STEPHANUS ADRIAAN OOSTHUIZEN: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: The applicant's application appears from page 70 in the first bundle and then the particular incident which the applicant is applying for before this Committee, is referred to as "Incident 8" on page 77 and it continues up to page 79. Thank you.
Mr Oosthuizen, is it correct that you applied for various incidents in which you were involved in the past as a member of the South African Police, and that some of them have already been heard?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: I have already referred the Chairperson to the pages in the bundle where your application appears. Is it correct that the form was signed by you in November 1996, and that an annexure was attached to this document?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: The specific incident for which application is made before this Committee appears on page 77, and there you refer to an attempt to a bomb attack or arson and you state the place as Mamelodi or Atteridgeville. Now I would like to ask you whether you are capable of giving us more clarity today regarding the place where the incident took place?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, if my memory serves me correctly I think that it was Atteridgeville and not Mamelodi. I cannot recall any incident in which I was involved which took place in Mamelodi.
MR LAMEY: Very well. And where were you stationed at that point?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I was on deployed service to the Security Branch Northern Transvaal, under the command of Capt Hechter.
MR LAMEY: Did you serve under his command at that stage when you were deployed?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And were you requested by Capt Hechter to assist in this case?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall what took place? Can you recall whether a petrol bomb or a bomb was used in this case?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, unfortunately I cannot say with certainty, I did not see the instrument that evening, however I would recall that we would set the house on fire by means of a petrol bomb.
MR LAMEY: You did not see the device itself?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, I did not.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall what took place? Was this action executed or what?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, we drove to the vicinity of the house ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, who was present with you, can you remember, Mr Oosthuizen?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, I can recall that Capt Hechter and Deon Gouws were present, however I cannot say with certainty whether Wouter Mentz was involved in it. My recollection regarding this is rather vague. And whether anybody else was present as well.
MR LAMEY: Who conducted the specific target determination?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: The information came from the Northern Transvaal Security Branch.
MR LAMEY: But who had it, who took you to the place?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Capt Hechter.
MR LAMEY: I just interrupted you, was the action executed or what took place?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: The action was not executed, circumstances in that environment dictated that it was either Army patrols of police presence in the area, but we decided that we would not execute the action and we withdrew back to the office.
MR LAMEY: Very well. At which point did you withdraw, where were you when you withdrew? Can you recall?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: We were not near the house, we went into the same suburb or street block, we were that far from the target. I also cannot recall that the house was identified to me, but there was definitely a problem which stood in our way, for which reason then we could not continue.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Then I would like to refer you to a passage from the bundle - Chairperson, I'm referring to bundle 2, page 131.
Previously there have been applications which have been heard and I want to refer you to a decision of the Amnesty Committee, which pertains to an application by Wouter Mentz, where he refers to an abandoned attempt in Mamelodi in 1986 or '87. Just by the way, can you recall which year this was? The incident to which you referred.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No.
MR LAMEY: But Mr Mentz apparently stated that the vehicle, and this is what the decision refers to, the vehicle in which they were travelling broke down on the way to Mamelodi and the whole operation was abandoned as a result of this. This case during which you withdrew, could this possibly be the same, or was your withdrawal not due to the breakdown of a vehicle?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: It is improbable, Chairperson. I cannot recall that I would have been involved or was involved in an incident in Mamelodi, and I also really cannot recall that Wouter Mentz, over and above the one other incident, was involved in this incident. And I also don't think that our withdrawal on that particular evening was due to the breakdown of a vehicle, there was another reason for it. So I don't believe this to be the same incident which has been mentioned.
MR LAMEY: And then furthermore, the particulars which are provided regarding your comprehension of the attempt was that it was to intimidate political supporters or activists.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Did you foresee at the stage when the instruction was given and when it was planned that you would throw a petrol bomb, that there could possibly be persons in the house who could be injured or killed as a result of your actions?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Do you confirm the particulars as set out on page 78 and 79?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Alberts, do you have any questions?
NO QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Oosthuizen, these applications for amnesty, you were not present this morning, but I want to tell you that they are characterised by one thing and that is the collectively poor memory that all of you have regarding the events of that time. I'm putting this to you as a fact. It would appear as if your own memory has failed you as well, and I will tell you why I have said this. This morning Mr Viktor junior, you know him.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.
MR VISSER: He applied this morning for a case, among others, in Mamelodi, in which according to him, they went, he and others went to bombard a house with petrol bombs. Furthermore, he states on page 102, paragraph 32 of bundle 2, he states
"One night we drove out to Mamelodi to execute an operation near Mamelodi, near a piece of open field. The vehicle broke down. Then we concealed the firearms and petrol bombs or explosive devices and went on foot to look for assistance. Upon our return to the vehicle we discovered that the spare wheel and other accessories were missing."
He adds that he cannot recall that this operation was continued with. Your counsel has referred you to page 114 of bundle 2, and that is the application of Willem Wouter Mentz, who refers to an attempt at Mamelodi. Furthermore, he also states that they were on their way to Mamelodi, he states you specifically - you are W/O Andre Oosthuizen? He says that you were present and furthermore, he states that the Ford Station Wagon in which they were travelling broke down outside Mamelodi and that the operation was cancelled. Now I have heard you saying today that it is your evidence that you were not involved in a case where a vehicle broke down. Is that what you have stated, among others?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, I think you are mistaken if you implicate in an incident in which Mr Viktor junior was involved, because I never operated with him. I cannot tell that Wouter Mentz is mistaken, because his memory could also fail him as mine has failed me, but I do not think that one should try to bring the two together, because they are not related.
MR VISSER: I understand what you have said and it is practically the answer to my following question, because I wanted to refer you to bundle 2, or rather bundle 1, page 77 and 83, where in both cases you refer to a problem with transport. Now there is one of two possibilities, either it is the same incident in which Viktor and Mentz have made reference, or it is something different. On the grounds of what you have stated it would appear that it was something different, because you state that you never operation with Viktor junior.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct, Chairperson, we must be referring to two different incidents.
MR VISSER: You see, Mr Viktor junior confirms what you have stated, he also stated that he never acted with you. So for the purposes of the information of the Committee, it must be accepted that the incident described by you on page 77 and 83 as Incident 8, is not the incident to which I have just referred, which Viktor has spoken of.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Ms Coleridge, any questions?
NO QUESTIONS BY MS COLERIDGE
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, do you have any re-examination?
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager, any questions? Advocate Sigodi?
ADV SIGODI: No questions, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Oosthuizen, that concludes your evidence.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. The next applicant is Mr Gouws.
MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I just want to check with you whether we could just adjourn for a short while. Our victim, Mr Willem Mampoer has arrived and I just wish to consult with him.
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. We'll take a short adjournment and if you can let us know as soon as you are ready, Ms Coleridge, then we'll resume.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, the next applicant is Mr Deon Gouws.
