Amnesty Hearings

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just have a moment, somebody indicated there's a problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bosch, will you give your evidence in Afrikaans?

IZAK DANIEL BOSCH: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Bosch, you have applied for amnesty for various incidents where you were involved while you were a member of the Police Force, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Of which most of these applications have been heard before various Committees, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: You have also testified in the De Kock hearings with regard to the charges that were the subject matter of those trials.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Is it also correct that you received indemnity in terms of Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act, where you gave evidence and despite that you have also applied where you have received indemnity in those cases, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And this incident is an incident that was not the subject matter of the De Kock trial, but this also serves before this Committee.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Mr Bosch, if we just study the documents before the Committee, there is a section where you application is filled in in your own handwriting.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And an annexure is attached to that, a typed one, where briefly reference is made to these incidents for which you wish to apply, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: You later obtained legal representation and your legal representative, Mr Rossouw and you in consultation have completed a supplementary application of which the extract with regard to this incident is to be found from page 57 up to page 60, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: I would just like to refer you to the heading on page 57, it is a typing fault there, reference is made to December '95 and you accept it is December '85.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: You also mention the nature and particulars and you say that you have had insight to the application of Mr Nortje when you completed your supplementary application, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And you refer and confirm the correctness thereof as far as it concerns you.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: What was your rank at that time?

MR BOSCH: I was a Sergeant.

MR LAMEY: Comprehensive evidence has already been supplied with regard to the run-up of the operation, did you at any stage have any personal contact with the source?

MR BOSCH: Not before the time, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: What was your role in the operation?

MR BOSCH: In this operation my role was to supply transport for the persons who were going to Mr McCaskill's house. We obtained the vehicles in Lesotho after we went through the river.

MR LAMEY: Did you go through the river?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I did. And as Mr Nortje said now, we waited for Mr de Kock, he came to call us, we went to the house, I dropped them off there, I slowly drove past the house and then turned around and came back very slowly. Mr Nortje came out and he said they want to count the people and then he went back in the house, they came out of the house and then we drove again to the place where we burnt out the car, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Who pointed out the house of Mr McCaskill to you?

MR BOSCH: It was Mr de Kock.

MR LAMEY: Did you beforehand know where it was?

MR BOSCH: I had a general idea, but not the exact house. Beforehand we were in Lesotho to familiarise ourselves with the roads and the areas and any military movements.

MR LAMEY: So there was reconnaissance done beforehand, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And under whose instructions did you participate in the operation?

MR BOSCH: Under the instruction of Col de Kock.

MR LAMEY: When the operation was launched did you understand anything yourself, whether the instruction came from higher above?

MR BOSCH: Yes, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And from where did the instruction come, as you understood?

MR BOSCH: As I understood it, it came from Brig Schoon, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And then on page 59 is the explanation of your political motive and is it how your perception was for your motivation during that time?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: From your own firsthand knowledge and experience, were you aware that there was a problem with the infiltration of MK members from Lesotho in the time period before this operation?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions. Just one aspect, Mr Bosch, before I forget. You also received a medal, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And from whom did you receive this?

MR BOSCH: From Gen van der Merwe.

MR LAMEY: And except for the medal that you received, did you receive any other benefit, whether it be in cash or any other form, for this operation?

MR BOSCH: Yes, Chairperson. Col de Kock on our way back home, I think he gave each of us R50 or R60 and he told us to get something to eat.

MR LAMEY: Was this, did you regard it as a bonus or additional remuneration?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: What type of medal did you receive?

MR BOSCH: A silver cross for courage, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Who can approve the medal?

MR BOSCH: Only the Commission. I think the Minister of Police signed it, he was Minister le Grange at that stage, and Gen van der Merwe handed it to us.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, have you any questions?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you be long, Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: I will be quite some time.

CHAIRPERSON: Then we shall adjourn for lunch.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

IZAK DANIEL BOSCH: (sworn states)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Bosch, we have heard from the applicants that Vlakplaas for quite some time before this operation was active in the Ladybrand area, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you were busy with the regular tasks of Vlakplaas, in the collection of information regarding the movements of persons who wanted to infiltrate the country to launch attacks here.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And for this purpose you enlisted the assistance of the so-called askaris.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And I'm assuming, Mr Bosch, that while you were busy there you indeed obtained information from perhaps your own sources or sources of the Ladybrand Security Branch, regarding activities of so-called freedom fighters in Lesotho, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson. I would just like to clarify here. If the Security Branch in a certain region obtained information regarding infiltration or people intending to infiltrate, they would send the request to Head Office and Vlakplaas along with the askaris would be deployed to that area.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. And I'm assuming that in the course of your activities there, you realised that there was a large-scale presence of trained ANC/MK cadres in Lesotho, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you also obtained certain information to the general effect that MK members who were there were planning launch attacks within the RSA.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And from previous experience you must have realised, Mr Bosch, that at some or other stage action would have to be taken against these persons?

MR BOSCH: Yes, we had to stop them, that was out objective, we were a counter-terrorism unit.

MR HATTINGH: Could you just refresh my memory, were you involved in the Chand incident?

MR BOSCH: Yes, Chairperson, I was involved as a "decoy", I arranged accommodation for the people in Richards Bay, so that if there were any enquiries, they could say that they were in Richards Bay at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: So you are thoroughly aware that action was taken by Vlakplaas, even across the borders of the Republic?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall for how long you had already been active in that area before you launched this operation?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, I had always been deployed in the Eastern Transvaal and Ladybrand was my next deployment, but I think that we had been there for approximately 7 to 10 days, if I recall correctly.

MR HATTINGH: And in the time that you were there, was your service ever interrupted? For example, did you return from the Ladybrand area to Vlakplaas for a weekend and then return to Ladybrand, or were you in Ladybrand all the time?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, I think that our service was indeed interrupted, we returned home and then we went back there.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible you may have been active there for longer than the 10 days that you have mentioned, before the operation took place?

MR BOSCH: Yes, it is possible.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall - or let me phrase the question as such, Mr de Kock testified that here in Pretoria at Head Office, he received an instruction to make a submission for a possible attack in Lesotho, were you here when this took place or were you still in Ladybrand?

MR BOSCH: I'm not certain of my whereabouts at that stage, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr de Kock states that he received the instruction approximately three to five days before the operation took place. Can you recall for how long before the operation took place you commenced with the planning for this particular operation?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, I may be mistaken, but I believe that it was approximately 7 days, a week.

MR HATTINGH: Could it have been a shorter period of time?

MR BOSCH: Yes, it may have been shorter, but it felt quite long to me.

MR HATTINGH: And during your time there, Mr Bosch, did you have access to the Ladybrand source, this person of Mr McCaskill?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ever have any direct or indirect liaison with him?

MR BOSCH: I knew of his existence, but I think that he was kept away from us at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: And when you eventually planned the operation, what was your task supposed to be? Or let me rather ask you, where was the actual operation planned?

MR BOSCH: The finer details were planned in Ladybrand, because I know that Col de Kock contacted the farm and he asked them to send two vehicles for him. That is why Nortje and I had to go and look for parts, because the doors of the vehicle could not open from the outside. I don't wish to defame Volkswagen, but with the old Volkswagens, if one pressed the handles, the doors didn't open and we were looking for parts quite urgently with which to repair those doors.

If we were using the vehicles in an operation, the doors would not be able to open and they would not have been able to access the vehicles, that's why we had to fix them.

MR HATTINGH: Were you involved in any planning for this operation which did not take place in the Ladybrand area?

MR BOSCH: Could you please explain?

MR HATTINGH: Let me simplify it. Were you involved only in the planning for the operation which took place in Ladybrand?

MR BOSCH: As far as I can recall while we were still in Pretoria, at a certain Col de Kock wanted me to go and fetch some beer which contained a sleeping substance and that is what we also took with.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall at what stage you would have taken the beer with?

MR BOSCH: It was just before we went there.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock's evidence regarding the beer is that yes, there was beer which was taken with, but that this was at an earlier stage and that the beer was taken for members of the Security Branch whom they wanted to use to pacify or put them to sleep, in order to - and I'm not entirely certain if it was to abduct them or to get them to talk or something like that.

MR BOSCH: It is possible.

MR HATTINGH: But the beer which was taken didn't really have anything to do with the operation.

MR BOSCH: It is possible.

MR HATTINGH: When you entered Lesotho to execute the operation, did you cross the river or did you enter the country by means of the vehicle?

MR BOSCH: I went over the river.

MR HATTINGH: And who was with you?

MR BOSCH: Snor Vermeulen and Willie Nortje.

MR HATTINGH: And were you then met on the other side?

MR BOSCH: Yes, we were met on the other side. The two vehicles were already there and they were waiting for us.

MR HATTINGH: That was Mr de Kock and who else?

MR BOSCH: Adamson and Coetser, I think.

MR HATTINGH: And what was the plan, what were you supposed to do from that point onwards?

MR BOSCH: If I recall correctly, there was not yet a final plan at that stage because Col de Kock told us to stay there and wait. We drove some distance away and then we sat among the houses and waited. There was soft rain, it was kind of misty that evening. Col de Kock, Adamson and I don't know if Coetser stayed with us at that stage, they departed and later returned with the source and then Adamson departed, Coetser and the source and Mr McCaskill, de Kock and Vermeulen and myself left in the other vehicle. They then said that Leon had left the house and that he had gone to the other house.

MR HATTINGH: Let us just take this step for step because your evidence differs somewhat from Mr Nortje's at this point, however it appears to be similar to Mr de Kock's, and there is also the evidence of Mr McCaskill. You said that while you waited there, Mr de Kock and whoever was with him and Mr McCaskill, arrived there.

MR BOSCH: That is correct as far as I can recall.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr McCaskill arrive there in his own vehicle?

MR BOSCH: I think that he was in one of our vehicles.

MR HATTINGH: Because the vehicle that he drove with to meet Mr de Kock at the post office, had to have been parked somewhere.

MR BOSCH: It is possible, Chairperson, but I didn't see the vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: In either event he was with Mr de Kock and according to your recollection, Coetser was there as well, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Then you were told that Mr Meyer had already left the scene of the attack.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then there was a redivision of your group?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr McCaskill then went with McAdams and Coetser.

MR BOSCH: Adamson and Coetser, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Adamson and Coetser. And you went to the house where you launched the attack?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: At the time of the attack, according to your evidence, you remained in your car and moved up and down to ensure that you were in the area after the attack had been launched and so that you could meet Mr de Kock, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson, just one question.

I know that we are referring to a point which took place long ago, but I just want to tell you that Mr van der Merwe gave evidence here regarding different forms of information which came in from Ladybrand, regarding MK activities in Lesotho, and it is his recollection that the information which led him to the decision to take action came through a day, at the very most three days before the operation took place on the 19th of December. What would you have to say about that? Because in other words, the order which was given to Mr de Kock to take action, was issued at least three days before the 19th, which was the day of the attack.

MR BOSCH: I can only assume that perhaps there was talk of something like that, that we prepared ourselves and went down to Ladybrand and as soon as the instruction came for us to invade Lesotho, we did so. It is possible.

MR VISSER: Yes, I think that is what my learned friend, Mr Hattingh attempted to put to you. With your knowledge of the activities of MK in Lesotho, he asked you whether or not you knew prior to the incident whether action would have to be taken at some or other time and your answer was yes.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is that what you have referred to?

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MR CORNELIUS: Cornelius for the record, Chairperson, I've got no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Joubert on behalf of Mr McCaskill.  If I understand correctly, Mr Berger goes lastly.

Mr Bosch, just singular aspects. You have mentioned the beer which had to be fetched and that this beer contained some form of substance which induced sleep. Mr McCaskill states that some form of beer was given to him which contained some kind of substance which would induce sleep. You would not be able to dispute that?

MR BOSCH: No, I cannot dispute it.

MR JOUBERT: Did you have any contact with Mr McCaskill before the evening?

MR BOSCH: As far as I can recall I met Mr McCaskill for the first time after we crossed the river.

MR JOUBERT: So you never saw him before, you simply received an instruction from Mr de Kock, indicating that Mr Meyer had departed and that is when the instructions were changed?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: Nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Bosch, would you turn to page 57 of volume 1, that is an extract from your amnesty application and it deals with the Lesotho operation of December 1985, it's the attack with which we are concerned here today.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR BERGER: And then under paragraph 9A.4, "Aard en Besonderhede", you say the following

"To begin with I refer to the amnesty application of Willie Nortje and the nature and particulars as set out within his amnesty application. I have read his application and I confirm the correctness of the summary of the events thereof, in as far as it falls within my knowledge."

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: And you confirmed that again in your evidence this before lunch.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR BERGER: The "aard en besonderhede" in Willie Nortje's application, amnesty application, appear at page 37 of the same volume. Is it correct that you were referring to the "aard en besonderhede" which run from page 37 through to page 39?

MR BOSCH: Yes, the statement that I read was the supplementary statement, if this is that statement, then it is correct.

MR BERGER: Now in paragraph 2 on page 37, paragraph numbered 2 on page 37, Mr Nortje says that

"Members of Unit C1 of Vlakplaas, under the leadership of de Kock, gathered together approximately 10 days before the execution of the operation in Ladybrand, during which the source provided daily information to us with regard to the movements of the relevant MK members."

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR BERGER: Were you one of those "lede" that Willie Nortje refers to here in this sentence that I've just read out?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, as I have read this statement, it is the information that the source gave to his handler at Ladybrand and this was reported back to us in order that we would know what was going on.

MR BERGER: Mr Bosch, maybe you should listen to my question. My question is, Mr Nortje refers to members of Unit C1 of Vlakplaas, under the leadership of de Kock, who gathered approximately 10 days before the operation was launched in Ladybrand and during that time, the source, Mr McCaskill, on a daily basis was giving you information about the movement of certain MK members.

Now my question to you is, Mr Nortje refers to "lede van eenheid C1 van Vlakplaas", were you one of those lede that he is referring to here?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: Where were you?

MR BOSCH: We must have been performing our daily duties with the askaris.

MR BERGER: So you were not part of that unit that came down from Vlakplaas with Mr Nortje and Mr de Kock, approximately 10 days before the attack?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, I was there, yes, but not all of us saw the source, I didn't see him.

MR BERGER: Mr Bosch, let me try and simplify it. I'm not asking whether you met the source, whether you had anything to do with the source.

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR BERGER: Mr Nortje makes a statement that approximately 10 days before the attack was carried out, members of Unit C1 from Vlakplaas, under the leadership of de Kock, gathered in Ladybrand.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR BERGER: Were you one of those "lede"?

MR BOSCH: Yes, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: And were you one of those members who came with Nortje and de Kock from Vlakplaas to Ladybrand at that time, approximately 10 days before the attack?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: Now let's move slightly back. Ten days before the attack you leave from Vlakplaas to go down to Ladybrand to carry out this operation, correct?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR BERGER: In paragraph 3 on page 37, Mr Nortje says, in the last sentence he says

"The planning of this operation indeed began at Vlakplaas before our departure for Ladybrand."

Were you part of the planning of this operation, the attack on the Meyer group in Lesotho? Were you part of this planning at Vlakplaas?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: So I take it then that you then confirm the correctness of paragraphs 2 and 3 on page 37 of volume 1, except for the inclusion of Douw Willemse? You confirm the correctness of everything else that is said there, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: In as far as I can recall, yes, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: Thank you, Mr Bosch, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I have no questions for this witness.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

MR LAMEY: I've got no re-examination, thank you Chairperson.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY

ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bosch, tell me, why was it necessary to give Mr McCaskill a sedative?

MR BOSCH: Well it wasn't a sedative, Chairperson, I think that we were simply preparing, we didn't know what the precise nature and particulars of the operation would be, that is why we obtained this sedative, so that if we could have arranged a party at the house we could have administered the sedative to those persons, they would have fallen asleep and we would have been able to get at them.

CHAIRPERSON: What happened to that part of the plan?

MR BOSCH: It didn't work out like that, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR BOSCH: The beer was tested on one of the askaris and he didn't fall asleep, he became so hyperactive that we couldn't even capture him. He didn't relax at all, it made him all the more alert.

CHAIRPERSON: But why did you have to test it?

MR BOSCH: We wanted to see if it would work.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did it come from?

MR BOSCH: From the forensic laboratory which prepared it for us.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know who the actual person was who prepared it?

MR BOSCH: No.

CHAIRPERSON: And who collected it from your unit?

MR BOSCH: From Forensics? I collected it from Forensics, at reception.

CHAIRPERSON: From who?

MR BOSCH: From reception. It was made up in a six-pack wrapped in brown paper with Col de Kock's name on it.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. Was Mr McCaskill aware of this part of the plan?

MR BOSCH: I don't know Chairperson, perhaps he was. I would not be able to say, I cannot respond to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well his attorney asked you, so he must have known about it.

MR BOSCH: Yes, he must have known about it, but I wasn't present when the beer was given to him and he was instructed to give it to those people to drink.

CHAIRPERSON: Then I don't understand, because you have just given evidence that that particular part of the plan did not materialise because this tranquilliser did not put people to sleep, indeed, it made them more alert.

MR BOSCH: I know that there were six. I don't know if Mr McCaskill had received some of it on a previous occasion and whether he was told to keep it until he could be told what to do with it. We tested it to be certain.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is when you discovered that it wasn't working according to the desired affect?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was it necessary to test it? Because you went to fetch it at the forensic laboratory, I'm assuming that you accepted it to work.

MR BOSCH: Col de Kock wanted to test it.

CHAIRPERSON: And then it was tested, then why did you give the remainder to Mr McCaskill?

MR BOSCH: As I've said, he had the balance of it before the time.

CHAIRPERSON: That doesn't make sense, because here you have something that you want to test to determine whether or not it would work, you give the balance of which you do not know the affect, to Mr McCaskill, in line with the plan, why? How did that work out?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, it wasn't my decision to give it to him, I went to fetch it at the forensic laboratory, I gave it to Mr de Kock and after Mr de Kock tested it, Mr McCaskill already had some of it.

CHAIRPERSON: I want to give you an opportunity to convince that what I am about to say is not correct. I have the impression that you are trying to stay away from the whole affair and you are only prepared to respond to questions pertaining to the borders of the plan. Is that correct?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson, if I had known I would have told you, that is why I am here today, that is why I have applied for amnesty, but I cannot tell you how the course of the handing over of those beers developed, I'm simply making assumptions.

CHAIRPERSON: Listen to me. You fetched the items, you know that it was tested, you concede that Mr McCaskill was given the balance, but you cannot explain why it took place. You state that it must have been Mr de Kock's decision, but you were present.

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, as I have testified, I did not have any contact with Mr McCaskill.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't want to know whether you had contact with Mr McCaskill, I'm trying to determine what you knew. To know something doesn't necessarily mean that you had to have met the man.

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, as I have stated, there were six beers.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the regular quantity in a pack.

MR BOSCH: Yes, and it was sealed. I picked it up at Forensics, I gave it to Mr de Kock, he told me to take it with to Ladybrand. I did so. At Ladybrand I gave it to him and that's that. And then Mr de Kock, and this is my assumption, possibly they gave the balance of the beers to Mr McCaskill in anticipation of the operation, to see what would happen, so that he had it on other side of the border. Then the operation did not take place, there were one or two beers remaining and Mr de Kock decided to test the beer to see if it actually worked and then it didn't work and that is when it was scrapped.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was the test actually conducted?

MR BOSCH: I cannot tell you.

CHAIRPERSON: But you were there to see. Can't you inform us or enlighten us why this test was conducted?

MR BOSCH: Because Mr de Kock wanted to know what the affect would be of this beer on a person and how soon a person would fall asleep and so forth, because Forensics didn't tell us any of these details, it just told us that the beers contained a tranquilliser.

CHAIRPERSON: This plan, how - or let us accept that the beers were effective, according to the plan, how would Mr McCaskill have used the beers?

MR BOSCH: He would have given the beers to his guests for them to drink.

CHAIRPERSON: And then?

MR BOSCH: Then they would have fallen asleep, then we would have been able to fetch them, perhaps even abduct them. But I don't want to run ahead of something, I can only give you my response.

CHAIRPERSON: The plan was to kill them.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So how does the possibility of their abduction fit into this?

MR BOSCH: That's why I've said I don't want to pre-empt anything, I'm simply speculating, I cannot say why the beers went with.

CHAIRPERSON: But that is the reason for my questions. You were there, you handled the beers, you were a member of the team which went on this operation, why can't we determine what these beers would have been used for?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, the beer contained a tranquilliser, the person who drank it would have fallen asleep. Perhaps we would have shot them while they were asleep, but that is pure speculation, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand that. Would you concede that the aspect of the beer doesn't really fit in with the plan to kill the people?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I agree with that, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And it is a fact that it was taken with?

MR BOSCH: Yes, it was taken with.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is why there must have been a reason for it to be taken with, isn't that correct?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But we don't know why.

MR BOSCH: I cannot tell you, Chairperson. I also cannot recall Mr de Kock's evidence regarding the beer and why it was taken with.

CHAIRPERSON: But I am referring to you. Very well, thank you, you have been excused.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just clarify one or two aspects emanating from your examination?

You received an order from Mr de Kock to go and fetch beer at the forensic laboratory and you did so.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did Mr de Kock explain to you at the stage when you went to do this, what he had planned with the beer?

MR BOSCH: No, I simply went to fetch it.

MR LAMEY: And you took it with to Ladybrand?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And do I also understand your evidence that you gave the beer to Mr de Kock?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Furthermore, as far as you know the beer was tested on an askari.

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And there was a reaction.

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR LAMEY: But you were not personally involved in any discussion pertaining to the beer in consultation with Mr de Kock and Mr McCaskill, you were not privy to that?

MR BOSCH: No.

MR LAMEY: And it was also not communicated by you in Ladybrand specifically, what the plan would be with the beer?

MR BOSCH: No.

MR LAMEY: Do you know that the beer plan was abandoned because it had shown another reaction?

MR BOSCH: Yes, and we took the man to hospital.

MR LAMEY: So you don't have any personal knowledge regarding at which stage the beer would have been given to Mr McCaskill, or if it was indeed given to him?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, I don't know at which stage during the operation the beers were given to Mr McCaskill.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, that is the evidence for the applicants that I represent. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: So we're done with all the applicants. Before we proceed, is there any one of the applicants who wishes to call a witness, or are we done with them? Is that the evidence for the applicants?

Mr Visser, I had to make the offer since we're free for all at the moment.

MR VISSER: No I wasn't talking about that to my attorney, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Where do we stand now?

MR JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, as I understand it, Mr McCaskill will be the first witness to start.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say first?

MR JOUBERT: Mr McCaskill will testify now.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any idea ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR JOUBERT: I have no idea, I understand some of the victims or somebody from the victims' family.

MR BERGER: I don't know where the number 3 came from.

CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Berger, are you able to give us an idea of how many are going to testify?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I'll be able to give you an idea by tomorrow morning, but the indication is that most of the victims will want to say something. Their evidence will be very short.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Mr Chair. Mr McCaskill will testify in Afrikaans and he's prepared to take the oath.

E V McCASKILL: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Mr McCaskill, you have deposed to a statement which is in volume 2, from page 68 up to 73, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: Before whom did you make this statement? Was this to the investigative team of the Commission?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct, yes.

MR JOUBERT: And at the time when you made this statement, did you have legal assistance?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR JOUBERT: I see the statement was taken in English, are you fully bilingual?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: In the cross-examination of the applicants who have already given evidence, we have made certain corrections with regard to some versions. Am I correct when I say that in essence your statement is correct, there are just certain issues that need to be cleared up?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR JOUBERT: Can I just summarise, the information in paragraph 1?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: You confirm that?

MR McCASKILL: There is just one mistake there, I was not born in Lesotho.

MR JOUBERT: So you were not born in Lesotho, where were you born?

MR McCASKILL: I was born in Bloemfontein.

MR JOUBERT: And then in paragraph 2 of your statement, is there anything there that you do not agree with?

MR McCASKILL: No, that is correct.

MR JOUBERT: As well as paragraph 3?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: With regard to paragraph 4, the first line, the end of the first line you refer to a person by the name of Willem Coetzee, it's subsequently come out that it is a person called Willie Coetzee.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR JOUBERT: Are you satisfied with the contents of that paragraph?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: Paragraph 5, at the end of the paragraph where you refer to the handgrenades, where you say

"I gave these handgrenades to Eugene de Kock"

Is it correct that you cannot recall whom you gave the handgrenades to?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: And that was also corrected during the cross-examination of the applicants.

MR McCASKILL: Yes, that is correct.

MR JOUBERT: Is it correct that you cannot recall who the person was whom you gave the handgrenades to?

MR McCASKILL: No, I cannot recall.

MR JOUBERT: And the rest of that paragraph, are you satisfied with the contents thereof?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I am satisfied.

MR JOUBERT: The threats to which you refer, that you and your family would be attacked, were these threats expressed to you by the Vlakplaas members or were they expressed by the members from Ladybrand also?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall about the members from Ladybrand, but I recall two members of Vlakplaas expressing those threats.

MR JOUBERT: And then if we turn the page to page 69, paragraph 6, you are satisfied with the contents thereof, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, that is correct.

MR JOUBERT: With regard to paragraph 7, in the first line, the second sentence where you say

"They called me again to Ladybrand"

Where were you contacted, can you recall who contacted you?

MR McCASKILL: Every time when I went to meet them they would arrange the next meeting with me.

MR JOUBERT: So they will at the one meeting tell you that they will meet you somewhere else the following day?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: And you say in that paragraph you were asked about Mr Leon Meyer and his spouse, Jackie, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: You were asked with regard to whether you knew Mr Leon Meyer and Jackie.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR JOUBERT: Were you aware of a Meyer group or were you only asked with regard to these specific persons, whether you knew them?

MR McCASKILL: I was only asked about these specific persons, I didn't know anything about the Meyer group.

MR JOUBERT: Very well. You later refer in that paragraph, in the last sentence, there where you arranged that Mr de Kock and his men would be able to see Mr Meyer, can you recall who was with Mr Meyer during that proposal?

MR McCASKILL: Adamson was definitely there and I cannot recall the others.

MR JOUBERT: Very well. Then in paragraph 8, the second line

"Again de Kock and Adamson were present and others known as Nortje and Blackie Swart"

With regard to Blackie Swart, is it correct that you are not sure whether he was present?

MR McCASKILL: I do not know where I get his name, he may have been in the Ladybrand branch or one of the other branches with whom I had dealings.

MR JOUBERT: Is it correct when I say that you cannot recall whether he was present or not?

MR McCASKILL: No, I cannot recall.

MR JOUBERT: With regard to paragraphs 9 and 10, are you satisfied with the contents of those paragraphs?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, in all fairness to you, paragraph 8 in the middle of it

"They said that if I could assist them to kill Leon and his wife"

Is that Leon Meyer?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now all they testify that his wife was not on the list of targets. What do you have to say about that?

MR McCASKILL: They specifically told me Leon and his wife.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR McCASKILL: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: But you were part of the whole plan.

MR McCASKILL: I was not part of the plan, I only received my orders from them.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that's part of the plan. Where you asked to identify Leon's wife to them?

MR McCASKILL: No, not to identify her. I must have indicated Leon's wife on a photo album, but I did not in person.

ADV BOSMAN: I think you may have understood incorrectly, the Chairperson said "wipe out", to kill her.

MR McCASKILL: The whole plan was to kill her, according to them, yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: If I may interpose, Mr Joubert.

You see, at paragraph 7 you state that the first enquiry about Leon was only about Leon Meyer and not about his wife and that you volunteered that you ...(indistinct) both Leon Meyer and his wife. Are you sure about that? Were you not asked whether you knew Mr Meyer and his wife?

MR McCASKILL: I can't remember, but I remember them asking me about Leon's wife as well.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Leon's wife as well.

MR McCASKILL: Ja.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So you want paragraph 7 to be corrected as well to include Mrs Meyer?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Judge.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the way you want to amend your statement? Be very careful now, because I'm going to accept what you say in amending, but you're going to be asked questions about it.

MR McCASKILL: I can't remember the specific date or when they asked me about Leon and his wife, but ...(intervention)

MR McCASKILL: No, I'm not asking you when, I'm asking if ...

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I think I would you to correct it.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you want it to be corrected?

MR McCASKILL: To include Leon's wife.

CHAIRPERSON: So in paragraph 7, the fourth sentence reads presently

"They asked me whether I know Leon Meyer and I told them that I know Leon and his wife, who I knew as Jackie"

How should that read now?

MR McCASKILL: It should read - I would like it to be corrected as

"They asked me if I knew Leon Meyer and his wife"

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You are sure about what you want to be amended, Mr McCaskill?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I'm sure.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: If I may ask, what makes you so sure? If you had omitted this information when you wrote this statement, which is quite some time ago, in 1996, what makes you so sure that the enquiry included both Mr Meyer and his wife, Jackie Quinn?

MR McCASKILL: It's because whenever they asked me about Leon, they also included his wife as well.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. I'm asking about this first enquiry, the first meeting. According to what you stated in your statement, the enquiry was only limited to Mr Meyer and that you in turn volunteered about Mr Meyer's wife, that not only did you know Mr Meyer but you also knew his wife as well.

MR McCASKILL: I think I only made a mistake here, they asked me about his wife as well.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: So we must delete this sentence, not delete it, we must read it as if it's not written here, that is the fourth sentence of that paragraph, and insert in it's place

"They asked me whether I know Leon Meyer and his wife"

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Full stop.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, carry on.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Honourable Chair.

Mr McCaskill, just to take you a little bit further, if it is as the Chairperson had said it, there was a point that they asked you whether you knew Leon Meyer and his wife, you reacted by saying that you knew both the parties, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct, yes.

MR JOUBERT: And at that stage Mr Meyer and his wife were already friends of yours?

"I became close friends of them, of Leon and Jackie"

Were they already friends of yours?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, the time when they asked me, I was already friends with them.

MR JOUBERT: Now we have already moved down to paragraphs 9, 10 and 11, the contents thereof, are you satisfied with the contents?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct, yes.

MR JOUBERT: Are there any amendments which you'd like to bring about in those paragraphs?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR JOUBERT: Paragraph 12, the contents thereof, is that also correct? With regard to the first party that would be arranged.

MR McCASKILL: Yes, there are no amendments there, no.

MR JOUBERT: And then paragraph 13, the reference in the middle of the paragraph, line 4 from the top

"They (Eugene de Kock, Nortje, Vermeulen, Joe and Snor)"

Nortje, you are not certain whether Nortje was present there?

MR McCASKILL: No, I am not certain, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Who?

MR JOUBERT: Nortje.

And this correction was also brought about during the cross-examination of the applicants, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct, yes.

MR JOUBERT: And the rest of that paragraph, are you satisfied with it?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I am satisfied.

MR JOUBERT: And then with regard to paragraphs 14 and 15, the contents thereof, are you satisfied with it?

MR McCASKILL: I'm satisfied.

MR JOUBERT: The Friday to which you refer in paragraph 15, is that the Friday on which the incident had taken place?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct, yes.

MR JOUBERT: Is it also correct that for the first time you heard that the other persons the following day, the Saturday, wanted to enter the RSA?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: This request that was directed to you, did you convey this to Col de Kock and his men that night?

MR McCASKILL: At the first meeting at the Post Office I told Mr de Kock.

MR JOUBERT: And then paragraph 16, you refer there to the cans of beer and certain other tablets that were handed over to you, are there any amendments which you'd like to effect there, or are you satisfied?

MR McCASKILL: The cans of beer I know they said that they would give me marked cans of beer, but now I am not sure whether the beers were amongst the beers that were given to me for the party, but the tablets I know exactly, I'm sure that I received the tablets.

MR JOUBERT: And the tablets were given to you separately from the liquor?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: Who gave the tablets to you?

MR McCASKILL: Mr de Kock.

MR JOUBERT: With regard to the beer to which reference is made, was it the initial plan that liquor or beer would be given to you which would contain some or other substance?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, the Black Label cans would be marked as such, but I cannot recall whether they were amongst the beers that were given to me.

MR JOUBERT: So you're not sure whether they were there or not?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR JOUBERT: And in the second-last line of the paragraph you refer to a person by the name of David, this person was not shot during this incident, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: According to what I heard he was only wounded.

MR JOUBERT: And then paragraph 17, are there any amendments which you would like to effect there?

MR McCASKILL: None, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And then paragraph 18, if I understand you correctly there is an amendment which you would like to bring about here, it was with regard to the removal of the persons from the house where the party was. Did you remove these persons yourself?

"I also took my girlfriend, my cousin and other relatives out of the party"

Did you remove them yourself or did somebody else do this for you?

MR McCASKILL: My wife - my sister, my girlfriend removed my sister and the child and the other people who were not invited to the party, every time when I came back I tried to take them out, but every time I came back I just found out that they were more people.

MR JOUBERT: So the girl to whom you refer to, is that Mpo?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR JOUBERT: Was she responsible for seeing to it that the family and so on would be removed from the party?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, as it was prearranged.

MR JOUBERT: Did you arrange this with her or who arranged it?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall, but there was at a stage when she was present in Ladybrand where it was arranged, but I cannot recall exactly who were all present.

MR JOUBERT: So she was aware of the arrangements with regard to the activities there?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct, yes.

MR JOUBERT: And then with paragraph 19, this whole paragraph has to be placed into perspective, is that correct? The manner in which you met Mr de Kock and the movements of the vehicles, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR JOUBERT: Can you just place that paragraph in the correct sequence for the Committee? You can just testify as to what happened that evening. This is with regard to when you had to return to Mr de Kock to say that the party had been arranged, the people were there, the other people were removed and what happened subsequently.

MR McCASKILL: They drove in their own vehicle and I drove in my vehicle. I followed them to a place where the other vehicle was parked.

MR JOUBERT: Let's start at the beginning. Did you meet Mr de Kock at the post office?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: That was the very first time when you met them evening at the post office?

MR McCASKILL: No, I met Mr de Kock more than twice.

MR JOUBERT: We are not understanding each other here. The evening of the attack, Mr de Kock and his group, some of them came through the border post and some of them came through the river, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: And you at some stage met them at the post office.

MR McCASKILL: Yes, the first time.

MR JOUBERT: So what happened there at that meeting?

MR McCASKILL: This was the time when I told Mr de Kock that Meyer asked me to take them to Bloemfontein the following day and I told him this because I wanted to call it off and tell him that these people would go to Bloemfontein and you catch them somewhere in Ladybrand or on the South African side.

MR JOUBERT: Very well then, what happened then? What did Mr de Kock tell you then?

MR McCASKILL: Mr de Kock said that he could not do that, he's already there and he must just continue with the operation.

MR JOUBERT: You've heard Mr de Kock's evidence that at some stage he threatened you, can you recall that? Can you recall the evidence?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall on this specific day whether he threatened me or not, but the previous time he did threaten me.

MR JOUBERT: After this meeting with Mr de Kock there at the post office, did you return to your house?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: And what did you go and do there?

MR McCASKILL: The people, the uninvited guests, I went to remove them.

MR JOUBERT: And from there did you meet Mr de Kock and his group again at the post office?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: Who did you meet there, Mr de Kock and who else?

MR McCASKILL: Mr de Kock and Adamson, I'm certain of them but the third person I'm not sure.

MR JOUBERT: At the second meeting at the post office, what happened then?

MR McCASKILL: This is when I told them that every time when I put people out, when I return again then there are more people. And they said I had to go back and they gave me a specific time. I cannot recall whether it was 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock, to meet them again.

MR JOUBERT: So for a second time you went back to your house and you returned back to the post office?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR JOUBERT: And upon the third meeting at the post office, with Mr de Kock and his group, what did you say then?

MR McCASKILL: I told them that I had removed the people and my girlfriend will put my family out of the house.

MR JOUBERT: Yes?

MR McCASKILL: And then he said well we can go now.

MR JOUBERT: And at that stage did you say anything about Mr Meyer? Or did you at that stage know already?

MR McCASKILL: With the first meeting I had already told Mr de Kock about Mr Meyer who asked me to take them to Bloemfontein.

MR JOUBERT: But when you arrived at the post office for the third time, was Mr Meyer still at the party?

MR McCASKILL: No, they had already left.

MR JOUBERT: And did you then tell Mr de Kock that Mr Meyer and his wife had already left the party?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: That is on the third meeting?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, that was on the last meeting.

MR JOUBERT: So where in that paragraph 19 it is specifically said that - it's line 5 from the top

"On our way to Jabu's place we got a message that Leon was not at the party"

that statement is not correct?

MR McCASKILL: No, it's not.

MR JOUBERT: You indeed gave the message yourself to Mr de Kock?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: And after you gave this message to Mr de Kock, he told you, if I understand you correctly, that you had to follow him?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR JOUBERT: Where did you go then?

MR McCASKILL: We drove in the direction of the border post, there where the second car was parked. It was close to a garage. I think it I'm not incorrect, it was a Massey Ferguson tractor garage and it was a fuelling station also.

MR JOUBERT: So you met the other members in a vehicle close to this garage?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: What happened there at this filling station?

MR McCASKILL: It's there where Mr de Kock divided them up into groups. Adamson and Joe were sent to Leon Meyer's place and the rest went to my place.

MR JOUBERT: When you refer to Joe, is that Mr Coetser?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: And with the division there you were still in your vehicle, there were still three vehicles there?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, that is correct.

MR JOUBERT: And Mr de Kock then did the division and said that Messrs Coetser and Adamson had to go to the house of Mr Meyer?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: And you had to accompany them there?

MR McCASKILL: I beg your pardon?

MR JOUBERT: Did you have to accompany them there, Coetser and Adamson?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: What did you do with your vehicle?

MR McCASKILL: I told Mr de Kock that I will leave my vehicle at work.

MR JOUBERT: And you then left your vehicle at some place and then you went with Adamson and Coetser to Mr Meyer's house?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR JOUBERT: So you would request that paragraph 19 be substituted with your evidence as you have offered it now?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Please tell me Mr McCaskill, you made this statement to the person from the Commission?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say you are bilingual?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you read English?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I can.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you signed this statement, had you read it?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I did read it.

CHAIRPERSON: But then you were aware that all these mistakes existed there.

MR McCASKILL: At that stage, this after a long time that this thing had happened and I did not remember quite as well how these things had happened and most of these things I have been reminded of here.

CHAIRPERSON: So why are you saying that the things that were written down that day are not correct?

MR McCASKILL: I do not understand properly.

CHAIRPERSON: Why are you saying it's not correct, what you had written or said that day?

MR McCASKILL: Because now I can recall quite well how it had happened.

CHAIRPERSON: And that day your memory was not that well?

MR McCASKILL: On that day I was somewhat nervous.

CHAIRPERSON: Nervous?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So many mistakes of facts?

MR McCASKILL: It did happen, really.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you serious?

MR McCASKILL: I am serious.

CHAIRPERSON: But you were in the centre of this whole thing.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you do not recall the facts, now all of a sudden you recall.

MR McCASKILL: Mostly the names of the people, how I met these people after the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: But except for the names of people, I refer to facts, certain things only happened in one way, not in two ways. Why are you making so many mistakes?

MR McCASKILL: It's because this ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: More than half of your statement?

MR McCASKILL: It's because this operation was planned in many different ways before it had actually happened.

CHAIRPERSON: We are not referring to planning here, we're referring to how it happened, that something only happens in one manner.

MR McCASKILL: I may have made mistakes.

CHAIRPERSON: Not maybe, you said you did make mistakes, I'm asking why.

MR McCASKILL: I made mistakes, I cannot, really cannot explain.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you not prepared to tell us why you made these mistakes?

MR McCASKILL: I became confused with the plans and the other plans that were there.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you make this statement?

MR McCASKILL: It was '96.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's now 2000, it's longer. How do you explain that?

MR McCASKILL: Most of these things I recalled.

CHAIRPERSON: But if you did not recall it in 1996, why do you recall it now?

MR McCASKILL: Because the evidence of the witnesses, of the other witnesses, made me remember things.

CHAIRPERSON: Please continue.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Chairperson.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Before you continue, Mr Joubert.

May I know, who is this Jabu that you've alluded to at paragraph 19? Or did you make a mistake about that name as well?

MR McCASKILL: Jabu was Mary Mini's boyfriend.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And your reference to Jabu as it stands on paragraph 19, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: We went to Jabu's place, but we didn't get the message from, that Leon left the party. I went to Jabu's place that day, but I didn't get that message there.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And was this Jabu known to Adamson?

MR McCASKILL: No.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you say it's wrong, you didn't get a message that Leon was no longer at the party or was not at the party?

MR McCASKILL: Not on the way to Jabu's place.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I think your counsel conceded during the cross-examination of one of the applicants, that that would be your statement. I take note of that. I was just interested to know whether you still wanted Jabu or any reference to Jabu to remain as it is for purposes of your statement, as you are about to give your evidence-in-chief.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr McCaskill, we were not entirely finished with paragraph 19. You state furthermore that you then moved to Leon Meyer's residence, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, that is correct.

MR JOUBERT: And you were then requested to knock on the door?

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

MR JOUBERT: What happened after you knocked on the door?

MR McCASKILL: They said that I should knock and that once I had done this I had to go back to the car, start it and wait for them.

MR JOUBERT: Was there any reaction to your knocking, did anybody speak to you?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: Who?

MR McCASKILL: Jackie answered.

MR JOUBERT: What did she say?

MR McCASKILL: She asked who it was and I said it was me.

MR JOUBERT: What did you do after that?

MR McCASKILL: Then they said that I had to leave after she had answered.

MR JOUBERT: So you left and you moved back to the vehicle?

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

MR JOUBERT: And where you state in the final line

"They started shooting"

did you see this, did you hear it, or is it your inference?

MR McCASKILL: I didn't hear anything, that is what I thought. That is what they said when they returned.

MR JOUBERT: They rejoined you and you departed from there?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: Then just pertaining to the Jabu aspect as pointed out by Judge Khampepe, was it the evening before the incident that you went to Jabu's house?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, Mary Mini and I were looking for Jabu earlier that day, before we met Mr de Kock and the others.

MR JOUBERT: But that evening after you had met Mr de Kock and you were on your way to Meyer's house, did you go and look for Jabu?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR JOUBERT: So the allegation there that you went to Jabu's house, within the context that it is embodied here, is not correct?

MR McCASKILL: That is so.

MR JOUBERT: Then paragraph 20, are you satisfied with the contents of that paragraph?

MR McCASKILL: With exception to the reference to Ras. Subsequently I have realised that he was not involved in the incident.

MR JOUBERT: So it may have been a mistake of yours to include his name there?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: And you are satisfied with the rest of the paragraph?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: Then paragraph 21, are you satisfied with the contents?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: Paragraph 22?

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

ADV BOSMAN: Tell me, Mr McCaskill, is the inclusion of Blackie Swart's name also an error?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct, it is an error.

MR JOUBERT: So you were mistaken with Ras and Blackie Swart?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: And regarding the remainder of your statement which you have read a number of times, are you satisfied with the contents?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: There are no other amendments that you wish to bring?

MR McCASKILL: None.

MR JOUBERT: And you then confirm the rest of its contents as true and correct?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: I have nothing further, thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT

ADV BOSMAN: I beg your pardon, another reference to Ras. I read too quickly, this had to do with Vlakplaas. I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr McCaskill, is this the only incident so to speak, in which you were involved regarding the Security Police and the killing of people?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: Is it this one?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I see in paragraph 8 you were told that you would receive R5 000 for every person killed.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: You discovered subsequently that approximately 7 people were killed in that one house.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And a further 2 were killed in the other house.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you receive any monies?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: How much?

MR McCASKILL: R18 000.

CHAIRPERSON: And what of the remainder of the money?

MR McCASKILL: Mr de Kock told me that the people were only prepared to pay R2 000 per head.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, is it true that you did not apply for amnesty?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And I don't know where I heard this, but is it correct, and I just want your confirmation, that you did what you did for money?

MR McCASKILL: I did not do it for money.

CHAIRPERSON: Then why did you do it?

MR McCASKILL: I was threatened.

CHAIRPERSON: Threatened?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But you took the money?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR McCASKILL: Because I was out of the country and I didn't have anything to live off, I didn't have any other work or anything else.

CHAIRPERSON: You concede that you had the opportunity to escape the threat?

MR McCASKILL: I beg your pardon?

MR McCASKILL: You had the opportunity to escape that threat.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you didn't.

MR McCASKILL: In 1987 I came out with the thing completely.

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon?

MR McCASKILL: '87

CHAIRPERSON: No, before the incident you chose not to get away from that threat and you continued with the plan.

MR McCASKILL: Because I didn't know where to run.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you notify the Lesotho Police? Why didn't you tell them that people were coming into the country to kill people?

MR McCASKILL: The Security Police showed me that there were other people who were also providing information to them, they would know what was going on and I wasn't certain whether it was on the ANC's side or on which side it was, but they explained to me that they people everywhere who were watching.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: What difference would that have made to you if the people who were supplying information to the police, came from the ANC or from whichever side?

MR McCASKILL: I could have gone to the ones that were not giving them information.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But why should that have encouraged you to continue giving information to the police?

MR McCASKILL: Because I didn't know where the information was coming from.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Why should that be an important factor in your decision whether to be an informant or not?

MR McCASKILL: I might tell, I mean I might confess to the person who is giving them information.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you go to Meyer?

MR McCASKILL: I didn't trust him as well, because I didn't know where the information was coming from.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You did not trust Mr Meyer?

CHAIRPERSON: He's a target then, the South African Police wanted to kill him. They sought your assistance to kill him.

MR McCASKILL: Yes, but I didn't know that they wanted to kill him, really.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But that's what you say in your statement.

MR McCASKILL: I mean I wasn't sure that they wanted to kill him.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: That's what you say in your statement, you are approached, you are told this is the person we want you to ...(intervention)

MR McCASKILL: That's what they said, that's what they said.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes.

MR McCASKILL: But I wasn't sure if that's what they wanted to do.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, but you say you did not trust Mr Meyer, why would you not trust a person that is being investigated by the police, to come all the way from South Africa to get to Lesotho to make enquiries about him? Why should you believe that that person is an informer for the police? That the police can actually make investigations about their own source?

MR McCASKILL: You see, because of the things that ... usually told me about, what I did or what we were doing, I didn't know whom to trust anymore.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Are you seriously saying you did not trust Mr Meyer?

MR McCASKILL: Not specifically him, but I didn't know who to trust anymore.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But he's a target.

MR McCASKILL: I didn't know before that that they were seriously planning to kill him.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: If you did not know that they were serious, why did you go along with all the information that you provided the police with? You thought this was a joke?

MR McCASKILL: I've never given the police any information about the ANC's, what they were planning to do, because I didn't know anything. The only information that I was giving them was maybe giving them names and identifying people in the album.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew there were people going to be killed, you were offered R5 000 a head. Is that not so?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you also say that you asked de Kock, who suggested that you be shot in the foot.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now don't shoot yourself in the foot now. You said, "No don't shoot me in the foot, I'm going to come with you because they will know that I betrayed them."

MR McCASKILL: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now the "they" that were scared of, would know that you were the one that betrayed them, you were scared of them, because obviously you must have known they weren't giving information to the police, why didn't you go and report this incident to them, they were surely trustworthy people?

MR McCASKILL: I only told me not to shoot me in the foot after the incident.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I know, I know, but there was a group of people whom you feared and you told him that "They know now that I betrayed them".

MR McCASKILL: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That they could not have been in cahoots with the police. Before the incident, why didn't you go and tell any one of that lot?

MR McCASKILL: The only person that I trusted was out of the country.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr McCaskill, are you suggesting that you didn't trust Mr Meyer? Right up to the time when arrangements were being made for the party to be thrown at your house, you still did not trust Mr Meyer and you still believed that the police did not intend to kill him, notwithstanding all the elaborate arrangements that were being made with your full knowledge?

CHAIRPERSON: With your assistance.

MR McCASKILL: Maybe the threats made me ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Not maybe, you're the one that did it, tell us why, don't tell us maybe threats did it.

MR McCASKILL: I was threatened and I was scared so I didn't know what to ...(intervention)

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: No, we are not talking about your threats, we are talking about what you have just suggested, that you did not trust Mr Meyer, you couldn't have gone to Mr Meyer to warn him about what the police intended to do to him.

MR McCASKILL: I didn't trust anybody, that's all I can say.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But you knew that plans were afoot to do something to him, to him, and that was why you had to be given money to arrange for the party, for the braai.

MR McCASKILL: Yes, but I only became sure that they wanted to kill him when they went to kill him, not before that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: What about the arrangements that were being made for the braai?

MR McCASKILL: I didn't know if they were telling me the truth or if they were just, if they just wanted information about some ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What about the beer?

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You thought the police would give you money to arrange for a braai when they were not serious about what they intended to do? That still did not signal to you that these people seriously wanted to execute what they wanted to against Mr Meyer?

MR McCASKILL: The only thing that I can say is I don't why I did it, so that's it.

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

Mr McCaskill, is it correct that before you met Mr de Kock, you already had provided information to the Security Police in Ladybrand?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that you were remunerated for it.

MR McCASKILL: I beg your pardon?

MR HATTINGH: That you were remunerated for the information that you gave them?

MR McCASKILL: No, I was never paid before the R18 000 that I received, that was the first amount that I received.

MR HATTINGH: How regularly did you liaise with them?

MR McCASKILL: Probably a few times before I met Mr de Kock.

MR HATTINGH: And what information did they want from you?

MR McCASKILL: As I've stated, I never knew what the ANC was planning, all I could do was to identify people and to give names, that was all.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR McCASKILL: It is because they threatened me.

CHAIRPERSON: Who threatened you?

MR McCASKILL: As I've stated, I applied for a six month pass and I gave them false information, they wouldn't leave me alone, they kept on bothering me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr McCaskill, you are giving evidence but you are not answering the questions. It was put to you by Mr Hattingh, that before you met Mr de Kock and before this plan for which we are seated here today took place, you gave the Security Police in Ladybrand information.

MR McCASKILL: But I wasn't paid for it.

CHAIRPERSON: Then what did you give them, what information did you give them?

MR McCASKILL: They would show me an album and ask me who the people were in the album and I would make identifications.

CHAIRPERSON: How regularly?

MR McCASKILL: Approximately three to four times previously.

CHAIRPERSON: And you identified the people?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR McCASKILL: Because they were always bothering me when I went through the border post.

CHAIRPERSON: Who?

MR McCASKILL: The Security people.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. And now they showed you an album and you identified the faces of the people, have I understood you correctly?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And what would you have received in return?

MR McCASKILL: I did not receive anything.

CHAIRPERSON: How would this have assisted you?

MR McCASKILL: I simply did it so that they would leave me alone, so that they wouldn't bother me if I went through the border.

CHAIRPERSON: Because after the second time you must have realised that they were not going to leave you alone, it didn't work, you made one or two identifications with the idea that they would leave you alone, but it wasn't working, why did you continue to identify people? Didn't you cooperate with the police?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, those few times.

CHAIRPERSON: But that is what I'm asking you. You co-operated with the police, not because they were bothering you, but because you wanted to.

MR McCASKILL: No, they were bothering me.

CHAIRPERSON: But after the third time you must have realised that it didn't really help to cooperate with them because they would just bother you all the more, isn't that so?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So it didn't help you to make any identifications?

MR McCASKILL: No, it didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Then why did you continue with the bigger plan to assist them?

MR McCASKILL: Because once I did it for the first time, there was no escape.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.

Now these photos which were shown to you, did you know the people in these photos?

MR McCASKILL: I beg your pardon?

MR HATTINGH: The photos that were shown to you, did you know the people in the photos?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, some of them.

MR HATTINGH: And were they members of the ANC?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Were you aware of this?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you tell this to the police?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you tell them "This person is such and such and I know him to be a member of the ANC, I know that he is in Lesotho"?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the information that you gave them, was it true?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, it was.

MR HATTINGH: And every time that you identified persons in photographs, you gave them true information?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did they also ask you what those persons in Lesotho were busy with, those persons whom you identified?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, but I didn't know anything about them.

MR HATTINGH: Excuse me?

MR McCASKILL: I didn't know what they were planning or what they were doing.

MR HATTINGH: So you didn't give them any information regarding the activities of these persons?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: With the exception of telling them who they were and that they were indeed in Lesotho, you didn't give them any further information?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: But you see, then I don't understand what you mean when you say in your statement, and I refer you to paragraph 2, there you state

"In early June 1985, I was residing in Maseru and working at the Victoria Hotel. I was approached by a certain white man who introduced himself and Kobus, from South African Military Intelligence. He told me he was with MI and he lived in Ladybrand. He requested me to furnish him with information and names of ANC and PAC members in Lesotho. I started giving him wrong information and names."

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is that someone from Military Intelligence?

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

MR HATTINGH: Then why did you give him incorrect names and information?

MR McCASKILL: I also did that with the Security Police in the beginning, but it didn't work.

MR HATTINGH: Let's just get the answer to my question. Why did you give the man from Military Intelligence incorrect information?

MR McCASKILL: I gave him false information and he left me alone.

MR HATTINGH: The question isn't whether you gave him false information, the question is why you gave him false information.

MR McCASKILL: I gave him false information because I thought that if he saw that it was false, he would leave me alone.

MR HATTINGH: And did he?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, he did.

MR HATTINGH: And you continue by saying

"At that stage I was not prepared to collaborate with the police and army people. Kobus used to collect me from my work and ask me for names of ANC and PAC members."

then you continue in paragraph 3:

"Kobus contacted me again in September '85, and I continued to give him false information."

So despite the fact that you gave him false information, he kept coming back for further information?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you kept on giving him false information?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, because he didn't bother me much.

MR HATTINGH: Then you say in paragraph 4

"On a particular day late in 1985, I was crossing the border post, I was approached by Willem Coetzee. I later learnt that he was a Security Branch police at Ladybrand."

When did you determine that he was a member of the Ladybrand Security Branch? How much time later?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall, it may have been the same day, but I did find out.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Then you knew that you were dealing with a policeman and more particularly, a member of the Security Police.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then you state furthermore

"He asked me to follow him. He took me to a certain place outside Ladybrand. It was an open space in the veld. At that spot we then met Eugene de Kock."

Do I understand then from you that before you met Mr de Kock ...(intervention)

MR McCASKILL: No, that was by the time that I was already working with them that I was taken to Mr de Kock.

MR HATTINGH: So before they took you to Mr de Kock you already collaborated with them?

MR McCASKILL: I had already given them true information.

MR HATTINGH: And this would then be to Mr Coetzee?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you gave him correct information?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Upon how many occasions?

MR McCASKILL: As I've stated, in the beginning I also gave him false information, but after a number of times he told me that I was lying and that I was living with ANC members and so forth.

MR HATTINGH: But when I asked you about the information that you had given the Ladybrand Police, you said that what they expected of you was to look at photographs and to identify the people on the photographs.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you stated that you did so and that the information that you gave was correct information, then when did you begin to give them false information?

MR McCASKILL: Before that specific time, previously I gave them false information.

MR HATTINGH: Now these photos which were shown to you, did they also include Mr Meyer's photo?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the photo of his wife?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall whether his wife's photograph was in the album.

MR HATTINGH: If she had been there you would probably have remembered.

MR McCASKILL: I really cannot recall seeing her.

MR HATTINGH: Very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment, Mr Hattingh.

Mr McCaskill, in paragraph 4 you state that on a certain day you were busy crossing the border and a person approached you and you later determined that he was a member of the Security Branch, his name was Willem Coetzee. He asked you to follow him and he took you to a place outside Ladybrand. What was the clothing that the person wore at that stage?

MR McCASKILL: He was dressed in casual clothes.

CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't know the person?

MR McCASKILL: By the time we met Mr de Kock, I had already known him.

CHAIRPERSON: The first day that you met him?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He told you to go with him?

MR McCASKILL: No, he did not take me with him the first day.

CHAIRPERSON: In your statement you say "On a certain day late in 1985" ...(intervention)

MR McCASKILL: Then it's not ...

CHAIRPERSON: "... a man came, Willie Coetzee."

MR McCASKILL: But that's not exactly correct as I said it.

CHAIRPERSON: Now please explain to us how did you come to Willie Coetzee's attention?

MR McCASKILL: I was busy lodging an application for a six months pass and I was introduced to Mr Coetzee, by a man by the name of Dick who lived at the Riverside Lodge. That is how I met Mr Coetzee. On that specific day that he took me to Mr de Kock, I had already supplied him with information.

CHAIRPERSON: What type of information?

MR McCASKILL: To point out people in the album.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr McCaskill, if I understand your evidence now, you say before you met Mr de Kock you supplied information to the Security Police.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Initially false information, but later correct information?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: That's before you met Mr de Kock?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So when you met Mr de Kock, you had already stated supplying correct information to the Security Police?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Can we then study paragraph 4

"He took me to a certain place outside Ladybrand. It was an open space in the veld. At that spot we then met Eugene de Kock, a man by the name of Lieut Adamson and a certain white man, introduced to me as Joe. De Kock and Adamson were introduced by false names and I subsequently came to know who they were. This was my first meeting with them. They asked me about my name and other related personal matters, as well as information about the ANC in Lesotho. At this stage I gave them false information."

Now you are back to the false information, why? This man that Coetzee took you to, why did you give him false information?

MR McCASKILL: The whole thing was not corrected, but the time when I met Mr de Kock, I was already giving my co-operation to the Ladybrand branch.

MR HATTINGH: And gave them correct information?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct, yes. Or no, I am saying now ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Just listen to my question. When Mr Coetzee introduced you to Mr de Kock, did he introduce Mr de Kock as a police officer? Did Mr Coetzee introduce Mr de Kock to you as a policeman?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: A security policeman?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So there was no reason to give him false information because you had already given Coetzee correct information?

MR McCASKILL: But that is what I am saying now. I met Mr de Kock, I had already co-operated with the Ladybrand branch ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you give false information?

MR McCASKILL: I didn't do that that day, it's not written correctly here.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this another mistake?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I thought on that day you were in a false mood. Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.

And when you were taken through your statement by your legal representative here and when you arrived at paragraph 4, did you say that except for the name should not be Willem Coetzee, but should be Willie Coetzee, were you satisfied with the contents and the correctness of the rest of the paragraph?

MR McCASKILL: It is because we marked the mistakes that we saw here, I did not read any further and I didn't notice.

MR HATTINGH: But you were not looking at names, you were asked whether the contents of it was correct.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you did not tell him that no, I did not give them false information at that stage, I gave them correct information.

MR McCASKILL: That's just a mistake I made.

MR HATTINGH: So it's another mistake you made?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you want to take off a few minutes or an hour and go through this thing and then you tell me tomorrow morning what is correct and what is incorrect, because we cannot continue like this. Every time when somebody asks you something, then there's a mistake.

MR McCASKILL: I know what is correct, but this whole thing that was drawn up here, I don't know whether it is really what I had said or what happened at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: That is why we will make it easier for you, you will go through your statement and tomorrow morning you come and tell me. It's me and you tomorrow morning and then you tell me what is incorrect in this bundle and then we will make corrections. They are going to get angry with you if you come and say every time, "No, this is wrong".

MR McCASKILL: I don't believe that there are many other mistakes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So we can hold it against you if you come and tell us now that something is wrong here?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know what you are saying? Don't you want to discuss this with your attorney?

MR McCASKILL: I'm sure, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr McCaskill, then I understand now that when you were introduced to Mr de Kock and introduced to Mr Adamson, they were Security Police officers and they wanted your co-operation, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And at that stage you were voluntarily giving co-operation to Mr Coetzee, you gave him information that was correct?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And were you so willing to work with Mr de Kock and supply them with information?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And did they ask you for information there during that first meeting? Names and so forth.

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And did you give them names?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And were those correct names?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you gave de Kock those names?

MR McCASKILL: As I've explained a few times that I gave the Ladybrand branch false information, they had already warned me that they are aware of the false information that I had given to them.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm referring to de Kock. Why did you cooperate with de Kock?

MR McCASKILL: As I've already explained, I was already busy giving Mr Coetzee correct information.

CHAIRPERSON: So do I have it right now, at that stage,

the first time when you met Mr de Kock, you had given your co-operation?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You told him the truth, mentioned names and whatever the other information was.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And at that stage, you were not threatened by de Kock, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: And there was no reason for him to threaten you because you were co-operating with them, you gave them information, is that not so?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And now in paragraph 5 of your statement you say

"They then ..."

now you're probably referring to Mr de Kock.

"They then called me a few days later. I was phoned and asked, they asked me to collaborate with them or else they will attack me and my family."

Now why was it necessary for them to threaten you in this manner?

MR McCASKILL: This was to kill these people.

MR HATTINGH: So when was the killing of people discussed?

MR McCASKILL: This here, what I'm trying to say here is, when they asked me to kill these people.

MR HATTINGH: Listen Mr McCaskill, you met them now for the very first time, as you have said, there in a open field you met Mr de Kock the first time.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you have already told us now that they asked you names and information and you gave it to them.

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You never mentioned anything that at that stage they said that they wanted to kill people.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did they at that at that stage say that they wanted to kill people?

MR McCASKILL: Not in paragraph 4, no, but here it says "a few days later".

CHAIRPERSON: That's still in 1985?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: "A few days later" means a few days later after the meeting in the veld?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: In-between there were no meetings?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: So the first time that you once again had contact with them was when you received a telephone call, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Who called you?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall, but it was one of the Ladybrand branch.

MR HATTINGH: So why did they threaten you that if you did not cooperate with them, they will kill your family, but you were already co-operating with them?

MR McCASKILL: No, but I was not prepared, I did not know it would go this far.

MR HATTINGH: But when did they tell you that people were to be killed?

MR McCASKILL: I said the time that I did not want to cooperate is when they said they wanted to kill people. So that is...

MR HATTINGH: Well as you are putting it here, you say

"They then called me a few days later. I was phoned and asked to collaborate with them or else they will attack me and my family."

You are not saying there that they asked "Listen here, you have to cooperate with us to kill these people", you're only saying that you must cooperate otherwise they will kill your family.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you see that? And furthermore, in paragraph 4 you said it is incorrect where you said

"At this stage I gave them false information"

but when you continue with paragraph 5, in line with the question that was put to you now, there you say:

"They threatened me by saying that if I do not cooperate with them, I and my family would be killed. They knew at this stage that I'd given them false information."

What do you say about that?

MR McCASKILL: Chairperson, this thing it is just written in a confused manner.

CHAIRPERSON: So no longer is it incorrect, it is just written in a confused manner?

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: May I, Mr Hattingh?

Mr McCaskill, I'm trying to understand your evidence and I want to tell you that I'm finding it very difficult to do so. You were given an opportunity by the Chair, to take a few minutes or even the whole day, to rearrange the evidence that you want to present before us. You refused that opportunity, because you believe that there was nothing substantially out of place with this statement that you intended to use, which you've gone through with your counsel in your evidence-in-chief. I find parts of your statement very confusing, because you've just conceded now that when you met Mr de Kock in the company of Mr Willie Coetzee, you gave Mr de Kock the correct information. You then proceed and state that thereafter you were later contacted by somebody you don't identify. You then were told that the information that you had given, had been incorrect. You see where I find your evidence confusing? You just conceded that there was no false information that you had given Mr de Kock, but a few days later, low and behold you are suddenly contacted and are told that you had given false information.

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I think it would be better if I read the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: You'll come tell me tomorrow where it's wrong and right?

MR McCASKILL: I think it's better if I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, will you tell me tomorrow where it's wrong and right?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: First thing tomorrow.

MR McCASKILL: Yes, but I thought if one of the Investigators came and take the statement, I would give ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, we're talking about this statement. It doesn't work like this that every time you've got a problem with a particular statement, you get another chance to get another statement. I'm being very generous to you by saying go through this statement, look at what is wrong, what you think is wrong and tomorrow you will tell me what you think is wrong and correct it. I may just add that I'm sure that one of these advocates are going to ask you to explain a number of things that you've changed. So bear that in mind also when you change it.

MR McCASKILL: Yes. But if I arranged it with one of the Investigators, because I think I'd be able to do it the correct way.

CHAIRPERSON: No, you read it, you come and tell me tomorrow what you feel is wrong and what is right. Do you understand? We'll adjourn till tomorrow, half-past nine.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS