contents of that document or not, and what we have done is, we have reproduced from the Naledi Bundle that document of Brig Loots and we would ask you to accept that as Exhibit B and we have made copies. It is just for easier reference Chairperson, that we don't have to yank out the Naledi Bundle every time we want to refer to it.

Those are the two exhibits Chairperson, there is a wealth of other information concerning Botswana with which we will not, we will not confuse the record. We will settle for those.

Mr Chairman, as I have been given to understand by Mr Steenkamp, he wishes us to start with Vernon Nkadimeng, in that matter there are two applicants, Steyn and Crause. We appear for both of them Chairperson, and we would call Gen Steyn to give evidence first. He is available to take the oath. He would like to speak in Afrikaans.

J A STEYN: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Steyn, you are an applicant in this case and it is about, or it is in the way in which you describe it on page 17 in the Bundle, incident 4 - "conspiracy to the elimination of ANC MK members Rogers Nkadimeng and Jackie Molefe", is that correct?

MR STEYN: That is.

MR VISSER: You yourself, did not take part in the action as such, is that correct?

MR STEYN: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Who executed this action?

MR STEYN: It was the South African Defence Force.

MR VISSER: What Section of the Defence Force?

MR STEYN: The Special Section of the Defence Force.

MR VISSER: Can we refer to them as Special Forces?

MR STEYN: Yes, it was the Special Forces.

MR VISSER: Under whose command was the Special Forces during 1985 as far as you can remember?

MR STEYN: The people who we negotiated with was Com Charl Naude.

MR VISSER: There was also a Com Verster?

MR STEYN: That is correct yes.

MR VISSER: You do not know what his role was in this situation?

MR STEYN: In this specific incident, no.

MR VISSER: Very well. Your application appears on pages 14 to 22 of the Bundle. Did you have the opportunity to read through it again?

MR STEYN: That is correct yes.

MR VISSER: Do you confirm that it is still correct and according to you, the truth, the way in which you put it out in your application?

MR STEYN: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Do you then ask the Committee to amongst others, accept the political objectives as it appears in your application?

MR STEYN: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You also have seen Exhibit A before, is that correct?

MR STEYN: Yes.

MR VISSER: That is the General Background to Amnesty Applications?

MR STEYN: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is there any section of that document that you are not able to confirm?

MR STEYN: I can confirm it Mr Chairperson. There may be a few corrections where I do not carry personal knowledge of, but that I do know after I have read it.

MR VISSER: Is it generally speaking that information correlates with the information that you had in the Western Transvaal?

MR STEYN: Yes, that was in the period while I was in the Western Transvaal.

MR VISSER: Have you seen Exhibit B, that is the document of Brig Loots?

MR STEYN: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Were you personally involved in negotiations with the Head of the Special Police in Botswana, during that period that was covered from 1984 to 1988?

MR STEYN: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Do you agree that it was frustrating for you because from the side of the Botswana authorities, nothing was done?

MR STEYN: That is correct.

MR VISSER: This frustration that we have just referred to, Brig Steyn, did this lead to something, did it build up to something?

MR STEYN: That is correct yes, it built up in the sense that more and more incidents that was initiated from Botswana, took place, or occurred in the Republic, and it was our task to by means of information, to analyse the situation in Botswana, to find out where and when the onslaught will be executed.

MR VISSER: Did you then decide to act and that Special Forces would act on that?

MR STEYN: Yes.

MR VISSER: We understand, page 1 of the Bundle, Chairperson, there is a summary made by the Investigation Unit it seems, we understand that the incident in which Mr Nkadimeng was killed, took place on the 14th of May 1985. Can you accept that date?

MR STEYN: Yes, I will accept that.

MR VISSER: There is also a reference at page 43 Chairperson, which supports that contention and that is by Mr Reginald Nkadimeng, so it appears to be reasonably safe to assume that that date is the correct date.

What was your knowledge of Mr Nkadimeng, or what was your knowledge concerning his activities.

MR STEYN: Mr Nkadimeng was a trained MK Member who was residing in Botswana, especially in Gaberone.

MR VISSER: Did he work with somebody?

MR STEYN: Yes, he worked with amongst others Jackie Molefe.

MR VISSER: Was that a woman?

MR STEYN: Yes, she was also a trained MK member.

MR VISSER: Was she also a target for the Security Branch?

MR STEYN: That is correct yes.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, may I refer you to the May presentation of the ANC, May 1997 of the ANC to the TRC, where at page 49 you will find a reference to Mr Rogers Nkadimeng (killed in a car bomb in Gaberone 1985) and he is described as a military representative.

Did you as time passed, gather information on both these members?

MR STEYN: Yes.

MR VISSER: What did you do with this information?

MR STEYN: Mr Chairperson, over a time we gathered information concerning their activities concerning the infiltration into South Africa and the idea was to commit acts of terror in South Africa.

MR VISSER: What did you do with this information?

MR STEYN: We used this information, or some of the members of Zeerust from the Security Branch, conveyed this information to members of the Special Forces and more specifically Charl Naude.

MR VISSER: Was this information, was this conveyed by yourself or was it conveyed by members under you?

MR STEYN: I did not convey it personally in this instance, but I was aware of it. I was aware that the Security Branch at Zeerust, by names Rudi Crause, conveyed this information.

MR VISSER: Did you hear anything concerning this information that you conveyed at a later stage?

MR STEYN: Yes.

MR VISSER: What did you hear?

MR STEYN: At a later stage I heard that the, that a vehicle, a motor car which Mr Nkadimeng used, exploded and that he was incident in the incident.

MR VISSER: You say he wanted to? In your application on page 18 you have said "the vehicle which Mr Nkadimeng wanted to use" and he was then killed?

MR STEYN: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you personally carry knowledge if he wanted to drive in this vehicle or that he was driving while it happened?

MR STEYN: No, I have no personal knowledge of that.

MR VISSER: And apart from that, did you hear anything from the Defence Force?

MR STEYN: Yes, at a later stage I was informed, or let me put it this way, I heard on the news and also saw in the media, that Mr Nkadimeng was killed in that incident.

MR VISSER: Who did you say was responsible for that action?

MR STEYN: It was the Special Forces of the Defence Force.

MR VISSER: And you did not carry any other knowledge about this incident and that you can convey to this Committee?

MR STEYN: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I must refer you also to page 93 of the August 1996 ANC presentation to the TRC.

At page 93 there is a reference from the previous page "Botswana assassinations, bombs and raids" under that heading, number 16 refers to Vernon Nkadimeng and that is the same person Chairperson. It is described car bomb and they give the date there as the 21st of May 1985.

We submit Chairperson, not much turns on it, but we submit that that is probably a mistake, it should be the 14th of May. When you handed over this information or conveyed it to the Defence Force, what did you think will happen with that information, what would they do with it?

MR STEYN: I was of the opinion that they would use that information to attack the people.

MR VISSER: And to eliminate them in the end?

MR STEYN: Yes.

MR VISSER: So you knew that the information that you conveyed to them, would be used to kill people?

MR STEYN: Yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairman, that is the evidence.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: About Mr Nkadimeng, did you know that when you conveyed the information to the Defence Force, that he was a target?

MR STEYN: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you knew what was going to happen?

MR STEYN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And the only reason why you and the Police were aware of this, and the only reason why you didn't do it yourselves, was that the Defence Force conducted cross-border operations as a rule?

MR STEYN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And in that regard, there was a relationship between the Police and the Defence Force?

MR STEYN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And the information was part of that relationship?

MR STEYN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: In this particular case, the information which you had at your disposal, was to identify Mr Nkadimeng and Ms Molefe as targets?

MR STEYN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Koopedi?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson and honourable Committee members. Mr Steyn, who is Charl Naude?

MR STEYN: Chairperson, Commandant Charl Naude was a member of Special Forces of the South African Defence Force at that time.

MR KOOPEDI: What ...

CHAIRPERSON: Was he Head of the Special Forces?

MR STEYN: No Chairperson, there were senior officers above him.

CHAIRPERSON: But he was high up in the rank structure?

MR STEYN: Yes, he was a Commandant.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, do you know what happened to him, where is he now?

MR STEYN: No Chairperson, I am not certain what happened to him.

MR KOOPEDI: Do you know if he has applied for amnesty in this matter?

MR STEYN: I do not know whether or not he applied for amnesty.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, from the time that this information or the instruction that was given to Special Forces as you call them, how long thereafter was this operation executed? When was, how long after was Mr Nkadimeng killed?

MR STEYN: Chairperson, I have thought much about this, I have also attempted to make enquiries about it, but I cannot recall. In my opinion it may have been a week or a number or weeks approximately. But I could not establish a date.

CHAIRPERSON: What would have been the most time that would have elapsed?

MR STEYN: It may have been over a month, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, do you know what type of an explosive was used here?

MR STEYN: No Chairperson, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know at all how the man would be killed?

MR STEYN: Chairperson, what I heard later?

CHAIRPERSON: No, when you gave the information?

MR STEYN: I did not know Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Or at any point before the incident?

MR STEYN: No Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: After the incident then, did anyone report to you that the operation was, had been carried out?

MR STEYN: Chairperson, as I have stated, I read about it in the press and I heard about it in the radio, if I recall correctly. If I recall correctly, I think Col Crause later confirmed it to me that the operation had indeed been executed.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he provide any other particulars?

MR STEYN: No Chairperson, not that I can recall at present.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you ask him?

MR STEYN: It may be Chairperson, it may be that I enquired for further particulars from him, I cannot recall precisely what the details of the operation were.

At that stage it was already known that an explosion had occurred.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, if I understand your testimony correctly, together read with your application form, would I be correct to say that you actually do not know when, how and by whom in particular, was Mr Nkadimeng killed?

MR STEYN: Chairperson, no, I am of the opinion that I could be satisfied if I were to say that it was indeed Special Forces of the Defence Force, based upon what we heard. But once again, I cannot fix a time or a date.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think that is the question. I think the question is, who exactly, which person or persons planted the bomb and ensured that Mr Nkadimeng would be killed?

MR STEYN: Yes, I understand, I wouldn't know that. I wouldn't be able to say whether Com Naude was personally involved, or any of his members were personally involved. I wouldn't be able to respond to that question.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, supposing somebody was to come to this hearing, somebody not attached to Special Forces or even the Security Police at that stage, and say that he or they actually killed Mr Nkadimeng, would you dispute that?

MR STEYN: No, I would not be in a position to dispute it, Chairperson. But it would be contradictory to the information which I had.

MR KOOPEDI: Well, if your information is anything to go by, it is what is called hearsay information, you heard from not even a person who acted in the matter, but somebody who might have heard from someone that the operation was carried out by Special Forces, is that not correct?

MR STEYN: Yes, it was hearsay evidence, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: I then put it to you Mr Steyn, that you actually do not know who killed Mr Nkadimeng and therefore you actually cannot apply for amnesty for the murder of Mr Nkadimeng, because you do not have any knowledge as to who, where and by whom was he killed. What is your response?

MR STEYN: Chairperson, I gave authorisation to my members at Zeerust, including Col Crause, to provide information to Special Forces knowing that in all probability an attack would be launched. Later in press reports, and in radio reports, I came to hear that an explosion had indeed occurred, and that it was a logical inference for me to draw, that it had indeed been executed by them.

CHAIRPERSON: The only chain between the information that you provided by means of which Mr Nkadimeng was identified as a target, and the explosion during which he died, would be the report that you received from somebody else?

MR STEYN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Upon various previous occasions, I have heard evidence from members of the former Police as well as the former Defence Force that sometimes, or actually quite often, the wrong information was conveyed to certain members. Would you be able to say that this was not the case?

MR STEYN: Chairperson, I cannot say that it wasn't so, but I think it is somewhat improbable.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I accept that in this case, that it was improbable.

MR STEYN: Yes, I think it was improbable.

CHAIRPERSON: The person who reported to you that the man was dead or that the man had been killed, and who wanted to link up this chain between the information and the actual incident, who is that person?

MR STEYN: Col Crause upon occasion told me that this operation had indeed been executed by the South African Defence Force.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that your co-applicant?

MR STEYN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not question him about where he obtained the information?

MR STEYN: It may be so, but I cannot recall the particulars thereof.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, did you - perhaps let me first ask, how long after you had read in the newspapers that there was this explosion, did Crause come and report to you?

MR STEYN: Chairperson, I cannot recall. I really cannot say at which stage this took place, it is really not possible for me.

MR KOOPEDI: But could it have been a year, two years, two days? How long thereafter, just an estimation?

MR STEYN: Chairperson, my estimation would be a chance that I would have to take, it may have been days, weeks or a month thereafter.

CHAIRPERSON: You were asked ...

MR STEYN: I beg your pardon Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You were asked to make such an estimation, I comprehend that quite some time has elapsed since then, and I am sure that Mr Koopedi will understand this.

MR STEYN: As I have said Chairperson, it may have been a week, a month or even longer, I cannot say with absolute certainty.

MR KOOPEDI: When he gave you this report that Mr Nkadimeng had been murdered, what did you say to him?

MR STEYN: Chairperson, it is impossible for me to say today, what I said to him on that day in 1985. I don't know what the further development of the conversation was, it is impossible for me to say today.

MR MALAN: Mr Koopedi, just for my information, do you have evidence that Mr Nkadimeng was not killed by Special Forces?

MR KOOPEDI: No, not at this stage. Not at this stage.

Now because you had two targets, and only one was killed, did you not raise this matter up with Crause, to find out why the other person was not killed, or why was there no follow up operation?

MR STEYN: No, I did not Chairperson. As far as I can recall, the Defence Force would have had to decide whether or not they wanted to take further action or launch any further operations.

MR KOOPEDI: What you are saying is it wasn't important to you or perhaps the second person was no more an important target, whether she was eliminated or not, it didn't really bother you, your Security Department?

MR VISSER: I object to that Chairperson, that is not what the witness said at all. He said it wasn't his decision.

MR KOOPEDI: My question is ...

CHAIRPERSON: Let me put it as such, it was your decision to inform them that Ms Molefe was a target and so doing, you made the decision for her to be killed, because you knew what would happen once you had conveyed the information?

MR STEYN: Chairperson, I don't know if I have explained it properly, but this matter in my opinion, originated with the Defence Force, that Col Crause was requested by the Defence Force to provide this information, because Special Forces wanted to take action against the targets.

We provided this information, if I say we, then I refer to the Security Branch under my command, the information was provided for an operation which would be executed by Special Forces of the Defence Force.

CHAIRPERSON: Then listen carefully. You decided that that information could be conveyed to the Defence Force, and you testified that you knew what would happen?

MR STEYN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And in so doing, you knew that these persons would be killed?

MR STEYN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And consequently you decided for them to be killed, otherwise you wouldn't have provided their names?

MR STEYN: Chairperson, it was an operation that was planned by the Defence Force, I associated myself, once I had provided the information, it was about the elimination of persons.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Steyn, the Police itself would have done it if it hadn't been for the rule that the Defence Force committed cross-border operations, according to your evidence, isn't that correct, that was the basic rule?

MR STEYN: If I recall correctly, I stated that I associated myself with the action taken by the Defence Force. We could not have acted on a cross-border basis, therefore I could not have committed the deed myself physically.

CHAIRPERSON: Otherwise if it wasn't for that rule, the Police would have done so itself?

MR STEYN: I don't know if the Police themselves would have been able to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Then I have misunderstood you. But anyway...

MR STEYN: Just to be clear, Chairperson, we couldn't take that action and when I provided the information, I knew what it was about and I associated myself with the act.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. And there was a relationship between you and the Defence Force?

MR STEYN: Yes, with the Defence Force, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And these people became targets because they had established the route from outside to inside South Africa?

MR STEYN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And when those persons who were not welcome in South Africa, entered the country, they were your responsibility?

MR STEYN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is why the entire incident was partially the responsibility of the Police and partially that of the Defence Force?

MR STEYN: That is correct, internally for us, and externally for them.

CHAIRPERSON: Particularly in light of the rule that the Defence Force could only act beyond the borders of the country and attack such people, isn't that so?

MR STEYN: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: In light of this relationship between you, if you had identified somebody for the Defence Force, if you had identified somebody as a target, then it wasn't only an association with the incident, you were part of the incident?

MR STEYN: I was part of the planning in as far as information was conveyed, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEYN: Knowing full well what the consequences would be.

CHAIRPERSON: Then we arrive at the question which Mr Koopedi has put. You identified two names, you identified two persons for the Defence Force. One of them was murdered, the question is did you find out anything about the other target, did you make any enquiries and if you didn't do so, why not?

MR STEYN: Chairperson, our first information was that only Mr Nkadimeng had died during the incident, so it was clear from the very beginning that only one of the targets had died during the incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are aware of that. The question is aimed at determining whether or not you made any enquiries of your source, regarding what happened to Ms Molefe, she was also a target?

MR STEYN: What I know is that she was not struck during that operation, and that the Security Forces continued to collect information about her and various other persons.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it is common cause that she was not affected by the operation.

MR STEYN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But the question is did you enquire about her position and whether or not you enquired about any further attempts on her life, because she had been identified as a target?

MR STEYN: No Chairperson, I cannot recall whether or not I went into her specific history. What I can state as a fact is that the intelligence network which we had in Botswana, would continue to collect information about her and others in as far as it affected their activities, or the Defence Force, if the Defence Force had any further plans they may have come back to us, it is possible but I don't know whether or not they had any other plans. I did not issue any further orders pertaining to this matter, subsequently.

MR MALAN: Just for my own clarity, if I have understood you correctly, the Defence Force was not the agent of the Security Police, they took their own decisions and you provided the information?

MR STEYN: Yes.

MR MALAN: Therefore you provided all security information to them, but they decided where and when they would strike?

MR STEYN: That is one hundred percent correct.

MR MALAN: And in that sense, because previously I understood you to say that it was a Special Forces operation, when you provided the information to them, you knew that they would strike somewhere, but you didn't know precisely what the plan was?

MR STEYN: No, I wouldn't be aware of the finer details of the plan.

MR MALAN: Then just to return to Ms Molefe, when you heard that Nkadimeng had died during the bomb explosion, can you recall whether or not you linked Ms Molefe to the information and the subsequent action?

MR STEYN: Chairperson, the information that we had, was that she had not been killed, that she wasn't in the vehicle which was detonated. And that was as far as my information went at that point.

MR MALAN: Was there any relationship or any co-operative relationship between her and Nkadimeng which led you to think that the two of them would constitute a target together, or would you have viewed them as separate targets?

MR STEYN: If I recall correctly, they would have been viewed as a collective target, because according to the information, they were working together.

If I were to speculate further, they lived together at a certain address.

MR MALAN: Were they married?

MR STEYN: No, I cannot recall, I wouldn't be able to say.

MR MALAN: Thank you Mr Koopedi.

MR KOOPEDI: Just one thing finally and I am not sure if the translation was correct or I heard correctly, did you say that the Defence Force asked for information from Crause?

MR STEYN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, if they are the ones who asked for information, whose decision was it that the two must be eliminated, would it have been a decision by your Branch, the Security Police or a decision by the Defence Force?

MR STEYN: It was definitely an SADF decision, it was definite a Defence Force decision, but we provided the information to assist them regarding movements and addresses and so forth.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, if I understand this correctly, this therefore means that the elimination of Mr Nkadimeng and perhaps the attempt on his wife, Chairperson, the person referred to as Ms Molefe, was married to the deceased and they lived together. What I am saying is if in fact this was a request by the SADF, it therefore means to me, unless I am corrected, that it was a Defence Force decision to eliminate the two and not a decision of the Security Police? Your role was simply to give information? Is that correct?

MR STEYN: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steyn, did the Defence Force come to you and say "look here, we have decided to kill Nkadimeng and Molefe, where can we find them" and this is the information that you provided, or did they come to you and asked "in the light of our decision to eliminate ANC members in Botswana, tell us who we should eliminate"? What is the correct version?

MR STEYN: As I understood it from Col Crause, the Defence Force had already concentrated on certain targets at that stage, and that these were simply more of their targets, consequently they approached us in order to see whether or not we could provide any finer particulars to them.

CHAIRPERSON: Such as?

MR STEYN: Movements, addresses, vehicle registrations.

CHAIRPERSON: So they brought you names and said "give us certain information regarding these two persons or these four persons, whatever the case may have been"? So they already had decided that these two persons would be killed?

MR STEYN: That was my inference.

MR KOOPEDI: At the risk of being repetitive, I just need to have this cleared, you did not order the killing on Mr Nkadimeng and his wife, is that correct, you only ordered Crause to supply information?

MR STEYN: Completely correct Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, I have no further questions for this witness.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Chairperson, perhaps I should just elucidate something. The Defence Force, did they have their own Intelligence component?

MR STEYN: That is correct yes.

MR VISSER: What was that called?

MR STEYN: Military Intelligence.

MR VISSER: Were they active in Botswana?

MR STEYN: Yes.

MR VISSER: Were there other intelligence agencies working there?

MR STEYN: Yes.

MR VISSER: Who were they?

MR STEYN: National Intelligence.

MR VISSER: And there were meetings in which intelligence was exchanged between the Defence Force, Police and the National Intelligence, is that correct?

MR STEYN: Yes.

MR VISSER: So in other words it was not strange, you wouldn't find it strange if the Defence Force had said that "we are going to concentrate on Mr Nkadimeng and Molefe"?

MR STEYN: No, I wouldn't have found it strange.

MR VISSER: Just a last aspect. Could you give instructions to another Section, for example Special Forces?

MR STEYN: No, I couldn't.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

ADV SIGODI: Tell me, did you personally have information on Mr Nkadimeng?

MR STEYN: That is correct yes.

ADV SIGODI: What information did you have on him?

MR STEYN: The different information components, especially the Zeerust Branch who had to provide me with the information, so I got all my information from them. This information indicated that these people were trained MK members and they were responsible for sending MK members into South Africa to commit acts of terror.

ADV SIGODI: What else had Mr Nkadimeng done as far as you knew, besides being responsible for sending trained MK members into the country? What else had he done?

MR STEYN: From his residence he, it was the activation point from where people infiltrated the country.

ADV SIGODI: Did you have somebody observing him from the Security Branch, his movements, what type of car he drove, when he would leave the home and so on?

MR STEYN: That is correct yes, by means of informants that we had in Botswana.

ADV SIGODI: Did you supply that information to the members of the Defence Force?

MR STEYN: That is correct yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What type of information did you hand over concerning Molefe?

MR STEYN: Mr Chairperson, if I can remember correctly, it was the same information from Nkadimeng. It was the same information for both of them.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR VISSER: The next witness Chairperson, is the other applicant, Mr P.R. Crause. His application you will find at page 2 through to page 13 and he deals with the incident at page 9 of the Bundle. He is ready to take the oath and he wishes to address you in Afrikaans.