Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Everybody, Mr De Koning.

EXAMINATION BY MR DE KONING: Chairperson, with your permission I call the Second Applicant to testify under oath. Mr Pyper, will you take the oath or confirm that you are speaking the truth? Will you please stand to take the oath?

CORNELIUS RUDOLPH PYPER: (Sworn states)

MR DE KONING: Mr Pyper, what are your full names?

MR PYPER: I am Cornelius Rudolph Pyper.

MR DE KONING: Thank you Chairperson. Just by introduction, I do not aim to submit an Affidavit to you. Mr Pyper, could you tell the Committee what your date of birth is.

MR PYPER: I was born in 1967 on the 26th December.

MR DE KONING: And what is your age in years currently?

MR PYPER: I am currently 30 years old.

MR DE KONING: And on the 24th April 1994, how old were you then?

MR PYPER: I was 26 then.

MR DE KONING: What is your marital status?

MR PYPER: I am divorced.

MR DE KONING: And on the 27th April 1994 what was your marital status then?

MR PYPER: At that point I was married.

MR DE KONING: Do you have any dependants?

MR PYPER: I have a small daughter of 6.

MR DE KONING: Could you tell us what your highest educational qualification or school qualification is? Where did you begin your school career?

MR PYPER: Primary school. I began in ...[inaudible] and I completed Standard 9, after which I left school and began working.

MR DE KONING: Did you complete any military service?

MR PYPER: Yes. I completed 2 years of military service, for 2 years at Bloemfontein Parachute Battalion in Tempe, from the beginning of 1987 until the end of 1988.

MR DE KONING: And during those two years did you perform any border duty?

MR PYPER: Yes I did. In 1988 I spent an entire year on the border.

MR DE KONING: And thus actively involved with the so-called border war?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR DE KONING: I would like for you to explain to the Committee what the impact of your military duty and the so-called border duty was on you and your life.

MR PYPER: It was explained to us on a daily basis that the ANC and the PAC and the Swapo and Cuban powers, any communist powers were our enemies and we were told that the enemy was infiltrating our country and that many of them had at that point, they were busy taking away our country and that we had to prevent this at all costs and every day the impression was created with us that these people may not take over our country.

MR DE KONING: Okay, so you finished your military service in 1988, what did you do in ‘89?

MR PYPER: In 1989 I began work at Kloofmyn.

MR DE KONING: As what?

MR PYPER: As a stoker, a miner.

MR DE KONING: And did you become involved in any way with politics in any regard?

MR PYPER: Yes, that’s correct. Shortly after I left the army, when I began working on the mine, a friend of mine invited me along to a political meeting at Donald’s Dam, near Westonaria.

MR DE KONING: Which organisation or political party was this?

MR PYPER: It was the AWB.

MR DE KONING: Can you remember who the speaker was?

MR PYPER: It was Mr Eugené Terre’blanche.

MR DE KONING: And did you remain involved in any way with that organisation since 1989?

MR PYPER: That’s correct. At that meeting they made requests and asked who wanted to join and become members of the organisation. There were people who were attending the meeting who were not members. We went and filled up application forms, we joined. We paid a registration fee and that is how I became a member of the AWB.

MR DE KONING: And after that event, were you actively or in any way involved with the AWB?

MR PYPER: I attended meetings. I had friends who were in the AWB and we often met in groups and discussed certain issues with regard to the AWB.

MR DE KONING: Were you involved with any other political organisation as a member or a supporter or in any other way?

MR PYPER: Before I joined the AWB I was a CP supporter. While I was a member of the AWB I also attended a number of CP meetings but I can’t remember how many.

MR DE KONING: Mr Pyper, yesterday evidence was given by Mr De Bruin that you at a certain point in 1992 and 1993 attended AWB meetings with him, is that true?

MR PYPER: Yes, that’s correct.

MR DE KONING: He also testified that at certain times he saw you fill in a form applying for membership. Can you tell us what your comment on that is?

MR PYPER: That is correct. In 1989 when I became a member of the AWB we did not receive membership cards. I received a telephone number from women working at the AWB offices. I phoned her and she told me that we should just be patient because we would receive our membership cards in the post.

I phoned her once, twice or three times, I can’t remember how many times but in 1992 I re-applied for membership, hoping to receive a membership card.

MR DE KONING: Did you receive any such membership card from the AWB?

MR PYPER: No.

MR DE KONING: Then I would like to ask you whether you still have any connection with the AWB at this point?

MR PYPER: I have sworn off the AWB and at this point I would like nothing further to do with them.

MR DE KONING: Can you tell us at the time whether at the time of the incident for which you are in prison, on the 27th April 1994, at that time were you in possession of a firearm or did you have a firearm licence?

MR PYPER: No I did not.

MR DE KONING: When you say that you didn’t, do you mean that you didn’t have any licence or own any firearm?

MR PYPER: That is correct.

MR DE KONING: Did you at any point before that incident attempt to purchase a firearm?

MR PYPER: That is correct. With the assistance of Gert De Bruin we applied for old 303 rifles.

MR DE KONING: I assume that those were the rifles that were used in the military?

MR PYPER: We applied for ownership of these old rifles. Gert De Bruin brought some application forms for us but we did not acquire the weapons.

MR DE KONING: When you refer to "we", who do you mean?

MR PYPER: That is myself and Mr Wheeler.

MR DE KONING: That is the First Applicant?

MR PYPER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Then on the 27th April 1994 did you own a vehicle of your own?

MR PYPER: No.

MR DE KONING: You have informed us of your involvement, more specifically the AWB, ... [no English translation]

MR PYPER: ...[no English translation]

MR DE KONING: We heard Mr Wheeler and Mr De Bruin’s testimony yesterday and we heard that there was a connection between yourself and the First Applicant, Mr Wheeler and Mr De Bruin, can you tell us what your version is regarding your involvement, how you became involved and what your connection was?

MR PYPER: I met Mr De Bruin I think in the beginning of 1992.

MR DE KONING: Where did you meet him?

MR PYPER: At the mine where I worked, Osberg Mine at that time. Gert De Bruin spoke a lot of right wing politics with us and that is basically how we became friends. That is all that I have to say.

MR DE KONING: Did you attend political meetings or AWB meetings together?

MR PYPER: That is correct.

MR DE KONING: Regularly?

MR PYPER: Regularly, yes.

MR DE KONING: Do you have any recollection of how long before the 27th April your last meeting of the AWB was?

MR PYPER: It was shortly before the 27th April 1994, I should say approximately ten days before that date.

MR DE KONING: And I would like you to inform the Commission, I think that we’ve heard quite a lot about it but what was your own perception regarding the messages which were conveyed at those meetings?

MR PYPER: Well among others it was said that the Communist would get the most votes during the forthcoming elections. It was a fact.

MR DE KONING: Could I just interrupt you for a moment? Who was the Communist or who would that have been?

MR PYPER: With regards to the information distributed at these meetings, according to the AWB it was the ANC, the SACP and any non white party which wanted to oppress and murder the Afrikaner, they were all perceived as communists by us.

MR DE KONING: Can you tell me what the message was which was conveyed at these meetings?

MR PYPER: It was said that the communists wanted to take over our country and that during the elections, at all costs action should be taken to stop the elections from proceeding. It was not actually said by a speaker but that is the message that was discussed among the people, that is the message that we received. And it was expressly said to us that this election should not proceed because the communists would take over.

MR DE KONING: When you say that it was not said in so many words by a speaker, what exactly do you mean?

MR PYPER: Before the elections people gathered at the meetings and would stand around in groups talking and it was said and discussed what each individuals role would be during the electoral period and it was said that people would go out and sow chaos during the electoral period.

That everybody would make a contribution to the struggle. It was said that everybody would contribute to the struggle and so doing, disrupt the elections, leading to the announcement of a state of emergency and setting aside the elections.

MR DE KONING: When you say that the speakers didn’t say these things in so many words, was it in any way suggested by the speakers?

MR PYPER: That is the exact message that we received. I think that they were afraid to state it that directly from a platform. I don’t know why they didn’t say it directly but the message which they sent out and the impression that I received was that.

MR DE KONING: Was violence ever suggested or discussed?

MR PYPER: On a daily basis, at all the meetings which I attended violence was mentioned and discussions were held about the methods which we would use if the communists wanted to take over our country. Violence was discussed quite often.

MR DE KONING: Can you tell us what your viewpoint or perception was of De Bruin’s involvement with the AWB?

MR PYPER: Those meetings that I attended with him, at these meetings, me and other AWB members which I knew would stand to one side with Mr Wheeler and discuss certain things while De Bruin was always standing amongst the leadership figures and it was my impression that he occupied a high rank within the AWB structure.

MR DE KONING: Just to come back to the prior aspect which you were talking about when I asked you whether or not violence and such things were encouraged, Mr De Bruin and Mr Wheeler testified yesterday that there was talk of war at these meetings. Did you ever hear anything like that?

MR PYPER: That is correct, it was discussed. It was said that with the disruption of the elections that after the electoral period, the country would be toppled into a state of war.

MR DE KONING: And was there any talk of war directly surrounding the elections?

MR PYPER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Can you tell us what was said or what the impression was which you received?

MR PYPER: It was said that the members of the AWB, as well as all Afrikaners, right wing Afrikaners that is had to prepare themselves. That emergency supplies should be purchased, that firearms should be acquired, that they should keep themselves prepared because there existed no doubt that over the electoral period the country would be toppled into a state of chaos and that a war would break out.

MR DE KONING: Did you do these things, such as purchasing emergency supplies and preparing yourself in this manner?

MR PYPER: That’s correct, I believed completely in what the AWB said. I prepared myself. I applied for a firearm, I purchased emergency supplies as well.

MR DE KONING: Did these discussions ever feature in contact which you had with Mr De Bruin?

MR PYPER: Could you repeat the question?

MR DE KONING: These discussions regarding the mobilisation and the purchasing of supplies in order to arm yourself, did this ever surface in discussions with Mr De Bruin?

MR PYPER: That is correct.

MR DE KONING: You’re saying that your impression was that De Bruin occupied some or other rank within the AWB? Did you personally ever experience or see him as a leader?

MR PYPER: Yes, in my eyes he was a leader.

MR DE KONING: Did you think that he knew more about the AWB and it’s activities than what you yourself knew, you who also attended the meetings?

MR PYPER: Yes, that’s correct, he knew everything. If something was happening or had happened that we didn’t know about he would have told us about it. He knew what was going on and it was clear to me that he had inside information.

MR DE KONING: If we consider that which you have already told us regarding discussions and speeches at the AWB meetings, were you personally prepared to participate in that which was promoted, suggested and said at AWB meetings?

MR PYPER: Yes, at all AWB meetings it was told to us that the Afrikaner nations would be oppressed and I was completely prepared to make myself available to prevent this kind of oppression.

MR DE KONING: Are you still as prepared today?

MR PYPER: No, not at all.

MR DE KONING: Why not?

MR PYPER: Because my opinion regarding that which I believed and my belief was that the ANC was a communist oriented organisation has proven to be.

MR DE KONING: Where did you cultivate these convictions?

MR PYPER: Well I began to cultivate these convictions quite early in my childhood. It became quite clear to me then and when I was in the military. The right wing politics also managed to entrench this conviction within me.

MR DE KONING: And you were busy telling us that today you have a different opinion regarding this. Is there something else which you wanted to add before I interrupted you.

MR PYPER: No.

MR DE KONING: Then on the 27th April 1994 during the evening you and Mr Wheeler committed a murder and I want you to tell the Committee exactly how that day transpired in reasonable detail but you can leave out the unnecessary detail.

MR PYPER: Me and Mr Wheeler met in the morning, I think he came to my home, if I remember correctly. His wife was with him. My daughter was feeling a little ill and we took her to the doctor in Westonaria then we drove past the voting halls and we saw that there were queues and queues of people who were standing in line to vote and about 90% of them were black.

MR DE KONING: Might I interrupt? Did you vote on the 27th April 1994?

MR PYPER: No, I didn’t.

MR DE KONING: Why not.

MR PYPER: We were requested by the AWB not to vote.

MR DE KONING: Very well, you may proceed. Just one moment, do you know whether Mr Wheeler voted?

MR PYPER: He did not vote.

MR DE KONING: Was this because of the request which was made to you from the AWB?

MR PYPER: Yes. Then we went to buy a few things in town and from there we went to Hillshaven, that was the area in which I lived. There we also drove past the voting halls and more or less the same scenario presented itself to us there. And then we took my wife and child and Mr Wheeler’s wife and dropped them off. We then went to Mr De Bruin’s house.

MR DE KONING: What was the purpose of that, can you recall?

MR PYPER: It was announced on the radio that bombs had exploded somewhere in the East Rand, I think it was at the airport.

MR DE KONING: Why would this radio report lead you to Mr De Bruin’s house?

MR PYPER: Well we wanted to know whether or not he had received any further information regarding these bomb explosions. And we found him there at his home.

MR DE KONING: De Bruin said yesterday, and I quote from paragraph 13 of his Affidavit, he said,

"That I have told the two Applicants that the boer resistance had begun and that more bomb explosions would occur."

What did you think of that?

MR PYPER: The mere fact that he said that it had begun triggered it within me that the war had begun, that the resistance had begun. The opposition to the elections had begun. The process of destruction had begun and that is the inference that I made from his words.

MR DE KONING: And if we look at the broader picture of that which you have already told the Committee regarding the fact that you had heard these calls at the meetings where people spoke publicly you took the decision there that you would participate in this call. What did you make then of De Bruin’s statements?

MR PYPER: I had no doubt, it was very clear to me that that which the AWB had preached had begun. That we had to go out and disrupt the elections and that we had to prevent that the communists take over our country. That was very clear to me.

MR DE KONING: Just to ask it in very simple terms, were you prepared and did you decide upon that event to contribute?

MR PYPER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Would you contribute in a violent way?

MR PYPER: Yes, that’s correct.

MR DE KONING: Then you may proceed and explain to us what happened after you left De Bruin’s home.

MR PYPER: We then went to my home. We held a braai and some of Mr Wheeler’s friends came by. Some of my friends also came by. We discussed politics a bit and we discussed what would happen if the country fell into the wrong hands. We used alcohol and that is basically what happened.

MR DE KONING: At that point was there any plan in existence with you and Wheeler regarding what you were going to do?

MR PYPER: There was definitely a plan. However we were not 100% sure as to what we were going to do but there was definitely a plan that we would contribute to this resistance.

MR DE KONING: Did you alone or in co-operation with anyone ever have the idea to acquire or obtain a bomb or an explosive device and plant it somewhere?

MR PYPER: Yes. We

MR DE KONING: When you say we, who were you referring to?

MR PYPER: Me, Wheeler and some other rightists who work with us on the mine discussed the possibilities.

MR DE KONING: Did you try to do anything specific regarding that?

MR PYPER: A long time before the election we wanted to bring out explosives in order to commit acts with explosives but we decided to wait first and devise a better plan and the closer we got to the elections, the more difficult it became to bring explosives out of the mines.

MR DE KONING: Why?

MR PYPER: Because the mine security was sharpened, especially during the electoral period and this made the situation more problematic.

MR DE KONING: So you had the idea to obtain explosives but it wasn’t possible?

MR PYPER: Yes, that’s correct. Earlier it would have been possible. There were times, or there were events where certain rightists stole explosives from the mines. Mr Wheeler will also be aware of this.

MR DE KONING: Okay, so you held a braai, you drank and I think it’s common knowledge that at one point you also went to Mr De Bruin’s house again?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR DE KONING: What was the purpose behind that?

MR PYPER: Are you referring to the evening?

MR DE KONING: Yes. The second time, on the 27th April, that you went to Mr De Bruin’s home.

MR PYPER: I’m not certain as to which point in time you are referring to?

MR DE KONING: On both, there were two occasions that you visited De Bruin’s home on the 27th and I want to know what was the reason for visiting De Bruin’s home on the second occasion on the 27th April?

MR PYPER: Well we went there to discuss the things that had happened, the bomb explosions and Mr Wheeler needed certain parts for his car.

MR DE KONING: Is that with the second occasion, in the evening?

MR PYPER: Do you mean before we drove out that evening?

MR DE KONING: No. I wanted to know what you were doing at De Bruin’s house before you left?

MR PYPER: From my home we first went to Mr Wheeler’s home. We went to fetch the weapons and we then went to Mr De Bruin’s home. We wanted to fetch him to come along with us. He wasn’t home. I remained in the car and Mr Wheeler went to see whether or not he was home. He wasn’t home. He climbed back into the car and we left.

MR DE KONING: Where did you drive to?

MR PYPER: We drove in the direction of Randfontein. It was a double lane road, between Randfontein and Westonaria.

MR DE KONING: What happened then?

MR PYPER: We saw a taxi vehicle on the road. The road was very quiet and we decided that that would be our target because there were no other witnesses or any other people present who would be able to identify us or perhaps attack us if I might put it that way. We immobilised the target and decided that that would be our target.

Mr Wheeler cocked the shotgun, handed it over to me, I leaned out the window, he moved in next to the vehicle, I fired a shot and we drove on. Mr Wheeler looked in his rear view mirror and he mentioned to me that the vehicle was pulling up off the road.

MR DE KONING: Can you tell us today whether you remember or whether you know how many people were in the vehicle which you fired at?

MR PYPER: Well it was dark. I could only see the silhouette of the driver, I cannot say how many people were in the vehicle.

MR DE KONING: Might I ask you why you would be shooting at a mini bus taxi?

MR PYPER: I believed at that point that people were using mini bus taxis in order to go to the voting halls and that a mini bus taxi with a number of people inside, along with other rightists who were committing acts of terror that this would contribute to the fear and doubt among people to go and vote and it would create chaos and lead to the announcement of a state of emergency so that the elections could be stopped.

MR DE KONING: Why were you shooting at the driver’s silhouette?

MR PYPER: Well he was the driver and I believed that if I shot him there would be a very good chance that the vehicle would be involved in an accident.

MR DE KONING: And that would create even greater chaos?

MR PYPER: That is correct.

MR DE KONING: Yesterday, if my memory serves me correctly we asked Mr Wheeler, one of the members of the panel asked Mr Wheeler why he didn’t simply go to one of the voting halls and shoot someone there?

MR PYPER: Because the security at the voting halls was very strict, there were armed guards with machine guns. We only had a shotgun and we didn’t want to get caught because we most definitely would have been caught or they would have been able to identify us.

MR DE KONING: You said that you only had a shotgun, I beg your pardon, along with a .22, thus you didn’t want to risk your cause at the voting halls?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR DE KONING: Mr Pyper, in your Application which has been presented to the Commission, you mention that your younger brother was killed. Did this have any kind of influence on these events and if so, could you explain why?

MR PYPER: My brother was murdered by four black men with an AK47. This created the idea immediately within my mind that it was part of the communist onslaught.

MR DE KONING: Why would that be?

MR PYPER: Because communists used AK47’s.

MR DE KONING: Where did you obtain this information?

MR PYPER: This was taught to us in the Defence Force, that the communists used AK47. They originally came from Russia which was a communist country.

MR DE KONING: You may proceed. What was the involvement of the death of your brother with the events on the 27th April 1994? Was this an act of revenge?

MR PYPER: Well it wasn’t revenge. It wasn’t revenge at all but it simply strengthened my suspicion that the AWB’s policy was correct and that the communists were planning to murder and oppress all right wing Afrikaners and that what had happened to my brother would happen to my wife, my children and my family and I didn’t want that to happen.

MR DE KONING: To summarise it very briefly, what was your motive for this act which you committed on the 27th?

MR PYPER: My motive was to cause disruption and destruction along with other right wingers and so to disrupt the elections so that a state of emergency would be called out, that the election would be cancelled and thereby we hoped to prevent the communists taking power.

MR DE KONING: You have already told us that you are of a different view today?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR DE KONING: Mr Pyper, after you were arrested, or perhaps I should ask you first to explain to us, you were arrested on the following day?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR DE KONING: After you were arrested and before your trial, some time during that period you were arrested in April and you were tried in October of ‘94. At some stage before the trial you had contact with the deceased’s next of kin, is that correct?

MR PYPER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: I would like you to tell the Committee how that happened, that you had this contact with them.

MR PYPER: There was frequent communications between my attorney Neil Pretorius and Mr Papiyana’s attorney and arrangements were made that I would see him.

MR DE KONING: And then you saw the father of the deceased, face to face?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR DE KONING: I don’t want you to give us unnecessary detail, but please tell us, in a nutshell what happened between the two of you.

MR PYPER: When we arrived at the offices I said that I wanted to see him alone. My wife and I went into the office with him, just the three of us and we closed the door behind us. I told him that I was sorry for what had happened. I told him that I understood the pain that he was suffering and I said that I had acted wrongly and I had no right to do it to him. He said that he forgave me.

MR DE KONING: Were you really sorry, on the occasion when you said so?

MR PYPER: Yes, I really was sorry.

MR DE KONING: May I ask you to explain to the Committee, you’ve told the Committee that you had a particular motive for this conduct and now afterwards you apologised to somebody who was most directly affected by it, what had happened?

MR PYPER: The idea which the AWB created in my mind regarding the ANC, it became clear to me that they had lied to me or at the very least, created dubious images in my mind. They thought that the ANC and other communist parties would oppress us and actually exterminate us and at the stage when I apologised, I realised that everything was progressing normally.

MR DE KONING: And you had yielded to this lie, this incorrect perception, that’s why you committed this act?

MR PYPER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Mr Pyper, during the bail application and I think also during your trial and specifically in your explanation of Plea which you submitted to the Court during your trial, this was the trial before Mr Justice Mynhardt it was denied on your behalf that this act had ...[inaudible] with a political motive, is that correct?

MR PYPER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Is it true that it was not committed with a political motive?

MR PYPER: Today it is not true. At that stage I said so.

MR DE KONING: Why did you say so at that stage?

MR PYPER: Mr Wheeler and I were awaiting trial together in the Krugersdorp Prison. We heard on the radio, I think it was the 11th May, I’m not 100% sure, that six right wingers who had been involved in the Redora case on the other side of Randfontein, that they’d all been given the death sentence.

Mr Wheeler and I discussed this and we realised that we were actually facing the death sentence, we were going to be hanged and there and then we decided that we wanted to avoid that and therefore should not follow this political motive line.

MR DE KONING: So you told a conscious lie and made a misrepresentation to the Court to try to escape being punished for political motives?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR DE KONING: Please bear with me for a moment, Chairperson. Mr Pyper, yesterday reference was made to the Mineworkers Union, an organisation which is also active on the mine. Were you involved in them in any way?

MR PYPER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Did they convey political viewpoints to people?

MR PYPER: Yes, at every meeting that we attended, right wing political views were conveyed to us.

MR DE KONING: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DE KONING

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Are we going to carry on the same order or are you prepared to go now Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: I am prepared to continue, thank you.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pyper, Mr Wheeler testified yesterday that when you went to Mr De Bruin’s home, after you heard of the bomb explosion, you went there to obtain a sealant for the motor car from Mr De Bruin. Did you know about that at that stage?

MR PYPER: Yes I know that there was a stage when some sealer or sealant for the car was to be obtained.

MR PRINSLOO: He also testified that before you drove to Mr De Bruin’s home, you first dropped off your two spouses and your child at your house before going to Mr De Bruin’s house?

MR PYPER: Yes, that’s how I remember it.

MR PRINSLOO: You heard him testifying yesterday that he also obtained legal advice that in case of a conviction and the imposition of sentence, following a conviction of murder where political motives were involved that the chances of the death sentence were very high, you obviously can’t deny that?

MR PYPER: I remember that yes, that’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Wheeler also referred yesterday to the fact that on the day of the 27th April the reference was made to the possibility of committing an act of terror by means of explosives although this was never carried out?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha, do you have questions?

MR BOTHA: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: Mr Pyper, the last portion of your evidence in chief contained a reference to the meeting between yourself and Mr Nelson Papiyana, the father of the deceased?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: Before this day of the meeting it was in September ‘94, did you know him, did you know any members of the Papiyana family?

MR PYPER: No, not at all.

MR BOTHA: Would you agree with me that the impression which one immediately gets from Mr Nelson Papiyana and say this for lack of a better description that he is a big man? He displayed a big spirit in meeting the killer of his son?

MR PYPER: I wouldn’t only say that he was a big man but he was also the most wonderful person that I have ever met.

MR BOTHA: On this occasion you said repeatedly to Mr Papiyana that, you spoke English to him, is that correct?

MR PYPER: Yes. That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: According to what I read in the Record of the Supreme Court Case, you are also a Christian?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: And with all respect to the Commission, Mr Papiyana is of the view that for real reconciliation and reconstruction to take place between yourself and him, it’s not really necessary for such a Commission because Christ is in his heart and in yours, therefore reconciliation is complete?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: And that is not said out of any disrespect for this Commission or the entire process of reconciliation. I also want to put it to you that from Mr Nelson Papiyana’s side, my instructions are not to oppose your Application for Amnesty in any way but Mr Godfrey, that is the person who was also shot and wounded, his instructions to me was to the effect that your Application should be opposed and as you saw yesterday, the reason for that is that you said right at the outset that your conduct was in no ways politically motivated, is that correct?

MR PYPER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: In your evidence in chief you said today that you were in town and you went to the doctor and then you bought certain things and went home?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: This word, "things", what exactly are you referring to, what did you purchase?

MR PYPER: I can’t tell you exactly what it was, it was some food bought, things to have a braai with, maybe we had the necessary things for a braai at home, I don’t recall, we bought liquor, that is as far as I can remember.

MR BOTHA: Alcohol, liquor?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: 12, 750ml bottles of beer?

MR PYPER: That’s right.

MR BOTHA: That is according to the evidence in the Supreme Court. Apart from these 12 bottles, that you purchased, can you tell us whether you later, on that day bought more liquor?

MR PYPER: Yes, we bought brandy later that day.

MR BOTHA: Two bottles of brandy were bought?

MR PYPER: If I remember correctly, yes.

MR BOTHA: From your wife’s evidence, which is to a large extent corroborated by Mrs Wheeler’s evidence in the Supreme Court, I understand that there was also a bottle of whiskey which Mr Wheeler had at some stage received as a gift and this bottle of whiskey was also consumed that day?

MR PYPER: It may be, I’m not sure.

MR BOTHA: Today you said that your conduct was politically inspired?

MR PYPER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: You say that it was inspired by statements made by certain leaders?

MR PYPER: That’s correct, yes.

MR BOTHA: Can you tell the Honourable Committee which statements are you referring to and what exactly was said?

MR PYPER: What was said was that this election period, during this election period, there was no doubt that our land, that our country would be taken away from us and that we should avoid at all costs this happening and that we should have no circumstances should yield to a communist reign.

There was also some discussion in smaller groups that each individual would have to contribute something to cause chaos in this election period so that the election could be cancelled and a state of emergency announced.

MR BOTHA: Who said that?

MR PYPER: Pardon me?

MR BOTHA: Who said that you should disrupt the elections?

MR PYPER: It was said in groups by several people. Some of those people I don’t even know.

MR BOTHA: Can you mention any names?

MR PYPER: I can mention names. But those are just nicknames, I don’t know their real names and surnames. Even some of the people who worked with me, AWB people who worked with me, I just know their nicknames, I don’t really know their real names.

MR BOTHA: You said that you did a year’s military service on the border, on the Northern borders of Namibia, for a year?

MR PYPER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: Isn’t it so that you were at all times aware of who exactly your seniors were, in the Defence Force?

MR PYPER: In my section, yes. In my battalion.

MR BOTHA: And if you met up with another section or battalion of the Defence Force, you would know who your senior was?

MR PYPER: If he wore his insignia rank, yes.

MR BOTHA: And if he wore no such insignias of rank, would you not know?

MR PYPER: No. Very probably not.

MR BOTHA: Now the picture which you are painting today is as the Book of Revelations mentions as war and rumours of war, bombs had exploded and there was this call that went out, that everybody should contribute his bit?

MR PYPER: Yes, that’s correct.

MR BOTHA: This situation must surely have instilled a great measure of fear in you, this fact that you were about to become involved in a war?

MR PYPER: I believe that everybody is scared of war.

MR BOTHA: You tried to obtain a .303 beforehand?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: The persons to whom you refer as the SACP, ANC Alliance, did they wage war with .303’s?

MR PYPER: As far as I know, AK47’s.

MR BOTHA: So you wanted to take on this organisation with a .303?

MR PYPER: That was the only weapon that was accessible at that stage.

MR BOTHA: So you couldn’t get hold of a .303?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: I understand that you then, on that particular evening experienced problems with cocking this gun?

MR PYPER: The shotgun, yes.

MR BOTHA: Let me rather put it to you as a question. Did you have a problem on that particular night with cocking of the gun?

MR PYPER: There was something wrong with a part of the mechanism and I don’t know whether the bullet actually lodged incorrectly but there was some problem with cocking it, yes.

MR BOTHA: So, you went to war with a gun you couldn’t cock properly and the person with you was armed with his grandfather’s .22 rifle?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: Would you agree with me that that does not sound logical?

MR PYPER: I can only say to you that that’s the reason why we raced away after the shooting, we couldn’t go back, we didn’t know whether the people in the taxi were armed or not and we realised that we only had a shotgun and a .22 and we realised that we couldn’t go back.

MR BOTHA: Very well. From Mr Wheeler’s evidence I gather that you didn’t even know whether you had shot somebody?

MR PYPER: Correct.

MR BOTHA: The vehicle, I’m talking about the mini bus, just quite normally in your eyes, left the road and stopped on the shoulder of the road?

MR PYPER: That’s how he mentioned it to me, yes.

MR BOTHA: Now if your impression was that you hadn’t really hit any target or anybody, why didn’t you then attempt another attack somewhere else?

MR PYPER: At that stage we thought we had contributed our bit. We didn’t know whether we had actually shot somebody and we thought we had actually done our bit.

MR BOTHA: One other aspect, can you recall during Mr Wheeler’s trial in the Supreme Court, the statement was made to you that Mr Wheeler denies having cocked the weapon, can you recall that?

MR PYPER: I think so, yes.

MR BOTHA: Can you tell the Committee why he said yesterday, no he actually did cock it and before he said that he didn’t?

MR PYPER: No, I can’t tell you why.

MR BOTHA: To get back to this war situation which you were facing on that particular day, you said that you were scared that it was a war?

MR PYPER: I said that anybody is scared of war.

MR BOTHA: Yes, everybody is afraid of war and you were as well?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: Is it so that Mr Wheeler had his shotgun with him almost all the time when he was driving in his car?

MR PYPER: There were times when the shotgun was in the car, there were other times when it wasn’t.

MR BOTHA: Can you recall evidence of his wife in the Supreme Court to the effect that he didn’t have a safe at home and that is why he always had this firearm with him and specifically in your house, he put the rifle on a little rack near the fireplace?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: His home was within walking distance of your home but he brought his rifle with him when he came to visit you?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: Now, if there was this war situation, or let me phrase it this way, on that particular evening, for some reason or another, did not have his rifle with him at your house?

MR PYPER: That’s correct, yes.

MR BOTHA: You said that you were convinced that there was a situation of war, why did he, in the middle of this situation of war, why would he leave his weapon at home?

MR PYPER: As I mentioned earlier, there were times when he had the weapon with him and other times when he didn’t. So I reckon it was just one of those times when he didn’t have it with him. As far as we were concerned, we were only going to go out at night.

MR BOTHA: Tell me.

MRS GCABASHE: I beg your pardon Mr Botha. As far as you were concerned you were only going to go out that night, you say? When had you made the decision to go out at night?

MR PYPER: We discussed it the whole day. We discussed what we were going to do. We didn’t know exactly what we were going to do but we knew we were going to do something. The decision to shoot at a taxi, that decision we only took that night on the road.

MRS GCABASHE: The question is, when did you decide to do something that night? You know the fact that you’d act that night, which is what you said.

MR PYPER: We decided on that day that we would act that night but long before the elections there had been discussions that right wingers should get together and that something would happen. But we only made that decision to act that night, on that particular day.

MRS GCABASHE: Now give me a rough time. I know you had a braai, just give me a rough time in relation to that?

MR PYPER: To what?

MRS GCABASHE: Give me a rough time as to when you made that decision, I know you made the decision that day, now narrow that down to a time, if you can?

MR PYPER: That night on the road, we decided it would be a taxi.

MRS GCABASHE: You misunderstand me. The decision to go out and act that night, not the specific act, just the act that night. You made that decision during the day, I just want a rough time, when?

MR PYPER: I understand now. It was that morning when we went to the polling stations and saw that the communists was about to take over our country. It was at that stage.

MRS GCABASHE: And that would have been what, about 10 in the morning, I’m just giving you a time, just in relation to.

MR PYPER: 10, 11 more or less.

MRS GCABASHE: Thank you.

MR BOTHA: Mr Pyper, Mr Wheeler has stated that the impression which he received was that the actual statement, what lead him to realise that he should take up arms was the speech made by Mr Terre’blanche, which was to the effect of something like, the day that the communists would take over, that he would take over the country with violence the very next day. That was said at certain meetings?

MR PYPER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: Is that also the encouragement which lead to you taking up the weapon?

MR PYPER: Yes, that is true.

MR BOTHA: If that is so, the 27th April was the day of the election?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: The 28th April was still the election day, I think it might have been the day of the postal vote?

MR PYPER: Yes, that’s correct.

MR BOTHA: Would the 29th April have been the day upon which the communists would take over the country?

MR PYPER: No. We had to prevent that something like that happened. And if the election were to continue, it would be a definite fact that they would take over the country. So with those elections we knew that they were busy taking over the country.

MR BOTHA: But they had not yet taken over the country?

MR PYPER: Well all AWB members knew that that was the thing that would happen.

MR BOTHA: Might I just interrupt here for the purposes of fairness, that you will notice that the statement made within the affidavit of Mr Wheeler is that Mr Terre’blanche said that upon the same night, that the ANC, SACP Alliance took over the country, the AWB would snatch it back with violence.

Just for the purposes of fairness, I would like to place the correct version on record.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, we also don’t know exactly what was meant by that statement by saying the same night, it might mean immediately thereafter, not literally the same night that the sun goes down that night. It might mean very soon thereafter. Mr Botha but you can proceed on your line.

MR BOTHA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pyper, what then did you understand when he said the same night?

MR PYPER: Well, the impression which was created by me was that the 27th would be the big day upon which most of the people would be voting and we knew there existed no doubt within our minds that the ANC had already taken over with those elections and that I understood that night to be the night of the 27th.

MR BOTHA: But in fact, would you agree with me that Mr Mandela was only inaugurated in May as the President?

MR PYPER: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: Thus, on the night of the 27th April, they had therefore not taken over power?

MR PYPER: Well that is what I’m telling you, the AWB knew there was no doubt that we knew that the ANC would be taking over the country on the 27th April. We did not doubt this for a moment.

MR BOTHA: Very well. Going back to your membership, you applied in 1989 for membership of the AWB, as I understand your evidence in chief?

MR PYPER: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: You did not receive a membership card?

MR PYPER: No.

MR BOTHA: Apparently you regarded the membership card as proof of your membership?

MR PYPER: To a certain degree, yes.

MR BOTHA: And when you realised that you were not yet a member in 1992/1993, you once again applied for membership?

MR PYPER: Well I was already a member. I had the phone number of a lady, I cannot remember in which area this number was but I phoned her and she told me that my name appeared on the computer list and that I was a registered member, that was in 1989. I phoned her twice or three times and she told me to be patient and that I would receive my membership card but that nonetheless I was a registered member.

MR BOTHA: When was that?

MR PYPER: 1989.

MR BOTHA: In 1989/1990 they told you that you were a member but once again you applied for membership?

MR PYPER: That is correct. I waited for the membership card. I didn’t receive it. I re-applied in the hope of receiving a membership card.

MR BOTHA: Might I just ask you Mr Pyper, what was the purpose of you wanting the membership card? Did you need it for certain things?

MR PYPER: I wouldn’t say that I really wanted to have the card, I just thought that it was something that I should have.

CHAIRPERSON: Just one question on this. When you registered again in 1992 did you pay a further subscription?

MR PYPER: That’s correct, yes. In 1989 it was R5.00 and I think in ‘92 it was R10.00, I’m not sure but it’s more or less something like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR BOTHA: Do you have any proof today, apart from your word that you were a member of the AWB?

MR PYPER: On me at the moment I don’t have any proof.

MR BOTHA: I put it to you that a membership card could be regarded as proof that you are a member. Well I would like to put it to you that if you had filled in the forms and paid the registration fee, your name would be placed on the computerised list and then with effect you would be a member and I’m speaking of quite a number of members who were waiting for their membership cards who nonetheless participated actively in the struggle of the AWB but which at that point had not yet received membership cards due to administrative problems in the AWB offices thus what you are saying to the Honourable Committee is that if one had completed an application form, one would be a member?

MR PYPER: Yes, but you had to pay the registration fee as well.

MR BOTHA: But the mere signing of the application form and the payment of a fee to a person would automatically render one a member?

MR PYPER: Could you repeat?

MR BOTHA: The mere signing of an application for membership and the payment of a fee would render a person a member of the AWB?

MR PYPER: If he had done that he would be a member, yes.

MR BOTHA: So, just to use an example, yesterday Mr Gert De Bruin was here and if I had given him R10.00 and completed a form and kept it in my cupboard, I would be a member?

MR PYPER: No, you had to hand in the form.

MR BOTHA: Very well. If for example I had been a black person and my surname was Botha and I filled out the form and sent in the fee by post I would then be a member of the AWB?

MR PYPER: As far as my knowledge goes, these membership forms were handed out at meetings so if you were a black person you would have been chased away immediately.

MR BOTHA: Very well, I accept that. However, if I had received this form by post?

MR PYPER: Well I’m not sure but as far as my knowledge goes these membership forms were distributed at meetings. I don’t know if one can have acquired it in the manner you have mentioned.

MR BOTHA: You have said that you believed 100% and your words in chief are that a war would break out?

MR PYPER: Without a doubt.

MR BOTHA: The war which would break out, that you had been drinking so much that you would not even have been in a state to wage a war the next day?

MR PYPER: Yes I was in a state.

MR BOTHA: Can you remember that Mrs A S Pyper, I think the sister-in-law of the First Applicant also testified in the Supreme Court?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: Can you remember that her indisputable evidence was that you on this particular day at their home and this is after the shooting incident when you went to their home?

MR PYPER: That’s correct. I can’t remember that.

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s microphone is not on.

MR PYPER: You said Mrs A S Pyper, it would be Mrs Wheeler?

MR BOTHA: That is correct, thank you. On this particular evening after the shooting incident, you went to Mrs A S Wheeler’s home?

MR PYPER: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: That is in Randfontein?

MR PYPER: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: She testified in the Supreme Court and her testimony was never disputed that when you arrived there at times you couldn’t even catch a ball the little boy had thrown to you?

MR PYPER: We had been drinking, I will not dispute that.

MR BOTHA: She also testified indisputably that you fell off a chair twice?

MR PYPER: That could be true, I cannot deny that.

MR BOTHA: She said that during a conversation you were practically falling asleep?

MR PYPER: Well we visited for a long time there. We consumed alcohol and I was tired.

MR BOTHA: Well in that condition would you have been able to wage the war which you believed 100% would definitely be breaking out?

MR PYPER: Well when I was in the army, in Angola on the border, there were many times when I was so tired that I couldn’t keep my eyes open but when they said that trouble was on the way, you would wake up, just like that.

MR BOTHA: Mr Wheeler said yesterday that this shooting incident.

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to get clarity from the last answer. Are you then saying that the, are you suggesting that the fact that you couldn’t catch a ball and the fact that you might have fallen off the chair twice was because you were tired?

MR PYPER: No, as I have said that evening at Mrs Wheeler’s house, after the shooting incident we consumed further alcohol and that might have contributed to our fatigue and my inability to catch the ball.

MR BOTHA: And on that particular evening at Mrs Wheeler’s the First Applicant also stumbled and fell against the passage wall?

MR PYPER: To who are you referring?

MR BOTHA: To Mr Wheeler.

MR PYPER: I don’t know. I am not aware of that.

MR BOTHA: I have noticed that during the trial you also used the services of the psychologist, Dr Burke. Did you tell Dr Burke that you committed this deed from a political motivation?

MR PYPER: No at that point we had not yet been convicted or sentenced and I wanted to prevent, at all costs that anybody knew what my objectives were because I wanted to avoid the death sentence.

MR BOTHA: Dr Burke subjected you to several tests and consultations for several hours?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: Do you agree with his findings at the end?

MR DE KONING: With respect Chairperson, I was involved in that trial and Dr Burke spent a great deal of time in the witness stand and with respect, the findings to which are being referred should at least be made available to the witness so that he can have full knowledge of what is being discussed. I attended those trials and even I do not know everything.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you could ask the witness if he knows what the conclusions of Dr Burke were.

MR PYPER: I can’t remember sir.

MR BOTHA: You say that you cannot remember the findings of the psychologist?

MR PYPER: No.

MR BOTHA: And the Advocate can also not remember it?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: He stated or could you argue that Dr Burke stated that this incident occurred as a result of a number of contributing factors, one of which was the death of your brother, that was a factor?

MR PYPER: I think he mentioned that.

MR BOTHA: It wasn’t conclusive but it was contributory.

MR PYPER: Let us say that it inspired me, it lead me to realise that that for which the AWB stood, was right.

MR BOTHA: And he drew a further conclusion that alcohol was another contributing factor?

MR PYPER: The alcohol could have given me a certain amount of courage.

MR BOTHA: He also states and this is during cross examination that with the assistance of an example which he borrowed from physics where it says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, he maintained that emotions are very much like this type of energy. We think we can ignore emotions or that if we work at it emotions will go away.

But in fact they do not disappear and they remain there in an underlying fashion, like a champagne bottle, if you shake it enough, the cork will pop eventually. And I think that these things built up to such a point at that stage that the cork popped out and that all the contents spilled out. Emotions of bitterness, sorrow, the aggression which he possibly felt overwhelmed him completely, do you agree?

MR PYPER: Yes, I do agree with that. The bitterness at the communist attempt at taking over our country, the sorrow that the death of my brother at the hands of the communists, the aggression which was programmed into me by the rightists’ policies and parties and it happened as such, that the cork popped out and that I decided to do this for my volk and my people.

MR BOTHA: Are you an aggressive person?

MR PYPER: Under normal circumstances I am not an aggressive person. But when it comes to my family, my loved ones, my Afrikaner volk, my fellow citizens, when it comes to their lives being threatened, I will not hesitate to use aggression.

MR BOTHA: What type of bullet was used in the shotgun?

MR PYPER: A slug bullet was used.

MR BOTHA: Could you explain to the Committee what this is?

MR PYPER: It is a bullet with a solid point. It’s not buck shots which is used in other guns.

MR BOTHA: Could you indicate the size of this point, the solid point to the Committee?

MR PYPER: In cross section, I would say approximately 12mm.

MR BOTHA: And how long?

MR PYPER: Are you referring to the point itself?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that’s correct, the metal point.

MR PYPER: Probably about 3 to 4cm, I’m not certain.

MR BOTHA: That is a very large projectile?

MR PYPER: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: You have stated that you didn’t know whether or not you had shot something or someone. During your military training you received a gold or silver shooting bar?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: Could you tell the Honourable Committee why you suspected that you hadn’t shot someone?

MR PYPER: In the military when we had shooting competitions, for shooting bars, we shot during the day and not at night. We lay very still or stationary. It wasn’t a moving target that we were shooting at and there I could be certain that every shot that I fired would hit what I was aiming for.

MR BOTHA: Very well. Then Mr Pyper you have said and I know that it is not nice to touch upon this again but your brother was shot with an AK47?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: Why do you say that it was communists who shot your brother?

MR PYPER: The communists, as I was taught, as it was explained to me used AK47’s. AK47’s were weapons which were manufactured in Communist Russia and the communist would use this weapon by means of smuggling and infiltration and that is how they were infiltrating our country in order to sow terror with this weapon.

CHAIRPERSON: At a convenient time we’ll take a short adjournment but I don’t want it to interfere with the line of cross examination.

MR BOTHA: Thank you Mr Chairman, I’m finishing off now. Mr Pyper, could you tell me why you said that it had to necessarily have been a communist attack on your brother, couldn’t it have been a regular criminal attack?

MR PYPER: It was taught to me that the communist used the AK47 and that the communists were infiltrating our country with AK47’s, murdering our people, taking what they wanted from our people and the manner in which it was carried out left no doubt in my mind that this had been a communist deed.

MR BOTHA: Was your brother’s vehicle taken?

MR PYPER: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: Therefore, what you are telling the Honourable Committee and I am concluding Mr Chairperson, is that if these persons had decided that they would rob a white person’s vehicle with an AK47 it would therefore have been a politically motivated deed?

MR PYPER: A communist deed.

MR BOTHA: You’re saying that it’s a communist deed and not a politically motivated deed, could you explain that to us please?

MR PYPER: As I have said, the communist parties used AK47’s and I assumed that it would have been therefore a communist deed.

MR BOTHA: I have no further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA

CHAIRPERSON: We’ll take the tea adjournment at this stage.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha, have you completed your cross examination?

MR BOTHA: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, do you have any questions?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, just a few questions.

CORNELIUS RUDOLPH PYPER: (s.u.o.)

EXAMINATION BY MR STEENKAMP: (cont)

Mr Pyper, a question that I want to ask you also has to do with the trial where you testified. The Court asked you and the Advocate who also represented you at that point and just to give you greater perspective as to the origin of the question. The Advocate said the following;

"Very well, regarding this crime, I want you to take his Honour into your confidence and tell him whether or not you had any kind of political objective for this act, for the killing of this person?" "No, not at all." "Are you politically active?" "No." "Are you active with any political organisation in the country?" "No." "Did you follow any political objective in that which you did?" "No."

MRS GCABASHE: What’s the page reference there?

MR STEENKAMP: Unfortunately this is a copy of the full record, I will gladly make a copy available. I think that the core of the question we can find later, a page later.

"Can you tell his Honour, the Judge, regarding the motivation for your crime?" "I think our drunken state lead to this crime."

The question that I want to ask you is, where you are invited to tell the truth to the Supreme Court, there where you have the opportunity to tell the Court exactly what happened and to take the Court into your confidence, where your own Advocate asks you to do this, how is it that this Committee should believe you today because the impression which I received is that this entire incident occurred out of a state of drunkenness, because of drinking?

MR PYPER: It is not so. The impression which I created in Court was premeditated because as I have already mentioned that I had no doubt that as my fellow colleagues who were sentenced before me received the death sentence as well as many other rightists who received very heavy sentences, there existed no doubt within my mind that if in Court I had told the Judge that it was politically motivated, that I would definitely have received the death sentence. That is the only reason.

MR STEENKAMP: Do I therefore understand you correctly, that you thought that you could not take the Judge into your confidence and tell him the full truth? Is that what you are saying?

MR PYPER: It’s not that I didn’t trust the Judge but a Judge has his work to do and I knew that the Judge would pass the death sentence. I didn’t have any doubt regarding that.

MR STEENKAMP: Now I want to refer you to your Plea. Indicated or paginated as Page 27 is part of the Plea proceedings of the accused at that stage, Page 27, Exhibit ‘A’. Do you have the document in front of you? Just look at paragraph 2.8;

"A violent shot shook me, it frightened me and I realised the gravity of that which I was doing."

Now I don’t understand because at that morning you had already known, you had planned to do something that day?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR STEENKAMP: Didn’t you ever realise the gravity of that which you were busy with or did you only realise it once you were committing the deed?

MR PYPER: No, I realised the gravity earlier but when the shot was fired, at that moment, this entire rightist opposition, the atmosphere which was created became a reality for me at that point and at that moment I realised that the war is here and from here on it would be a struggle.

MR STEENKAMP: Another question that I want to ask you is, what was your intention when you climbed into the vehicle with the firearm and drove, did you want to cause damage, frighten people, shoot someone?

MR PYPER: Our intention was to sow chaos so that the elections would be disrupted and abandoned.

MR STEENKAMP: And why then did you specifically go out and look for a black person?

MR PYPER: It wasn’t that we were looking specifically for a black person, we were driving on the road, we saw a black mini bus taxi. The idea which came into my mind was that black people used the mini bus taxis in order to reach the voting halls and I thought that if myself and thousands of other rightists committed certain acts, of which I am not sure, that if each and every person made his contribution.

For example, a thousand rightists had attacked a thousand taxis, I could imagine the chaos that it would have caused.

MR STEENKAMP: Was it ever said to you that a black taxi was a possible target for the AWB? Did you ever discuss it, was it ever said to you at a meeting that specifically black taxis were soft targets?

MR PYPER: Taxis as targets were discussed.

MR STEENKAMP: When did that happen?

MR PYPER: At meetings. Not by chief speakers but by groups who gathered before the meetings. These type of things were discussed.

MR STEENKAMP: And in conclusion, another question is whether or not this war which you perceived included whites who were voting for example for the ANC or the NP, was your struggle also against them?

MR PYPER: Our struggle was against communism alone. We believed that the ANC was a communist organisation so therefore if a white person was a member of the ANC, he was our enemy as well.

MR STEENKAMP: So if you had seen a taxi on that day upon which it said, "Vote ANC" and whites were inside, would you have fired at it?

MR PYPER: Yes, I believe so.

MR STEENKAMP: Because the impression that I am receiving here is that it was simply a racist attack, you drank too much, your inhibitions were lowered and you just shot?

MR PYPER: No, that’s not correct.

MR STEENKAMP: Isn’t it so that you just had too much to drink,

just be honest?

MR PYPER: No, it’s not that way. We did use alcohol but I knew what I was doing.

MR STEENKAMP: No further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr De Koning, do you have any re-examination?

MR DE KONING: No re-examination thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr De Koning.

MR DE KONING: Mr Chairman it would appear that my attorney would like to speak to me, will you please permit that and let me reconsider that, if it pleases you?

CHAIRPERSON: Only with pleasure.

MR DE KONING: Thank you. Upon reflection Mr Chairman, there is one aspect.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DE KONING: Mr Pyper, I want to ask you about the place on this specific road where the shooting occurred, there’s very nearby to residential areas, Mohlakendi and the other one Bekkersdal?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR DE KONING: And as I understand it, the road is the chief route between these two places and Westonaria?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR DE KONING: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DE KONING

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions to put to the witness?

MR MOLOI: Just to clarify a few issues, thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pyper, do I understand you to say, already in the morning between 10 and 11 you had decided that you and Mr Wheeler to take some form of action in order to put the electoral process in disarray or something?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR MOLOI: At that time, did you then also decide what form of action to take?

MR PYPER: No.

MR MOLOI: Did you at any stage prior to seeing the Kombi travelling on the road decide what action you would take?

MR PYPER: Please repeat the question?

MR MOLOI: Before you could see the taxi travelling on the road in the evening now, did you make up your minds as to what action you would take?

MR PYPER: Yes, on the road we decided that we would look out for an easy target. We didn’t know specifically what type of target but when we saw the taxi, we decided that that would be the target.

MR MOLOI: Did you specifically decide to shoot a black or blacks?

MR PYPER: As I have mentioned earlier, if it had been a vehicle upon which it said, "We are ANC Supporters" and that there were white people inside, it would have also been the target.

MR MOLOI: So the objective was not solely to shoot black people? Any supporter of the ANC or any communist you would identify would be under fire also?

MR PYPER: If we could identify them then yes.

MRS GCABASHE: But the fact of the matter is that this particular motor vehicle was not identifiable as that either the Communist Party or the ANC?

MR PYPER: That’s correct, I could see that the driver of the vehicle was a black person. We believed that the black people were communist, that they wanted to oppress us and take over our country and that is why we chose that specific target.

MR MOLOI: So you did not just see a silhouette of the driver but you could also identify, he is a black person?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR MOLOI: You testified earlier in your evidence in chief, why did you say all you could see was a silhouette of a person, of the driver, not his identity?

MR PYPER: That’s basically all I saw but I could make out that the person was black.

MR MOLOI: So it was not ...[inaudible] saw a silhouette of a person?

MR PYPER: I saw the silhouette, that’s all I could see and in the background there was a bit of light which indicated a clear silhouette to me in which I could determine that it was a black person.

MR MOLOI: ...[inaudible] to take some form of action, was it taken before or after the news of a bomb explosion in the East Rand?

MR PYPER: Long before the election it was said that on this specific day action would be taken so I wouldn’t say that we made decisions long before the time but on the election day when the first bombs exploded it was clear to us that that was the trigger and we decided then and there that we would contribute to the struggle, that is what set us off.

MR MOLOI: ...[inaudible] properly, what you do say is that this decision was your own, in a group form, not from the authority, it was a personal decision?

MR PYPER: That’s not correct. At the elections it was said that we should be prepared for this time period, that during the electoral period the communists would attempt to take over our country and it was clear to us, there was no doubt that the country would fall into the hands of the communists on that day and on that specific day when the bombs exploded, we decided that now was the time for action.

MR MOLOI: ...[inaudible] must then to what we have heard from Mr Wheeler and Mr De Bruin that they would wait for instructions on the day, to take action. You say you had instruction prior to the date?

MR PYPER: I did not receive instructions before that date to go over into action. What I am saying is that it was brought home to us that on the 27th April, things would be happening and that we should be prepared and that we should also wait for an order to be given, I will agree with that and the fact that Mr De Bruin who I regarded as a leadership figure within the AWB said "it has begun", those were his words.

That to me was the trigger, that the struggle had begun and that we had to go over into action. I perceived it as an order and I carried it out as an order.

MR MOLOI: ...[inaudible] because he said, because he did not receive any instruction on the day, he left and visited his parents and he did not take any form of action to disrupt the elections.

MR PYPER: The manner in which he pronounced it that day was that the struggle had begun so whether or not he received instructions, only he will know, I don’t know. But the fact that he said, "it has begun", to me was an instruction, it was an order that it had begun, that the struggle between the Afrikaner and the communist had begun.

MR MOLOI: ...[inaudible] several meetings you had leading towards the elections, were you ever instructed as to the form of violence you would have to take or to undertake?

MR PYPER: Time and again, at every meeting I cannot tell you of one meeting where violence and violent take over was not discussed. It was said that violence and peace do not go together but violence and war go together.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pyper, the question was were you ever instructed as to the form, the nature of violence, what type of violence you would resort to? You’ve already said that at many meetings they said that there would be violence or that violence would be applied but the question asked is, was it ever discussed at the meetings the actual type of violence, the form that it would take or the nature of the violence that would be used? Was it more specific at all?

MR PYPER: As I have mentioned earlier, we met in groups before the meetings and it was discussed that especially taxi vehicles were soft targets and other types of soft targets were also discussed. It was also discussed that we should carry it out in such a manner that we would not be caught.

MR STEENKAMP: Can you just tell me about these groups to which you have referred, were these informal groups or was there some kind of structure to these groups, for example, that people living in the same area would be part of a certain group?

MR PYPER: No the groups that I am referring to are those that convened before the meetings, for example we would be told, be there at 3 o’clock for the meeting and then some people would arrive earlier, at for example 2 o’clock, people would stand around talking and within these groups of people talking there might sometimes have been leadership figures and within these informal groups discussions were held about what action would be taken and how we wanted the electoral period to take place.

MR MOLOI: I want some clarity here as to whether the decisions you took were the subjective decisions of the particular groups in which you found yourself and not so much the official directive of the AWB?

MR PYPER: I would say it was both. The AWB encouraged us to do this sort of thing but they didn’t mention it specifically upon the platform. I think that they were hesitant to discuss something like that from a platform. Thus before the meetings these issues were discussed in the smaller groupings and also after the meetings. But on the platform itself things were discussed in this line and the impression was cultivated clearly within me that those issues which were discussed in the smaller groups were what was being said on the platform.

MR MOLOI: The fact that no other people acted the way you did on the particular day, you made your deductions based on simply what you understood to be the position which evidently was not the official position of the AWB?

MR PYPER: The inference which I made was that bombs had exploded that day and therefore people had taken action on that day but I cannot confirm this but the inference that I made was that a message might have come through that this sort of thing had to be stopped, that’s the inference that I made but I cannot confirm it.

MR MOLOI: My understanding and correct me if I am wrong is that the AWB had prepared for "vryheid stryd" prior to the election day, is that correct?

MR PYPER: There was talk of that but before the electoral day nothing came of that, it was said that we should take this matter further and it was said that the country was falling out of our hands without a doubt. We saw it, we knew it and that is what happened.

MR MOLOI: If you were a member of the AWB you would know that there was a military wing of the AWB going under the name of "Aquila", which was intended for the vryheid stryd ...[inaudible] is it not so?

MR PYPER: The AWB definitely had a military wing, I confirm that whether they stood for the freedom struggle I’m not certain but I can give you the assurance that the freedom struggle went hand in hand with violence, there can be no doubt about that.

MR MOLOI: Because I understand that in preparation for the vryheid stryd, the military wing was set up, trained, equipped, specifically for the purpose of derailing the elections, am I wrong?

MR PYPER: That’s correct but it was said beforehand that every individual, no mater who he or she was, even women who attended the meetings, every individual, when the time was right would have to make his or her contribution.

MR MOLOI: You are a trained military person, you have undergone military training, you have carried out certain operations, even on the border, you know what instruction is and what instruction is not, is it not so?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR MOLOI: ...[inaudible] there would be any intention of violently disrupting the elections in the pursuit of the vryheid stryd, the AWB would engage it’s military wing and not children and women?

MR DE KONING: Chairperson, if you would just grant me this, yesterday my colleague here next to me, I would almost say made the error when he referred to the cross examination of the former or previous witness by members of the Committee, I would like to say with respect that this which is happening right now is in fact a cross examination because the Honourable member is not clearing up certain unclear matters but he is actually making certain statements and I say with respect that this might not have a good effect on the objectivity of the Committee and I ask that you and the Honourable Chairman please address this issue.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I’ll ask my panel members to just ask questions for clarity purposes. There’s also the fact that this is not a trial, we are not in a Court of Law and therefore we are not strictly bound by the provisions of the procedures that apply in a Court of Law. However, having said that, I’m not sure whether, I am of the view that the questioning by Mr Moloi wasn’t tantamount to cross examination itself but we take what you say and will confine our questions as far as possible to questions of clarity.

MR DE KONING: As it pleases the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: You can continue.

MR MOLOI: Thank you Mr Chairman for allowing me, the issue is, I am having no intentions of cross examining the Applicant. I have a statutory duty to decide on the facts that are disclosed. If I have no information or clarity on certain facts, it will make my task very difficult to exercise that duty. It’s in that spirit I want to satisfy myself consciously and legally that the decision that will be made later on is in accordance with what is required by the Law.

MR DE KONING: Mr Chairman I don’t know whether I am required to respond to that. If I might just explain the basis of my objection for want of a better expression. If my memory serves me correctly, a question was put to the witness whether Aquila was the military wing and if there was a vryheid stryd to be conducted, one would expect that that would have been confined to Aquila.

The member or the witness answered the question and said no that the entire membership or support of the AWB, the way I understand the question or the answer, was called upon to partake in this vryheid stryd and the following question, the one which prompted me to object, if my memory serves me correct, was really to defy that answer and I would submit that what else do we need more clarity on?

Is the Honourable member attempting to convince the witness that his perception of what was going on is incorrect and that the Honourable member knows better? I’m not alive as to what the intention is but I would submit that it creates the impression of cross examination.

I am equally alive to the fact that we are not in a Court of Law but be that as it may, I would suggest that at least the principles of natural justice should be done justice to in as much as one would expect that even the Applicants should perceive that they are being afforded an objective hearing, if it pleases Mr Chairman and cross examination or even moving close to the wind as far as that is concerned might reflect upon that perception of a particular Applicant if it pleases you.

MRS GCABASHE: If I might just make a contribution to this Chair. Cross examination is essentially just a term. I don’t know if Mr De Koning can show us authority for the proposition that this Committee is limited to merely asking questions that will clarify issues that have been raised.

Our understanding of our task is that we should be satisfied and by satisfied, we can take a robust approach in terms of actually asking, just help me understand this and help me understand that and this is exactly what this Committee is attempting to do today. It’s got nothing to do with a term that is called cross examination. Therefore any question that might be a robust question is interpreted as cross examination.

MR DE KONING: Mr Chairman if you would permit me to respond to that in the way I understood the submission of the Honourable member was that I was called upon to do so. Now if you would permit me to do that in my mother tongue, I would prefer so.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR DE KONING: Chairperson, the fact of the matter is, as I have already said in answer to the learned member Mr Moloi’s contribution, the issue as to the involvement of Aquila as being a division of the AWB, that question was answered and as I understand it the follow up question was aimed at conveying another or different perception to the witness.

In other words, no, the members weren’t called up, it was all limited to Aquila and that I submit, with respect, creates the perception and the problem which I have raised as it pleases the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: I have noted all that as said and I just re-iterate that the Committee will ask questions if they feel like it in a robust fashion but essentially to, on questions of clarity and to get a full grasp of the facts that prevail. Certainly from what I’ve heard in this line of questioning the Committee is certainly not in the position to make a finding as to the role of Aquila or with regard to the election day.

We don’t have sufficient evidence on that, save that Mr Pyper has said that he was aware that there was a military wing and it may have been preparing for a vryheid stryd but it’s not going to affect our decision in this matter. Mr Moloi?

MR MOLOI: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pyper, you say you had not decided in the morning as to what action to take, right?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR MOLOI: Mr De Bruin, and this causes me a problem, Mr Wheeler says in Paragraph 22 of his Affidavit,

"Directly afterwards my wife got into my Ford Sierra and drove home. I,"

and that is the part which bothers me,

"myself and Corrie then decided jointly to go and shoot black people to try to disrupt the elections."

...[inaudible] a decision taken, do you understand it the same way I do?

MR PYPER: We decided that we would do something that day, I would agree with that, specifically to go and shoot black people. Well, black people in our eyes, as we were taught were communists. We were taught to fight communism and that was our target. That was our objective.

MR MOLOI: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Gcabashe, do you have questions?

MRS GCABASHE: Thank you Chair. Mr Pyper, I am still a bit confused about the sequence between the decision to take action generally, to take action and the hearing of the news of the bombing. I am not sure which came first, which came first? You heard the news or you drove around first and took that decision?

MR PYPER: The fact that action should be taken had been decided upon long ago by the AWB. As I said, this had been discussed at meetings and so forth. So it was already in our minds that there would be action and when the bombs exploded, that just triggered this whole process. That made us realise that we were going to act.

MRS GCABASHE: I don’t want to misunderstand you on this point. The impression I got of your evidence earlier, before tea was you said that at the time that you drove to the different polling stations, that is when you decided that you would act that night. You hadn’t decided on the specific act but that is when you decided you would act. Now I’m trying to relate that decision to act, to the hearing of the news of the bombing.

After that you then went to De Bruin’s house. I’m just trying to get the first two right in terms of sequence, that’s all.

MR PYPER: As I said, it was before the election that we discussed and decided that we would act. That morning at the polling booths, that just confirmed for us that we would act. The explosions were the trigger for action.

MR STEENKAMP: Maybe on that point, where were you exactly? As far as you can recall when you heard about the bomb explosions?

MR PYPER: We were in the vehicle, the news came on the car radio.

MRS GCABASHE: You then went to Mr De Bruin’s house and he mentioned this, "it has begun", now did you ask him, what should we do, "dit het nou begin, wat moet ons nou doen?". Did you ask that?

MR PYPER: We went to him and we discussed the bombs that had gone off. He said that the Afrikaner’s struggle had begun and I interpreted those words, "it has begun" as an instruction that or an order that the right wing struggle had ensued and we left.

MRS GCABASHE: So you in fact didn’t discuss specifically what you should then do, either individually or in teams?

MR PYPER: No. As I said, it was only that evening that we decided what we would do.

MRS GCABASHE: In fact the whole concept of working in teams is not something that you had really discussed in relation to the action you would take, not at any time?

MR PYPER: Please repeat the question?

MRS GCABASHE: Maybe I should put it to you, I’ll put it slightly differently. You used to go to meetings that were called, structured meetings that were called. Now in terms of the action you were supposed to take, was it decided at any of those meetings that team (a), comprising of these people, will act together.

Team (b), you know as you would in the army, you have teams who do different things at different times. Did you ever discuss that type of structure?

MR PYPER: No. What was said regarding the election time was that each individual would do his little bit. It wasn’t necessarily that we would work together in teams.

MRS GCABASHE: So the action you were going to take was left to you, the individual and your individual decision was to go out and shoot black people on that day?

MR PYPER: As I said, it had been said that the elections should be disrupted. It wasn’t said you go and do that and you go and do the other. It was just said that the elections should be disrupted and the AWB had thousands of members so it wasn’t specifically told to each person what his task was.

The instruction was just that the elections should be disrupted. That was the instruction.

MRS GCABASHE: Now a question that was put to Mr Wheeler if I’m not wrong yesterday was, why did you wait until very late in the day to go and disrupt these elections and cause chaos?

MR PYPER: The election was to continue the next day and an election which doesn’t proceed correctly right until the end is an invalid election. Most of the people used taxis to go to the polling booths. We specifically went out in the evening because we didn’t want to be identified, we didn’t want to be caught and we knew that the next day more people would vote and an election has to be in order all the way through otherwise it’s invalid and we believed that thousands of other AWB members would act with us.

MRS GCABASHE: I again don’t quite understand your difficulty with being caught, with going out in broad daylight when most people were voting, that is fairly early in the day, making your statement as AWB members, whether you would be caught or not. I don’t understand why you would not do that. You’re acting on a principle here. Why fear being caught?

MR PYPER: Any person who conducts an operation within the borders of the country, that is not a similar situation to war on the border like South African Forces fighting against the Cubans openly. It was an internal war and if we had been caught we would have gone to prison. That’s why we wanted to avoid being caught.

MRS GCABASHE: But your impression at the time you went out to act was the trigger had been the bomb in the morning. Quite a lot of you would be doing different acts and you would then have this chaos, state of emergency and essentially you would be acting with impunity. You wouldn’t be prosecuted because you would succeed.

MR PYPER: We believed we would succeed, yes, without doubt but the fact that we would not be punished, we weren’t sure of that. There was a possibility that we would be punished.

MRS GCABASHE: You see the same reasoning again, come through with the idea of the death penalty and the six right wingers who you say had been given the death penalty at the time you were awaiting trial, you said that remember? There were six right wingers?

MR PYPER: What exactly do you mean?

MRS GCABASHE: You mentioned in your evidence that there were six right wingers who were given the death penalty while you were awaiting trial and you did not want to have the same thing happen to you, you did say that?

MR PYPER: Yes.

MRS GCABASHE: Now again, the principle, as I would interpret it for those right wingers would have been, who have done something for a cause, whether we get the death penalty or not, we are doing something for the cause. I don’t understand why you as AWB members would not have the same attitude?

MR PYPER: If they had known that they would get the death penalty, they would also have acted differently or tried to fight that. But I speak under correction but there were indications found on the scene that they were AWB supporters, I think uniforms were involved and weapons and insignia and so forth were found, so they actually couldn’t hide that fact, it was impossible for them to hide that fact.

MRS GCABASHE: There’s just a final question, you were in the army, did you ever partake in heavy drinking, even light drinking before going out on an operation, as you did on this day, on the 27th April 1994?

MR PYPER: On the border we did have a canteen and we could get beer there. I wouldn’t say that we drank heavily but we did use alcohol, beer. And even during operations in Angola there was a time when we stayed at Mupa in Angola for two months and they dropped meat and beer by helicopter for us, it was limited to about two to three beers per person, so it happened, yes.

MRS GCABASHE: However you would not have gone out on a mission, had you been as unsober, I’ll just use that word, as you were on the 27th April. You would not have gone out on a mission, had you been in the SADF?

MR PYPER: I wasn’t that unsober, I knew exactly what I was doing that evening. I knew what I was doing.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman, do you have questions?

MS BOSMAN: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Pyper, I have difficulty regarding the uncertainty amongst AWB members as to exactly what was expected of them. What was the purpose of these AWB meetings, was there an agenda at the meetings? What exactly was your perception, what was the purpose of the meetings?

MR PYPER: You see AWB meetings had been held over a long period of time and as far back as I can remember, since I joined in 1989 the message that was conveyed was always that a communist force should never be allowed to take over the country and the closer it came to the elections in ‘94, the stronger that message came through and it was instilled in us more and more that this election should not be allowed to take place and the communists should not be allowed to take power.

It was discussed that each and every person should have to act and that people on the day of the elections would go out and disrupt the elections.

MS BOSMAN: I want you to limit yourself to the formal gatherings and meetings. Did you go to these meetings knowing that you were going to listen to propaganda or did you go there thinking that these people would tell us what to do from the stage, by the speakers?

MR PYPER: It was mixed. It wasn’t always exactly said what was supposed to happen. From the podium a lot of illegal things were said and wrong things were said, if I think back today. The speakers could possibly have landed up in prison if the wrong people had heard what they said. And the impression which I got was, go out and make war. That was clearly the message.

MS BOSMAN: In other words it was just propaganda? I don’t want to put words into your mouth but it was chiefly propaganda, that is how you perceived it from what was said on the podium?

MR PYPER: What do you mean propaganda?

MS BOSMAN: You see there’s a difference between making propaganda for a cause and to say to people specifically, look, this is our strategy and this and that is expected of specific people.

MR PYPER: No, it was specifically said, it is expected of you, as an Afrikaner to do this. You, as an Afrikaner, you’re obliged to protect your country. You may not allow the communists to take over.

MS BOSMAN: Why were the speakers so careful in their speeches from the podium?

MR PYPER: As I said, there were times when they propagated wrong things and illegal things which could have landed them in trouble. But generally speaking they were cautious, what could perhaps have reached the wrong ears.

MS BOSMAN: Was there any restriction of access to these meetings?

MR PYPER: It was mostly white people. If you were white then, in any case most of the people at the meetings knew each other and the meetings took place in different areas such as, for instance, if they had an election in Westonaria then most of the people would have known each other in the Westonaria area.

And if a person arrived at the meeting who was unknown they would ask him a couple of questions and they would have looked him over and perhaps have asked other people, look, do you know this person and maybe in such a way the person would have been identified. Anybody who appeared to be suspicious in any way was questioned.

MR BOSMAN: In other words there were security guards or there was access control, in other words, there were people checking out who arrived at the meetings and so on?

MR PYPER: No, not always. There were definitely security guards when Mr Terre’blanche was to be the speaker. When he lead the meeting there was definitely security guards. But on other occasions, there weren’t any security guards.

MS BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pyper after you heard about the bomb on the radio that morning, did you again that day listen to the radio until, before you and Mr Wheeler went away in the vehicle?

MR PYPER: I can’t recall, I’m sorry, it’s possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you hear of any other incidents, other than that bomb at the airport?

MR PYPER: Yes, I think, I’m not sure but I think there was a bomb in Germiston, an explosion in Germiston. I can’t recall exactly when and where and I can’t recall whether I heard it on the radio, it was on the radio or I heard it from somebody, I’m not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you, as a member of the AWB ever acquire for yourself a uniform, the AWB uniform, khakis with the badges?

MR PYPER: No. Gert De Bruin used to tell us on the mine, there were quite a few AWB members and we talked amongst each other and none of us had a uniform. Gert De Bruin told us, well he said yesterday, it created an image of a dumb person, wearing of uniforms, but if you leave your home with an AWB uniform and the wrong people see that and you go back to your house wearing your AWB uniform then the chances are good that your wife and children could be murdered by certain people.

So Gert De Bruin encouraged us to work undercover.

CHAIRPERSON: You said that you just assumed that Mr De Bruin held a position of some sort of leadership or was somewhere up there in the hierarchy of the party?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever ask him what his rank was? Because we heard yesterday there’s various ranks, almost like a military style in the AWB?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever ask him?

MR PYPER: I didn’t ask him. There was some chat amongst the AWB people and some of my AWB friends knew him as a commandant. Some of the other people told me that he was a commandant as well. That is the impression which I got. For instance in the army, if I know a person is a lieutenant, everybody says he’s a lieutenant and I’m not going to go up to him and ask him, are you a lieutenant. I will just accept that he is a lieutenant.

CHAIRPERSON: You said in your evidence that after the events you became disillusioned with the AWB and I think you used the words, you swore them off.

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you actually formally resign from the AWB? Did you give them a written notice or some form of communication saying, I am now resigning my membership?

MR PYPER: I did that in prison. I renounced my membership in writing.

CHAIRPERSON: In writing to the AWB? You addressed it to the AWB?

MR PYPER: That is correct yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We heard yesterday in evidence from Mr Wheeler that before you and Mr Wheeler left in the red Sierra, you wife was very much opposed to you leaving and Mr Wheeler said that, in fact he was even aware that she may well phone the police, she was that committed to stopping you from going. Were you aware of the attitude of your wife, as Mr Wheeler?

MR PYPER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why then did you ignore her pleas and go? Sorry, and if I could just ask before you answer that question, were you also under the impression that she might phone the police?

MR PYPER: I didn’t think she would phone the police. I didn’t think that she would get her husband into trouble by phoning the police. I know she wanted to do it but I thought she was just bluffing, that she wouldn’t.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you ignore her obviously strong pleas for you not to go?

MR PYPER: As I said, I didn’t believe that she would do it. I was almost 100% sure that she wouldn’t.

CHAIRPERSON: I’ve heard you say that but you’ve also said that she was pleading with you not to go?

MR PYPER: That’s correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why did you not listen to her?

MR PYPER: Well my wife had not yet woken up to the reality of what would happen if white Afrikaners were to yield to a communist regime. It was clear to me that she hadn’t yet seen the true picture. She didn’t realise that if the communists took over that she would be killed and our child would be killed, that we would all be killed. She didn’t understand the reality of the situation, and that’s why I didn’t listen to her.

CHAIRPERSON: You said in your evidence that you bought 12 x 750ml of beer, that you could’ve bought two bottles of brandy and that there may have been a bottle of whiskey there. How much of that liquor was do you know consumed?

MR PYPER: There were four of us. Four men and some of the beer was consumed, some of it was left over. We didn’t drink all of it. We drank some of the brandy. I don’t drink a lot of brandy, I dilute it quite a lot. I only drink singles. I don’t touch whiskey at all, so I can’t tell you exactly how much I drank or how much each individual drank. That I can’t tell you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pyper, you said that after you had been to Mr De Bruin that morning and he said words to the effect that, it has begun, that was the trigger? Why then did you go and have a braai with visitors, friends popping in if now war had, in your mind begun?

MR PYPER: Could you please repeat the question?

CHAIRPERSON: The question is, you said that in your mind, the trigger was, that put you into action was the words of Mr De Bruin, saying, "dit het begin", after you had been discussing about this bomb that you heard on the radio. And you were then of the mind that the war had begun. The war in the sense that it was now your duty and your colleague members of the AWB duty to now embark on an operation that would result in chaos and the ultimate disruption of the elections.

Yet almost immediately after that you go and have a braai that some parts of the Record and certainly in the trial of this matter seems to have lasted from 12 o’clock until sundown, the whole afternoon. Can you explain why you should commence your operation with a braai and not with some serious planning and gathering of armoury and whatever else that may be involved in the operation?

MR PYPER: At the braai we did discuss the possibilities for action. We didn’t want to launch the operation immediately after hearing the words "it has begun" because it was still day and we wanted to wait for cover of darkness, so we discussed possibilities as to what we could do during that afternoon and that is the reason.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr De Koning, do you have any questions arising out of questions that have been put by the panel?

MR DE KONING: Mr Chairman would you just permit me to converse with my instructing Attorney?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Thank you Mr Chairman, no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions?

MR PRINSLOO: No questions thank you.

MR BOTHA: Yes, I do Mr Chairman.

FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: Mr Pyper, you have said to the Honourable Chairperson that not all the beer was consumed?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: And according to the Supreme Court’s findings there were three beers which were left over?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: Can you tell the Committee what happened to these three beers?

MR PYPER: My wife broke the bottles of beer.

MR BOTHA: Without there being any testimony regarding her reason for this, would you agree with me that the inference is that she regarded this alcohol as the cause of this entire problem and that is why she smashed the bottles?

MR PYPER: No that’s not correct.

MR BOTHA: Can you tell me why she smashed the beer bottles?

MR PYPER: We were angry with each other because I didn’t want to listen to her the previous evening. I went into the kitchen if I remember correctly, opened the fridge and poured a cool drink for myself. We began quarrelling again because I wouldn’t listen to her the previous evening. She lost her temper and she smashed the bottles of beer.

MR BOTHA: If she lost her temper with you why would she smash the bottles?

MR PYPER: Ask her?

MR DE KONING: I object that the learned Advocate said out loud "ask her" and that the Applicant said, "ask her."

MR BOTHA: I’m sorry I did not mean for the Applicant to take this up as his answer. I will leave it at that then. Mr Pyper, let’s go back. Can you recall the psychologist Mr Burke who said that you had a psychological dependency of alcohol?

MR PYPER: I can remember that he said that.

MR BOTHA: Very well. Then apart from the beer, when you departed on this tragic mission, was there any other alcohol left over?

MR PYPER: I don’t know what happened to the whiskey because as I have said I don’t drink whiskey.

MR BOTHA: And the brandy?

MR PYPER: I think that there was some left over brandy which we took along with us.

MR BOTHA: And when you say that you took brandy along, how did you take it along?

MR PYPER: It was in a bottle, in a 2 litre bottle.

CHAIRPERSON: Brandy in a 2 litre bottle?

MR PYPER: 2 Litre with Coke.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh sorry, with coke, yes.

MR BOTHA: So you embarked on this mission, armed with a shotgun which you couldn’t cock, Mr Wheeler’s grandfather’s .22 and this bottle of alcohol and you were going to make war in this fashion?

MR PYPER: You could put it that way.

MR BOTHA: After you departed, just now you responded to a question of one of the Committee members that you had then at Mr De Bruin’s home, the previous day and that he had made certain admissions to you directly after you had heard the rumour about the bomb explosion, directly after that?

MR PYPER: Yes, that’s correct.

MR BOTHA: That later that evening you were at his home again?

MR PYPER: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: According to your bail application you remained in the vehicle?

MR PYPER: That’s correct.

MR BOTHA: Why didn’t you climb out, go to the commandant, who had personally given you the instruction?

MR PYPER: We would have taken that commandant along with us personally, he would have given the instructions regarding the war situation, however he was not at home.

MR BOTHA: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA

MR STEENKAMP: No questions thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Pyper.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR DE KONING: That is the case for the Second Applicant Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr De Koning. Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, the Papiyana family instructed me to read into the Record the Affidavits of Mr Z N Papiyana, G Z Papiyana and Mr G M Papiyana. And I beg leave to proceed to read it into the Record.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Is there any objection from anybody?

MR PRINSLOO: I just want to place on Record at this stage Mr Chairman that there’s no objection in principle to it being read in but of course then on the basis that it will only be taken as what it is, simply an Affidavit handed in, untested and it can be argued on that basis later.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: On that principle there’s no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: We know that it will be untested and I’m sure it can only be dealt with on that basis. I might also indicate that these Affidavits were made available to the Committee at the commencement of the proceedings, before the commencement, I think we received them on Monday or Tuesday, I’m not sure, I can’t remember.

MR DE KONING: On the part of the Second Applicant no objections, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Botha, you may proceed.

MR BOTHA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Affidavit by N Z Papiyana, the father of the victims.

I Nelson Zenam Papiyana hereby make oath and state as follows

1. I am a 62 year old man working as senior administrative officer at the Leeudoring Gold Mine, a division of the Kloof Goldmining Company Limited, Westonaria.

2. I am the father of the late Buyani Papiyana and his brother Madota Papiyana, the victims in question.

3. My wife and mother of the victims is Glenrose Zoleta Papiyana, a housewife who also handles the administration of our small taxi business. The content of this statement falls within my personal knowledge, unless expressly stated otherwise or where the contrary appears from the contents and are both true and correct.

4. Introduction:

Right from the outset I would like to stress that neither my wife nor I seek publicity in this matter. We are private people, our feelings are private and belong to ourselves, especially the feelings that run as deep as the feelings dealing with the death of our son.

When Mr Wentzel Botha contacted me about this Application for Amnesty, my initial response was that I want nothing to do with this Hearing. The Law had to take it’s course, without interfering therewith. After consultation I realised that the Law cannot take it’s course if the Honourable Committee hears only one side of the story.

As citizens of this country we have a duty to assist this Committee in the pursuit of National unity, peace and reconciliation. It is my wish that my point of view, as well as a few unanswered questions cited in this Affidavit be read out to the Honourable Committee.

Although my wife as a different opinion of what should happen, which I respect, I endeavour that my opinion should be made public and considered.

5. Background of the victims:

The deceased Vuyani Kenneth Papiyana was at the time of the incident, a 26 year old student at the Teacher’s College, Benzenwou College of Education in Sterkspruit. We were very proud of Vuyani. He set a fine example for the other children. He did very well at school and we had no doubt that he would one day become an excellent teacher.

On this particular day, he was home for the short holiday following the closure of universities and technikons during the period of election. Godfrey Madota Papiyana was a 21 year old student at the Eastern Cape Technikon. He completed a diploma in personnel management.

Presently he is a second year Bcomm student at the University of Natal. He was not seriously injured in this incident. His specific request to me was that he does not want to interrupt his studies to form part of a process which may enable his brother’s two victims to go scott free.

He also stated that he does not want to re-live the incident again, as he had to do the day of the Supreme Court hearing. He said that justice took it’s course. His wounds have healed properly and should not be ripped open again. Neither Vuyani nor Madota were politically active people.

They were serious about their studies. The only political act they did was to make their cross on 27 April 1994.

6. The Papiyana families’ whereabouts on the day in question.

On the day in question I was working at the mine and I had to help as administrative official at the voting poll at the Leeudoring Goldmine. We had to control the queues created by the seven thousand voting hostel residents.

I started at 6.30 that morning and remember seeing Vuyani and Madota there about 2 o’clock. They had come to vote but due to the fact that the queues were too long decided to go to another polling station where they might be helped more quickly. The polling stations closed at 20.30 but I had to work later in order to clean up the polling station.

After 21h00 that night I was called to the telephone. It was the police. I think they were from the Randfontein Police Station who notified me of my son’s death. I was also told that Madota had been injured and that he was in a state of shock. I immediately went to my house where I informed my wife. We were devastated.

My wife told me that Madota voted in Protea North and that Vuyani voted apparently at the polling station in Bekkersdal. At about 8 o’clock that evening they requested her permission to have the vehicle because they wanted to visit their friends in Mohlekeng near Randfontein. They were very excited and happy, like most people in South Africa.

The day that we had been looking forward to for decades, the day that symbolised freedom for all of us, had finally arrived. 27 April was the birth of a new democracy of our beloved country, but to me it also meant the death of my beloved son. I was a father without a child. The murderers’ children have no father. Both my life as well as the life of the murderers have changed so unnecessarily.

The murderers have the advantage of a team of highly qualified State paid psychiatrists to help them cope with their situation. My wife had none. My surviving son had none. We only have an empty bed in the house and the other bed was haunted with nightmares of things that truly happened on that gruesome day.

Both families were prisoners within themselves while the rest of the country was freed.

7. The shooting itself.

I have no personal knowledge of what exactly happened on that night in question. The facts were fully dealt with by Judge Mynhardt in his Judgment and Madota’s evidence.

8. Bail Application.

On 16 May 1994 I was in Court when the accused applied for bail. One of the security officials working at the Westonaria’s Goldmining Company, Mr Herman ...[inaudible], who was involved with the arrest of the accused said that he, that the investigations of colleagues of both Mr Wheeler and Pyper indicated that the accused were both AWB orientated.

Apparently they saw the vehicle of Mr Pyper in front of a well known AWB officer’s house. The legal advisers of both the accused denied that they were members of the AWB or that they had connections with the AWB. It has however now been brought to my attention that in their Applications for Amnesty they state under oath that they were active supporters of the AWB.

This is not in line with the evidence lead in the Supreme Court. I do not know whether the deeds of the two Applicants before this Honourable Committee were politically motivated or not. I also cannot say why the legal representatives stated explicitly that they had no links whatsoever with the AWB. Nor can I say why they have now changed their version of the truth.

Is it not so that they were drinking brandy and coke and when they were intoxicated, decided and I apologies for the wording here, but that is what came out of the Supreme Court hearing, "om kaffirs te gaan skiet". Apparently just for the fun of it. Why involve their families who were not interested in their political talks, in a secret politically motivated assassination.

The Prosecutor also indicated to the Court that Mr Wheeler is not paying maintenance for his children and that he is trying to avoid his legal obligations towards his children. Maybe he has good reasons of his own but at the time of making this statement I do not know how a man can care about anything if he does not even care for or attend to his own children.

9. Meeting with Mr C R Pyper and his wife.

During or about September 1994 I received a letter from Mr Botha, my legal representative, stating that Mr Pyper’s legal representative contacted him and confirmed that Mr Pyper is willing to pay the funeral cost to the amount of R5 200.00. They also indicated that Mr Pyper wished to see me face to face as he wanted to apologise to the family for his conduct and to explain his situation.

When I spoke with Mr Botha he told me that it was possible that Mr Pyper was merely trying to do everything he could in order to get a lighter sentence, without really feeling sorry for what he had done. On the other hand the request might be sincere. They might truly be sorry for what they had done. The choice however whether I wanted to see him or not was mine.

I spoke to my wife and she said that she would not be able to face the murderer of her son. I decided that I wanted to see the man and I would listen to what he had to say and then form an opinion about the situation. I instructed Mr Botha to contact Mr Pyper’s attorney and agreed to make myself available upon the date and time suitable to all the relevant parties.

On 3 October 1994 I met with Mr Pyper and his wife in Mr Botha’s office. When Mr Pyper and his wife entered the office I immediately knew that it was the best thing I could ever have done. To see the man who murdered my son, face to face. This meeting helped me to overcome some of the emotional problems. I will never forget the faces of Mr Pyper and his wife.

I could see that Mr Pyper tried his best to keep his emotions under control. He requested his attorney to let them see me alone and that he did not want the lawyers to be present. We went into an empty office and Mr Pyper closed the door behind him. Mrs Pyper sobbed so much that she could not speak properly.

I knew this man was indeed sorry for what he had done and when I offered my hand, he could not grab it quickly enough, with both his hands. Tears were running freely from his face. Before this meeting I thought I would never have the ability to forgive my son’s murderers for what they did.

In my wildest dreams I never thought that this meeting would end with a situation where I was the one comforting my son’s murderer and his wife. I still wonder a lot what happened to his wife and children. Mr Pyper told me what happened that night and he said that he still did not understand why and how he could ever have done such a foolish thing.

I told him that almighty God brought this over us and that it was his Will. He told me that this event brought him nearer to his Saviour. I could see that he was worried about his wife and children but he said that he must be punished for what he did and that he will accept his punishment. He is not afraid. God will look after him and his family.

I could see that he was a converted Christian. When I later learnt in the evidence given by Dr Burke that he was an introvert, a person who does not show his emotions easily, I realised that it must have been very difficult for him and that the remorse was so intense that he could not hide it.

Mrs Pyper also verbalised that she was sorry. At that time I did not know what her role was in the incident. Now I realise that I must be the one thanking Mrs Pyper for her attempts to stop the foolish behaviour. She was the one trying to talk some sense into them. She threatened to phone the Police but Wheeler pulled out the telephone.

She took the car keys and tried to hide it and eventually she managed to phone the Police. She had no reason to feel sorry. It was God’s Will that those attempts were not to succeed. Nothing she could have done would have prevented this tragedy. Nobody would have known the identity of my son’s attackers if it had not been for her attempts to stop them.

Mr Pyper offered me a cheque in the amount of R5 200.00 in respect of the funeral costs incurred. I refused to accept it but he insisted and I could see that it would ease his pain a bit should I accept it. I could see that after I had talked to Mr Pyper and his wife and accepted the cheque that he felt a lot better.

He said more than once that it was a very foolish thing he had done and that he was sorry. Initially I wanted to be compensated for all my losses but I have decided against civil action because both Wheeler and Pyper were in jail without any income and I did not want to take anything away from their children.

No amount of money or this Honourable Committee can bring back my son.

10. Sentence.

I was present throughout the proceedings in the Supreme Court. With all due respect to the decision of the Court, I sometimes wondered whether Pyper should not have received a lighter sentence than Wheeler because it seemed as if he was merely following orders from Wheeler.

Wheeler provided the car, the gun, the cartridges and provided the hideaway with his brother in Randfontein. He loaded and cocked the gun. Pyper showed true remorse but from Wheeler I received only a glare at the Supreme Court. He never offered any excuse.

In conclusion, my wife still refuses to see Wheeler and Pyper and for understandable reasons she is still so emotionally upset that she does not want to attend the Hearing of this Honourable Committee. We are not formally opposing or supporting the Applications for Amnesty but we trust that our input can be used by the Honourable Committee when they make this very difficult decision.

The document was signed by Mr Papiyana on the 19th day of March 1989. Then the operative part of Mrs Papiyana’s Affidavit:

I, the undersigned, Glenrose Zoleka Papiyana, hereby make oath and state as follows

1. I am the mother of the late Vuyani Kenneth Papiyana and Godfrey Papiyana, the victims.

2. I confirm that I have read the Affidavit of my husband, Nelson Zenham Papiyana and confirm the contents thereof insofar as it bears relevance to me and confirm it to be both true and correct.

Signed by her on the 19th day of March 1989, in front of a Commissioner of Oaths. Then Mr Chairman the Affidavit of Mr Godfrey Madota Papiyana. Unfortunately the originally signed document is still with Mr Papiyana, presently in Durban. I have asked my learned colleagues whether they have any objections to the fact that we do not have the original with us at present and they indicated that they had no objections. I therefore would like to proceed to read also Mr Godfrey Madota Papiyana’s Opposing Affidavit into the Record.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you and then Mr Botha when the original does come to hand, could that be made available to the Committee for Record purposes?

MR BOTHA: Most definitely Mr Chairman. I have only a faxed copy of the original in my possession but I will see to it that the original comes to light. Can I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes certainly.

MR BOTHA: Thank you Mr Chairman.

I Godfrey Madota Papiyana, hereby make oath and state as follows

1. I am the brother of the late Vuyani Kenneth Papiyana and the son of Mr Nelson and his wife Glenrose Papiyana.

2. I confirm that I have read the Affidavit of my father Nelson Zenham Papiyana and confirm the contents thereof insofar as it bears relevance to me and confirm it to be both true and correct.

3. I confirm that my instructions to Mr Wentzel Botha, my attorney are to oppose the Application for Amnesty by both Mr Pyper and Wheeler.

4. I was present at the Supreme Court Hearing and the evidence of both Mrs Pyper and Wheeler as well as their witnesses was that they were not politically active and that they were not affiliated with the AWB. They also denied that the murder of my brother was politically motivated.

5. I am therefore of the opinion that Amnesty should not be granted.

The original was signed in Durban, it appears as if the Commissioner of Oaths did not fill in the time and the date. I assume that it will be on the 24th March 1989 and it was signed in front of Advocate Michael Carson Jocelyn Ormsdal of University of Natal.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Could we have a copy of that photostat, at this stage I think.

MR BOTHA: Most definitely.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Botha.

MR BOTHA: I have nothing further to add.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Gentlemen we have reached the stage where there will be no further evidence I assume Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: No further evidence to be lead from my side sir.

CHAIRPERSON: It’s a question of now making submissions. Have you discussed it amongst yourselves which way you want to go about this, when?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Mr Chairman, my learned friend and I have had discussions. What we want to suggest at this stage is, if that suits you, if that is in order with the Committee, to perhaps, well first of all we would like to ask you to make written submissions but secondly because of the fact that we don’t, if you go along with that, if you permit that to be the procedure, that is of course a situation then where we will not have the benefit necessarily,

CHAIRPERSON: Of reinforcing your or replying to.

MR PRINSLOO: Correct Mr Chairman. If there are any specific aspects which any member of the Committee feels that we should give particular attention to we would appreciate it if, as I say, if you agree that we should follow that procedure of written submissions, if you could possibly draw our attention to it, otherwise we will of course deal with all the aspects possibly that are relevant to this particular case.

But our submission, and I just want to ask my learned friend to confirm whether I convey it correctly, but our submission to you is then that we should be allowed to make written submissions and then also the further request to you as a Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: To get some sort of indication of,

MR DE KONING: Mr Chairman, likewise we go along with the proposed manner of debating the matter. However, I am firmly of the view that we would not like to miss the opportunity to really debate.

CHAIRPERSON: Have an oral session.

MR DE KONING: Exchange of views on this, because ultimately I would submit that we have to convince you in a certain way of whether a case has been made out. If we forego the opportunity of debating the particular difficulties that the Committee has in it’s own mind, then I think we will, in a sense, do an injustice to the Applicants in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: I go with it as Mr De Koning said.

CHAIRPERSON: I see it’s now 1 o’clock, I think if we could just discuss the matter amongst ourselves perhaps if we could have lunch, I don’t want to detain you for a further hour but if the legal representatives could, during the course of the next hour come and meet with the panel in the Committee room and then we can finally discuss this and then we will re-convene here at 2 o’clock and let it be known to the Applicants and their family and the members of public present, what procedure will be followed and if necessary specific dates etc.

MR DE KONING: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: At this stage we will now adjourn for the lunch adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR STEENKAMP: In front of you is a copy which I made available of the statement of Mr Madota Papiyana. That’s the copy of the fax of Mr Botha.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we will receive this, seeing that it’s not part of the bundle of papers which was presented to the Committee, we’ll mark it as Exhibit ‘C’.

MR BOTHA: As you please Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo there was just one matter that is still outstanding and that was the question of your Application to Amend the Application Form of Mr Wheeler, your client.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman I have discussed this matter with my learned friend Mr Botha for the family of the deceased and we have come to an arrangement, an agreement between us that Mr Botha will not oppose the Application as such any further but the arrangement is that he reserves the right to argue any implications of the amendment or things that can be argued around the effect of the Application as such and I would, in the light of that, ask the Committee to then have the amendment effected to paragraph 11(a) of the Application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is once again, just refresh me, to change, to delete the word "no"?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman. The word should then read "yes, on behalf of the AWB and the CP".

CHAIRPERSON: And the CP?

MR PRINSLOO: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Prinsloo, do you confirm that Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: I confirm Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Then the amendment is accordingly effected, namely that is in paragraph 11(a) of the Application of the First Applicant, immediately after the question contained under that number by the deletion of the word "nee" and the substitution therefore of the following words, "yes, on behalf of the AWB and the CP."

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I confirm that during the lunch interval a meeting was held between the legal representatives and the panel members regarding the future of this, conduct of this Application. It’s always difficult when so many people are involved to agree on a date or get a date that’s going to be convenient to all the people concerned.

The earliest convenient date that was agreed upon between all the persons concerned was that the matter will be postponed to Friday the 29th May 1998, at 9 o’clock in the morning for oral argument to be presented by the legal representatives in support of their written argument which will be submitted on or before the 30th April 1998. I would, we expect, we hope that the venue for the oral argument will be the same venue as this. However, I cannot and am not in a position at this stage to say that it will indeed be so because we have to make arrangements with the owners of this hall and we don’t know whether or not there’s any other event already booked in this hall for that day.

However, it will go on that day, most likely in this venue. If this venue cannot be obtained, then another venue, a suitable venue within this region, not too far from here will definitely be arranged.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman I’m terribly sorry to interrupt. I can confirm this venue is available and it will be used sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Good. Well then, thank you Mr Steenkamp. It will be at this venue at 9 o’clock on the 29th May 1998 and I would direct please the Department of Correctional Services to ensure that both the Applicants are brought to this venue by not later than half past 8 in the morning. Would half past 8, Mr De Koning, Mr Prinsloo be suitable?

MR DE KONING: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: By not later than half past 8 in the morning of the 29th May. Are any members of the Correctional Services present here? Did you understand that, please, if you will ensure that that is done. That both of the Applicants are here no later than half past 8 on the 29th May 1998.

That brings our matters for which we are here this week to an end and before adjourning, I would just like to thank all those persons who have made this Hearing possible for what they have done, I would like to first of all thank Idasa for making this hall available to us. It was a very convenient venue. I would like to thank the interpreters for interpreting so nicely and so well during the course of the week. I know it’s a very difficult task and sometimes we speak too quickly for them but they did very well. I’m sure, although I didn’t hear them that the Xhosa interpreters also performed very well and thank you very much indeed for your services.

I would like to thank the people all concerned who set up the sound system. It worked very well, particularly when you pushed your finger hard on the button, you could hear it with a vengeance, it was very nice thank you. I would also like to thank the caterers who actually spoilt us with home made muffins and scones and home cooked meals every day, it was very nice indeed.

And I would also like to thank the persons who were responsible for the security outside. In fact indeed everybody for what they have done this week. The media that have been present, thank you very much.

We will then adjourn until the 29th May. I would also like to thank certainly not least but lastly, legal representatives for the most professional and efficient way in which they have conducted their cases before this Committee. Thank you very much indeed and for the evidence leader for doing all the organisation, thank you Mr Steenkamp.

We will then take the adjournment at this stage.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS