IZAK DANIEL BOSCH: (sworn states)
ADV BOSMAN: The applicant has been sworn, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lamey, you may proceed.
EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Bosch, you applied for amnesty before this Committee, and this application can be found on page 32, is that correct, and there's also a typed supplement or annexure where you in paragraph 11 on page 41 of the bundle, mention an office in Manzini, Swaziland, that was broken into and where documents were stolen and on the same evening another house close to the Oshoek border post was searched and burnt down. Then is it correct that concerning the latter incident, it forms part of another amnesty hearing, and that is the search of the safehouse?
MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.
MR LAMEY: Did you have the opportunity before the hearing to read the statement of Mr Eugene Fourie?
MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.
MR LAMEY: Apart from certain qualifications under which you will testify under oath, do you confirm in essence, his version as it was put by Mr Fourie and also Mr de Kock, and that is correlates with what your recollection is of what happened?
MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.
MR LAMEY: Can you just tell the Committee, you were at that stage a member of Vlakplaas, is that correct?
MR BOSCH: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And you served under Mr de Kock's command.
MR BOSCH: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Do you also confirm that that was during the time when Glory Sedibe was abducted and when the Nerston incident took place?
MR BOSCH: That is also correct.
MR LAMEY: You also applied for both these incidents.
MR BOSCH: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: For the abduction of Mr Sedibe and also the Nerston incident, is that correct? ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR BOSCH: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: What was your rank at that stage?
MR BOSCH: I was a Sergeant.
MR LAMEY: You were also part of the Vlakplaas contingent that assisted in the fight against the struggle upon the request of the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch, and more specifically also Piet Retief, is that correct?
MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: What was your role?
MR BOSCH: Mr Chairperson, I went with Mr de Kock, I think we were in two or three groups that entered the building, not at the same time, but one after the other. I was with him when he broke open the door, we went into the office and we started gathering documents.
MR LAMEY: Do you bear any knowledge of any other people who were at the scene?
MR BOSCH: That is correct, Mr Chairperson. My recollection was that it was two women and two children, but the passages were dark and when we came out of the office we saw them standing in the corner. My arms were full, I think I also carried the axe and documents and we immediately left. ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR LAMEY: Did you participate in any assault?
MR BOSCH: No, Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Did you see any assault?
MR BOSCH: No, Mr Chairperson, we were in the office at that stage.
MR LAMEY: Did you have a weapon with you?
MR BOSCH: No, just the axe.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you also have an axe, the same as Mr de Kock?
MR BOSCH: No, it was Mr de Kock's axe that I carried, because then he carried a pistol and files and I carried the axe and files.
MR LAMEY: You also apply for amnesty for breaking and entering, theft, you yourself did not participate in the assault, so you do ask amnesty for that, it fell outside your knowledge, damaging of goods, that is at the offices of Sida.
MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.
MR LAMEY: Any other offences flowing from this.
MR BOSCH: That's correct, yes.
MR LAMEY: You also had a false passport with which you crossed the border.
MR BOSCH: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: You also then apply for amnesty for any statutory offence concerning border control regulations. ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR BOSCH: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Do you also reconcile yourself with the political objective, as it was described by Mr Fourie and also Mr de Kock in their applications?
MR BOSCH: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: On page 41, paragraph 11.2
"One Glory Sedibe was abducted from Swaziland and was taken to the South African Republic for interrogation. After the abduction, various houses in Swaziland were searched. Nobody was injured in these incidents."
The point that I would like to make, or I would like to know from you is, were you involved in the abduction of Glory Sedibe?
MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Where was he taken to?
MR BOSCH: Piet Retief, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Hugo?
MR HUGO: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?
MS PATEL: Same here, thank you Honourable Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman?
ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Advocate Sandi?
ADV SANDI: I also sing the same song, Mr Chairman, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: I may have misheard you, but you say when you went out carrying documentation and this axe which Mr de Kock used to break open, that's when you encountered the women. My question is, I just want clarity, when precisely, at what stage did you encounter these two women and two children?
MR BOSCH: Mr Chairperson, when we walked out of the office with the document that I took, then I saw that they were standing in the corner. Then I went down the stairs and I think Mr Fourie said that some people came up and when we walked out, or when I walked out at the bottom, there were still people who wanted to go in or out, but they ran away.
CHAIRPERSON: And further you said
"We did not go in at the same time."
MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: I thought this incident is that you all went in, because I would understand that getting into a house, you wouldn't all at the same time, you would follow each other, but what I want clarity on is that, did you take breaks when you followed each other inside the building?
MR BOSCH: Yes, there were certain time spans before the first group, or before the second group went in, I was part of the first group. I do not know if we gave them a signal and after a few minutes the second group came in, because they had to cover us while we went in. Then there were also people who remained outside.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any re-examination, probably emanating from what I asked mostly?
MR LAMEY: No, Chairperson, I've got no re-examination, thank you.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Bosch, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, are you going to lead any evidence in support of Mr Bosch?
MR LAMEY: No, Chairperson, I've got no further evidence, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Then it leaves us with the document which you handed up and what I could establish from Mr Hugo and Ms Patel, is that they had no objection in us admitting this document. Could we at this stage give it a number, Exhibit A.
MR LAMEY: As it please you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo, in the evidence led this far and looking at Mr Willemse's application, did you pick up any contradictions?
MR HUGO: No contradictions whatsoever, Mr Chairman. In fact it's clear from Mr de Kock's evidence as well that he gave these instructions and Mr Willemse was one of the operators under his command and that he just carried out his instructions. So we say that Mr de Kock's version is corroborated by Mr Willemse and vice versa.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?
MS PATEL: No, Honourable, I do not believe that there is anything material that emanates from his application, or Exhibit A to us. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you of the view, I haven't heard argument yet, but are you of the view that if we either grant or refuse, we can do that just on the strength of the evidence we have heard today?
MS PATEL: Yes, Honourable Chairperson, I believe given the circumstances that Mr Willemse finds himself in and the corroborating testimony that has been delivered by the rest of the applicants here, that I do not have an objection if he's included when you make your decision in this regard. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are we in a position to wrap up with short submissions? I'll start with Mr Hugo.
MR HUGO IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Yes, I'll be very brief.
Mr Chairman, the one aspect that is different in this particular application from the other ones that we've heard, is the fact that Mr de Kock undertook this operation on his own discretion. We say, Mr Chairman, bearing in mind his position as the Commander of Vlakplaas, that it was certainly within his implied authority to act like he did and the fact that he did not have an order from his superiors, shouldn't detract from the fact that this action was taken with a political motive.
Mr Chairman, we're saying that there was a proper disclosure of all the relevant factors. There was only, as far as we're concerned, one problem, and that is that if it had transpired that certain things were taken for personal financial gain, this would obviously have jeopardised this particular application. There was no evidence to that effect.
Mr Chairman, the political motivation has been established, it's in the evidence as far as we're concerned. Mr Fourie has also alluded to the fact that the Security Branch in the Eastern Transvaal, worked extensively on this particular organisation and that they had good reason to believe that they were supporting the ANC in their various endeavours.
Mr Chairman, with all due respect, you also made a very good point when you asked about the recent abduction of Sedibe, to the extent that the information extracted from Mr Sedibe was fresh and that they acted immediately on the strength of this information, which we submit is very reasonable, in that the chances of the persons having changed their modus operandi, are very slim.
Mr Chairman, those are really the submissions that we want to make, save for saying that we're applying for amnesty in respect of the following offences: Damage to property, housebreaking, theft, crossing of the international border, defeating the ends of justice, unlawful detention, illegal possession of firearms and ammunition and, Mr Chairman, I'm just putting ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Unlawful detention of whom?
MR HUGO: Those are the two persons that were ... (intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Encountered.
MR HUGO: ... encountered and told to stay put in the corner. And then assault, Mr Chairman, just on the basis that Mr de Kock associated himself with the assault, even if he wasn't really aware of it at the time, but that it could have been foreseen in an operation of this nature.
CHAIRPERSON: And as an overall Commander, I suppose.
MR HUGO: And as an overall Commander, that he has to take responsibility for that. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson yes, I don't want to repeat what Mr Hugo has said, I concur with him. I think in the context of this specific operation, I would submit that the Committee should take into account that Swaziland was as a territory, a place from which infiltration took place at the time. Before other Committees extensive evidence was led and it is also alluded to by Mr Fourie and Mr de Kock in their submissions. And I submit that as far as ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't we rather say Sida?
MR LAMEY: Sida, yes, well Swaziland in a broader context, that was the origin for infiltrations to the RSA, of trained MK operatives and the evidence before you is that the modus operandi was that people went into exile from the RSA, to Swaziland, where ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Some.
MR LAMEY: ... where some would be recruited and be sent for military training and who would then re-infiltrate back into the RSA, and the information was that financial assistance was given by the Swedish International Development Aid, to the so-called exiles and the further evidence is that there was information that some of these exiles were then further recruited and assisted. So my submission is it was in the context of the time, reasonable for the Security Police, as well as Mr de Kock and his men, to make a possible link with the financial assistance, exiles and recruitment of people who would re-infiltrate into the RSA, and that the whole purpose of this operation was to enter the premises of Sida and to find further evidence and to look for further evidence in this regard.
CHAIRPERSON: The further evidence that was required, wouldn't it be to identify the other people, rather than the financial assistance given?
MR LAMEY: Ja, to search for documents, to search for names, link that with information of names of exiles, as Mr Fourie has alluded to, Chairperson. But unfortunately we don't have the advantage of the testimony of the Eastern Transvaal Security Force members as to whether there was in fact confirmation of that later with further investigations and from the - that we don't know, but I think at the time, in the context that the Security Police operated and Vlakplaas, that they had reason to believe that they might find evidence of this sort on the premises and for that purpose this premises was broken into and documentation and other material which they thought would be relevant for that purpose, taken from that premises.
Chairperson, as far as proportionality is concerned, I submit that these actions were in proportion, based on the information, as well as to obtain further information which would be available, especially to the Eastern Transvaal Security Police, whose primary task was to combat the infiltration in that area at the time.
Chairperson, then as far as the assault is concerned, I submit that is incidental, it is something that was unexpected. It was a possibility foreseen, but not really expected as a real possibility and the assault was just done in order to overcome alarm to be made by the people that were encountered.
CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't it be within their plan that if they encounter something untoward, they would have to act in a manner and this manner was the assault, because they carried firearms with silencers when they broke into this office?
MR LAMEY: Well Chairperson, I think the fact that they did not overreact and use their weapons with silencers to kill these people, just indicates the minimum violence that was used in their discretion at the time, to overcome possible resistance or an alarm being made at the time. And I submit that the assault was minimal and was not of a serious nature, and I submit that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Was it necessary?
MR LAMEY: I think in accordance with the evidence of Mr Fourie, his evidence was there were, the people started to make noises and so forth and it was in order to - I'm sure it was an act, I would think it was more of an act of intimidation, in order to keep the people quiet and to round them up and to get them under control at the time, Chairperson. And I think it was necessary, in order to protect the whole clandestine nature of this operation and to get out there with the least resistance as soon as possible. Also given the fact that there was a police station just across the road, who could easily have been alarmed should anyone make an alarm, Chairperson.
Thank you, Chairperson, those are my submissions.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Ms Patel, any submissions?
MS PATEL: No, thank you Honourable Chairperson, I leave it in your capable hands.
Honourable Chairperson, there's just one aspect. The letter that was tendered by my learned colleague, Mr Lamey, have we given it an exhibit number for our records, or have I missed it?
CHAIRPERSON: A. We have marked it A.
MS PATEL: Oh, okay. Then would Mr Willemse's application then be B?
CHAIRPERSON: That's correct.
MS PATEL: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. This brings us to the conclusion of the incident of the Search of Effesis House, in Swaziland.
As enjoined by the Act that brought us into existence, we reserve our decision because it has to be given in writing, which would be done not in the too distant future and all parties involved would be advised accordingly.
Let me take the opportunity of thanking the legal representatives for their invaluable assistance that would enable us to reach a decision in respect of the four applicants. We were advised when we commenced, that there were people from the Embassies having watching briefs, I want to extend our gratitude to such people, that they have found it in themselves to honour these proceedings which are very vital to our new democracy where we reconciling a people within a people that we would be able to live together side by side and in harmony and further strengthen this new democracy. We thank you very much for the efforts you have taken.
Ms Patel, do we have any other incident to go by at this juncture?
MS PATEL: We do, Honourable Chairperson, I see however that my two learned colleagues, Mr Cornelius and Mr van der Merwe, their documents and jackets are here, they will most probably just be outside, if you would grant me a moment to go and call them, we can proceed with the next matter.
CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't we rather take a short adjournment?
MS PATEL: As it pleases you, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I suppose Mr Hugo and Mr Lamey, you are still involved in these proceedings?
MR LAMEY: Yes, indeed.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll take a short adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
