Amnesty Hearings

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Hattingh, your full names for the record please.

MR P J HATTINGH: Paul Jacobus Hattingh.

ADV BOSMAN: Do you prefer to the oath or do you prefer to take the affirmation?

PAUL JACOBUS HATTINGH: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is duly sworn, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Mr van der Merwe?

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you.

Mr Hattingh, your application in this bundle is indicated as appearing from page 400 to 402, which embodies your initial application.

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: In that application you did not provide ...(end of side A of tape) ... already applied for the other three incidents and this is the final incident for which you have applied for amnesty, is that correct?

MR P J HATTINGH: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: We have submitted to this Committee, Exhibit B, a complete application from you for your involvement in this incident.

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You have it before you and it goes from page 1 to page 7, is that correct?

MR P J HATTINGH: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You confirm the correctness and the truth of the content thereof?

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: With the exception of the errors pertaining to the date on page 5, which in all cases would be 1988 and not 1998.

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Hattingh, you compiled this application without having the opportunity to consult with colleagues or other involved parties in this amnesty application, you did not have the opportunity to confer with any of them.

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And you will have to rely on your recollection in as far as your evidence and application are concerned.

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: During this incident you were the Commander of the Demolitions and Bomb Disposal Unit in Pretoria.

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Will you then proceed and very briefly read paragraph 3 on page 5, into the record.

MR P J HATTINGH

"During October 1988, (I have heard that the date was the 12th, Chairperson, that was this incident took place, so it must have been a few days before), I was called to a meeting where Brig McIntyre was present.

As far as I can recall and as far as I know there were other persons present, but I cannot recall who they were. During this meeting it came to light that Khanya House possessed a printing press which was printing literature in promotion of the revolutionary struggle in the RSA.

There was also information that the facilities in the building were made available for the accommodation of members who were part of the revolutionary struggle. By damaging the building the activities in the oppression of the existing dispensation could be combatted. The order from Brig McIntyre, the then Coordinator of Stratcom National, was that the building be damaged in order to render it unusable. However, he did mention that this should take place without jeopardising innocent life or property which was not connected to Khanya House.

Upon my return to my office I gave Capt Hennie Kotze and Lieut George Hammond, who were members of my staff, an order to participate in the operation in cooperation with Col E A de Kock, the Commander of Vlakplaas. They were also to work in conjunction with the Technical Unit of Head Office. (I did not state this in my statement, but we cooperated quite closely with them in the past)

After I had issued the orders to Capt Hennie Kotze and Lieut George Hammond, I did not participate in the planning or the operation itself.

At a later stage, approximately in mid-October, after the attempt to damage the building was known, George Hammond and Hennie Kotze reported to me that the operation had not been entirely successful and that other SAP members in the vicinity could possibly identify them. However, nobody was arrested.

During the following meeting which was the type of meeting which took place quite regularly at Head Office, I reported back and mention the aforementioned problems, but the incident was not discussed any further."

I could just mention that this meeting at Head Office took place at Head Office, practically every morning, where I would have to report regarding the activities of my unit. The persons attending the meetings would differ from day to day, to I cannot recall precisely who was present during this meeting, there were too many of them over the years.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You then also confirm the fact that you received an order in this matter from Brig McIntyre, who was your unit Commander at that stage.

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You also confirm that at the time of this order from Brig McIntyre, you were already involved in the Cosatu and Khotso House incidents, is that correct?

MR P J HATTINGH: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: The information which was conveyed to you by Brig McIntyre, would you also have conveyed it as such to the two members under your command, namely Kotze and Hammond, when you issued the order to them?

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct, Chairperson. In fact, I must mention that we were a specialised unit, the Demolitions and Bomb Disposal Unit, we didn't participate in the collection of information or the predetermination of targets, this was conducted by other units at Head Office, we dealt exclusively with ground level activities. So we simply executed orders.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Would I then be correct in saying that what was significant to you regarding an order of this nature, was simply that it was an authorised operation from a senior member of the Security Branch or Head Office?

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct. We never questioned orders which were issued from this level, because it was part of our duty to perform covert operations.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Therefore you would not be in a position to verify information or to question information with regard to the decision to damage Khanya House.

MR P J HATTINGH: No, Chairperson, as I have already stated, we never questioned orders of this nature because we believed it was for the sake of national interest, in that it was already cleared and that we simply had to execute the order.

MR VAN DER MERWE: If we could just pause there for a moment. You heard that my learned colleague who appears for the victims, made mention of the nature of the Catholic Church's involvement, which was passive, from your perspective of the past and the struggle which reigned at that point, there were two sides, those who were for apartheid and those who were against it, is that correct?

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And someone who did not support apartheid would then be viewed as an opponent to apartheid.

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And such persons, whether they be passive or active, were still regarded as persons who were involved in bringing about the fall of the State.

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: During this period, or let me say, after you gave the order to Kotze and Hammond, were you at any stage involved in any discussion with members from the Mechanical Unit, which fell under the command of WAL du Toit?

MR P J HATTINGH: Chairperson, we had an internal liaison system which functioned on a need-to-know principal and if Technical members would be involved in any way, I would communicate this via their Commander, who was at that stage WAL du Toit, and this would also have been communicated by Eugene de Kock's Commander, because they didn't fall directly under my command, although all of us were part of the same picture, so to speak.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You are not necessarily one hundred percent aware of the reason why Brig McIntyre gave you the order.

MR P J HATTINGH: I think, Chairperson, that Brig McIntyre knows me well, he knew what I was doing and in which unit I was involved and by nature of his work at Stratcom, he was aware of the set-up. Perhaps he doesn't remember all that well anymore, but I'm sure it would refresh his memory if I were to say that I'm sure he could recall that we were involved in other matters as well and that would have been the channel that he would have had to follow in order to consult this unit due the nature of our activities.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And then by nature of the situation, when it was about damaging a building, it was necessary to employ persons who were knowledgeable on that level and to use them in such an operation.

MR P J HATTINGH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And this regard, you would confirm that members of your unit who were members of the Demolitions and Bomb Disposal Unit, as well as those members of the Mechanical Unit, had knowledge on this level and were then suitable persons or candidates for this sort of operation.

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct, Chairperson. We worked quite closely with the members of these units.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And the fact that Col de Kock was then also involved, did you have any idea why he also would be involved and what his specific role would be, what was expected of him?

MR P J HATTINGH: Chairperson, we used him and his staff with Khotso House and other incidents which preceded this particular incident. We had employed them with great success, if I might put it that way. He and his staff possessed extraordinary capacities and such an operation could not be executed by two members of my unit only, it wasn't possible.

MR VAN DER MERWE: The instructions that you then conveyed to the rest of the staff below you, would this also have included, that they had to operate the operation from that point onwards, that they had to manage and plan it and bring it to execution?

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct. The staff that served below me, all of us had the same level of expertise, whether I went or whether they went was immaterial, we all followed the same working method and I had complete confidence in their ability to execute and plan the operation along with Mr de Kock and the other staff members of the other units.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Subsequent to the incident, this is perhaps something which some people still don't understand at this point, could you just explain to the Committee what one's reaction would be subsequent to such an operation, would one attempt to make contact with those who were involved in the operation, would one avoid them, what would one do?

MR P J HATTINGH: No, Chairperson, particularly in a place like Pretoria, where there were many units of many policemen, where everybody knew one another, something like this was strictly need-to-know and even one's own staff would not all be informed regarding what was going to happen or what had happened, who would be involved or who had been involved.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Such an operation was by nature illegal and if it were to be exposed, you would be open to prosecution.

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: As far as you are concerned, do you have any knowledge that the information which was conveyed to you indicated that there were people living in the building, or who were staying over in the building?

MR P J HATTINGH: No, we worked only with the information that was conveyed to us by those who knew more about the set-up than we did, those who had more security information about the premises. We had to depend on what they told us and we had work from the basis that there would not be any unnecessary endangerment of innocent life or damage to unrelated property, and people would have to inform themselves by means of observation or reconnaissance, that the activities would be restricted to the particulars of the order itself.

MR VAN DER MERWE: When you make use of certain language in your statement, in the third paragraph you say that there was literature which was being published in promotion of the revolutionary struggle, is this information which was conveyed to you secondhand or third-hand?

MR P J HATTINGH: Yes, we didn't work with this sort of information ourselves.

MR VAN DER MERWE: So you didn't know what precisely the documentation would entail or what the nature of such documentation would be?

MR P J HATTINGH: No, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And the same would apply for the fact that there were facilities in the building which were made available to accommodate members of the revolutionary struggle, you didn't know whether these persons were members of MK, whether they were mere activists or what particularly their roles were?

MR P J HATTINGH: No, we didn't have any further particulars, with the exception of what I have stated.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Mr Hattingh, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Hattingh, concerning Vlakplaas' role, Mr de Kock and his men, is it so that in an operation of this nature it would necessarily mean that there would be some security for the people who would penetrate the building?

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct, yes.

ADV HATTINGH: And do you know if this was one of the functions that Mr de Kock and his men fulfilled?

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct.

ADV HATTINGH: You also said that if your involvement was disclosed concerning the operation, it would have led to certain charges against you and also a lot of embarrassment for the Police and the Security Police.

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct.

ADV HATTINGH: And through that then also for the government of the day.

MR P J HATTINGH: That's correct.

ADV HATTINGH: It would have led to a very huge political embarrassment.

MR P J HATTINGH: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV HATTINGH: It could have led to the fall of the government then.

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct.

ADV HATTINGH: Are you aware of the nature of the police investigation that followed on this incident?

MR P J HATTINGH: No, Mr Chairperson, we did not have anything to do with that.

ADV HATTINGH: But did anybody from your unit, or one of your members, were they approached to maybe find out if they had any information about this incident?

MR P J HATTINGH: You know I think Lieut Hammond and Col de Kock were at the scene the next morning after the incident.

ADV HATTINGH: But you yourself were not there?

MR P J HATTINGH: No. I'm sorry, it wasn't de Kock, it was Kotze.

ADV HATTINGH: You were not approached by an investigative officer who had to deal with the investigation with the idea of getting information from you?

MR P J HATTINGH: No, Mr Chairperson.

ADV HATTINGH: Do you know who was appointed as the investigative officer for this incident?

MR P J HATTINGH: No, I cannot recall it, I do not know, I wasn't part of it.

ADV HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh.

MR NEL: I've got no questions, Mr Chairperson, thank you.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR NEL

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener.

MR WAGENER: Chairman, I've got no questions, thank you.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair. Jansen on record, no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Mr Hattingh, in your statement you mention on page 5, paragraph 2, to a meeting that you attended with Brig McIntyre, was this a formal meeting or more just an opportunity where you could meet with people or with him and other people? Was it a formal meeting where minutes of the meeting were taken?

MR P J HATTINGH: It was an informal meeting as far as I can recall.

MR JOUBERT: And you cannot recall if there was anybody else present and who they were?

MR P J HATTINGH: No.

MR JOUBERT: Then in the next paragraph of the same document, where you refer to, it's the last sentence of that paragraph, the instructions of Brig McIntyre, you then mention that he's the Coordinator of Stratcom. If he says that's he's actually the unit Commander of Stratcom, will you then agree with that?

MR P J HATTINGH: Yes, I will, it was a mistake on my side.

MR JOUBERT: Then just the last paragraph where you refer to the report or the report-back that you did, Mr McIntyre will say that nobody ever reported back to him, can you deny that?

MR P J HATTINGH: No, I cannot. I cannot recall who was present at that meeting, as I said it's a very regular thing to discuss certain things with Head Office on a daily basis and I cannot recall what happened 12 years ago at that meeting, it's impossible.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Joubert. Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Hattingh, you yourself were involved in the Khotso House incident a few months before this incident and you will know it was sanctioned on the highest level. You probably accepted that when the instruction was given concerning Khanya House and a building which in the case of the Khotso House, belonged to a church institution and who also supported the liberation movement, more specifically the ANC, that the action against this building, for example the printing press, had to be sanctioned from the highest level.

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr du Plessis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Hattingh, can you just explain to the Committee, this unit to which you belonged, this was the Bomb Disposal Unit at Security Head Office in Pretoria, where were the offices of this unit?

MR P J HATTINGH: Mr Chairperson, can I just say suddenly I can't remember the name of the building, but Security Head Office was decentralised. As it happened with many departments in Pretoria, we couldn't all fit into one building so there were various other units in different buildings and I cannot recall what the building's name was.

MR DU PLESSIS: It's not really important that you do identify the building, but can I just ask the following question, there was also a bomb disposal unit that was part of the Security Branch in Northern Transvaal, is that correct?

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, we were the Head Office component, a part of our work was training and to fight the onslaught on a national level we had to train the people who were placed all over the country, so we had to - so all the smaller centres and the bigger centres also had their bomb disposal units.

MR DU PLESSIS: And your unit and that unit from the Norther Transvaal were two different units, is that correct?

MR P J HATTINGH: Yes, the one was part of the Pretoria Bomb Disposal Unit and we were with Headquarters, Pretoria.

MR DU PLESSIS: And if there was an action launched on, let's say for example, in Pretoria, who would have gone out to do the investigation or the work concerning this specific bomb in the Pretoria area? Would it have been the branch or you?

MR P J HATTINGH: It would have been the branch and sometimes we were requested to assist them at scenes where it was a bit difficult or where they needed assistance, but in this case I believe that because it was in Pretoria and because it was very close to where we were, we went to go and look as well, but it was actually the Security Branch Pretoria who had to do the investigation.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Hattingh, you gave a direct order to Hammond and Kotze to act in this matter.

MR P J HATTINGH: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And they had to follow your instructions.

MR P J HATTINGH: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you accepted that the instruction that you received from Brig McIntyre was justified under the circumstances and it was not your place to ask questions about the justification of it.

MR P J HATTINGH: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And similarly for Kotze and Hammond who were also not in a position to really question this instruction.

MR P J HATTINGH: No, they wouldn't have.

MR DU PLESSIS: The purpose of your unit for example, had nothing to do with the collection of information concerning the activities of activists, so one could actually just say that you were more-or-less a technical department dealing only with bomb disposal, etcetera?

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you please look at the document that I'm going to show to you now. Mr Chairman, I beg leave to hand this document in as the next exhibit, I think that would be Exhibit D.

CHAIRPERSON: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: May I beg leave to hand the document to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MR DU PLESSIS: Would you look at that document, it is a crypto report, it's got a stamp on from the 3rd of October 1988, can you see that?

MR P J HATTINGH: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And can you look at the first page on the right-hand side your name appears, "P J Hattingh", is that your signature?

MR P J HATTINGH: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: You will see the dates at point 2 and 4 is the 12th of October 1988, that is the date of the fire at Khanya House, and then point 10 there is "weapons found at Khanya House", can you see that?

MR P J HATTINGH: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then if you look at A1, it says that

"On the 12th October 1988, this office received a radio report concerning a limpet mine found at Khanya House. According to information a black man, Johnson Nkabela, cleared away his office and found this limpet mine in his cupboard."

Before we continue with the contents of this document, can we accept that at that stage when you were the Commander, that you saw this document?

MR P J HATTINGH: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS

"Explosives experts found this at the scene. Limpet mines and handgrenades, detonators as well as 4 empty AK47 magazines."

Can you see that?

MR P J HATTINGH: I see it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you have any reason to deny the correctness of that?

MR P J HATTINGH: No.

MR DU PLESSIS

"It is possible that the found weapons was related to the fire earlier on."

and then they refer to a dossier that was opened, and this is signed by Col M D Ras, this is the Colonel or the then Colonel who then later became a General, Martiens Ras, the father of Martiens Ras who also applied for amnesty in this case, is that correct?

MR P J HATTINGH: Yes, I do know them both.

MR DU PLESSIS: And he was involved in the Security Branch Northern Transvaal?

MR P J HATTINGH: Yes, he was in command there.

MR DU PLESSIS: So would it be correct that this report came from the Security Branch Northern Transvaal?

MR P J HATTINGH: Yes. The sender is Detective Strydom. I also know him, he was attached to the Security Branch in Pretoria.

MR DU PLESSIS: Security Branch Northern Transvaal?

MR P J HATTINGH: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can we then accept that this report was sent from their office to your office?

MR P J HATTINGH: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis.

MR CORNELIUS: Cornelius for the record, I've go no questions for Mr Hattingh. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

MS CAMBANIS: Please Chair, can we have lunch now?

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn for lunch, we'll come back after 45 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

PAUL JACOBUS HATTINGH: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. May we begin with the afternoon session of this hearing. Ms Cambanis, I hope you have regained your strength.

MS CAMBANIS: I have, thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may proceed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Thank you.

Mr Hattingh, Mr McIntyre's evidence was to the effect that it was clear to him that the limpet mines and arms had been planted, do you agree with that?

MR J P HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MS CAMBANIS: Do you know who planted the limpet mines?

MR J P HATTINGH: No, no, I don't Mr Chairman.

MS CAMBANIS: Do you know where they would have come from, to be planted?

MR J P HATTINGH: Not from my section, but I don't know from whom.

MS CAMBANIS: From where else could they possibly have been obtained? Could it be any of the Security units attached to the Security Police?

MR J P HATTINGH: No, no, Mr Chairman, Vlakplaas, - the only people that are allowed to handle explosives are the people that are trained in explosives. So in the case of Vlakplaas, the people, not all of them but many of them are trained or had been trained in explosives at that time. So it could be from there as well.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, thanks Mr Hattingh, but from the sections that were involved in this operation, amongst them, if it wasn't from your division, then could it only have been from Vlakplaas?

MR J P HATTINGH: Most likely, Mr Chairman. I don't know, but I think so.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair, I have nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS CAMBANIS

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. Perhaps just one aspect.

When you gave the instructions or conferred with, is it Mr Kotze and Mr Hammond, to proceed with the operation, did you give instructions for a proper reconnoitring operation to be undertaken prior to the undertaking of the operation itself? Or would you have left that over to their discretion? Was there a discussion about the reconnoitring that had to be done?

MR J P HATTINGH: Well Mr Chairman, they did the planning in conjunction with Mr de Kock and the Technical Division and of course they gave me feedback as things went along, but the planning and whatever they did before the time and the actual deed, we had communication but that was up to them to do the whole planning.

MS PATEL: Alright. From the feedback that you would have got up until the point of the operation actually being carried out, can you give us an indication of what kind of feedback you got.

MR J P HATTINGH: The only thing I can recall is that they said that they needed to sort of make sure what was happening in the place, by means of sort of a recce as we call it, which they did to make sure that, as I said earlier in evidence, that there were no people involved unnecessarily and to establish what the outlay of the building was.

MS PATEL: Okay. And can you recall for what period the place was recce'd as you've stated?

MR J P HATTINGH: No, that I can't recall Mr Chairman, I don't know how long they took for that side of it.

MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

Just two questions, Mr Hattingh. I do not know if you've already answered this question, please correct me if you have, but can you recall how Mr McIntyre formulated the instructions when he gave it to you?

MR J P HATTINGH: Mr Chairperson, as far as I can recall he just gave me a short background of the specific target, if I can call it such, and that the building had to be damaged in order for it to be put out of action. He also talked about, as far as I can recall, that it had to be damaged by means of a fire.

ADV BOSMAN: And then at that stage when you received the instructions there were already incidents round Khotso House, Cosatu House, is that correct?

MR J P HATTINGH: Yes, that had already happened at that stage.

ADV BOSMAN: Was it your impression that Mr McIntyre was aware of this?

MR J P HATTINGH: No, we never spoke about Khotso House or the others.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: I don't have a question, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, in the reports you received about the planning stage, were you advised whether the building was occupied or not?

MR J P HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I can't remember all the exact details, the only thing I can remember is that they tried to ascertain by means of their recces that they did, to establish whether the building was in fact empty. That's all I can remember, I can't remember anything further than that.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they report that it was indeed empty?

MR J P HATTINGH: Repeat please, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they report that the building was in fact empty, not occupied by people in the evening, that is people who would be put up overnight?

MR J P HATTINGH: I can only conclude from what they did that they decided on that particular day that as far as they were concerned, there were no people in the building. They never told me that, I can only conclude from what they did.

CHAIRPERSON: If I understood Ms Cambanis well whist asking Mr McIntyre questions, she said the people who were rescued by the fire people, had come to attend a conference, you recall that kind of evidence? Or the questioning along those lines?

MR J P HATTINGH: I can remember that, but I didn't know about this conference, Sir, no Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I'll tell you why I'm asking this is because if there were printing done in the printing house which according to the document we saw, was adjacent or next to the main building, then wouldn't you say the intelligence, Security Intelligence should have been aware of a meeting or conference that had to take place?

MR J P HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I can't comment on that, I don't know because of the fact that I didn't take part in the actual planning itself.

CHAIRPERSON: Nor was this mentioned to you during the report-backs of the planning stage?

MR J P HATTINGH: I only heard this the next day, Sir, that apparently there were people in the building that they didn't know about. So I didn't know beforehand, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Any re-examination, Mr van der Merwe?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Just one aspect, with your permission, Mr Chair. I'm reading from this After the Fire Attack on Khanya House, page 5 of this little book. There's a quote there, it starts on the bottom of page 4, which says: - and I just want to put it through the witness to you

"According to Brother Jude Pieterse, Secretary-General of the SACBC, the terrorists broke into Khanya House and doused the corridors of the ground floor and the first and second floors with an inflammable liquid, probably petrol and paraffin."

And then the important part:

"It seems the arsonists were under the impression that there were no-one in the building, as they moved around fairly freely on the ground and first floors. Brother Jude said at a press conference shortly after the attack."

So I'd just like to focus the Committee's attention on that, it seems therefore that the impression of the arsonists were that there ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Pass it through Mr Hattingh, because he would be testifying.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I will leave it at that. Thank you, Mr Chair, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS PATEL: Mr Chairman, if I may just for proper housekeeping, several parties have been referring to that booklet, but it hasn't been given an exhibit number.

CHAIRPERSON: Could we say it's E.

MS PATEL: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: And would you today probably try to have copied it because my Committee Members don't have it.

MS PATEL: I will certainly, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And I'm guarding mine jealously.

MS PATEL: Your attitude is noted, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We shall mark it E. Thank you, Mr Hattingh, you are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Anything further, Mr van der Merwe?

MR VAN DER MERWE: No further evidence on behalf of this applicant, thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr du Plessis, it would appear to me that it would only be logical if we hear either Messrs Kotze or Hammond, because that's the line of command.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman, we have had a discussion before the commencement of these proceedings and the general consensus amongst us, unless you give other directions, obviously, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don't want to disturb the applecart.

MR DU PLESSIS: Ja. The general consensus was that we would hear the evidence of Col de Kock, as he was in a command function of the Vlakplaas contingent and that we would carry on from that point of view. And for that reason, Mr Kotze who is the first witness I would have wanted to lead, requested me if he, because of work circumstances, could not be here today and I said to him well, I don't think we're going to reach his evidence today, so he's unfortunately not here. If you would, unless obviously ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I wouldn't insist, I wouldn't disturb the arrangements.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. That was the agreement amongst everybody, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, counsel? I just want our records to be clear.

MR HATTINGH: It is correct that we have amongst ourselves, subject to your approval, agreed that Mr de Kock will be the next applicant to testify, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That is in order with me.