 |
News | Sport | TV | Radio | Education | TV Licenses | Contact Us |
|
News | Sport | TV | Radio | Education | TV Licenses | Contact Us |
Human Rights Violation HearingsType QUESTIONS, SUBMISSIONS AND ANSWERS, LOUIS FERDINAND COETZEE Starting Date 18 February 1997 Location GUGULETU 7 Day 2 Back To Top Click on the links below to view results for: +potgieter +psj Line 2Line 3Line 7Line 12Line 423Line 804Line 805Line 811Line 813Line 817Line 821Line 825Line 829Line 833Line 837Line 841Line 845Line 849Line 853Line 857Line 861Line 865Line 869Line 873Line 877Line 881Line 885Line 889Line 893Line 901Line 902Line 907Line 911Line 915Line 919Line 923Line 927Line 931Line 935Line 939Line 943Line 947Line 951Line 955Line 959Line 963Line 967Line 971Line 973Line 977Line 981Line 985Line 989Line 993Line 997Line 1001Line 1005Line 1009Line 1013Line 1017Line 1021Line 1025Line 1029Line 1033Line 1037Line 1041Line 1045Line 1049Line 1053Line 1057Line 1061Line 1065Line 1069Line 1073Line 1077Line 1081Line 1085Line 1089Line 1093Line 1097Line 1101Line 1105Line 1109Line 1113Line 1117Line 1121Line 1125Line 1129Line 1133Line 1137Line 1141Line 1145Line 1149Line 1153Line 1157Line 1161Line 1165Line 1169Line 1173Line 1177Line 1181Line 1185Line 1190Line 1194Line 1198Line 1202Line 1206Line 1210Line 1214Line 1218Line 1222Line 1226Line 1230Line 1234Line 1238Line 1242Line 1246Line 1250Line 1254Line 1258Line 1262Line 1266Line 1270Line 1274Line 1278Line 1282Line 1286Line 1290Line 1294Line 1298Line 1302Line 1306Line 1310Line 1312Line 1316Line 1320Line 1324Line 1328Line 1332Line 1336Line 1340Line 1344Line 1348Line 1352Line 1356Line 1360Line 1364Line 1368Line 1372Line 1376Line 1380Line 1384Line 1388Line 1392Line 1396Line 1400Line 1404Line 1408Line 1412Line 1416Line 1420Line 1424Line 1428Line 1432 The next evidence we will be calling is that of Detective Inspector Louis Ferdinand Coetzee. Inspector Coetzee welcome to this proceedings and before you testify I will again ask advocate Potgieter to swear you in. Baie welkom, kan u, u volle name vir die rekord gee asseblief. Louis Ferdinand Coetzee Edelagbare. LOUIS FERDINAND COETZEE verklaar onder eed I take it that you are going to proceed as the other witnesses have - you are going to read your statement into the record, is that correct? Dis korrek ja - mnr die Voorsitter. En ek het alreeds dit oorhandig aan [onduidelik] Mr Chairman as with the previous witness - this witness made a short statement for purposes of this Commission and to that he attached his original affidavit and he’ll read out both these affidavits. I would like that to be done for the completeness of the record in that regard sir. MNR COETZEE LEES SY VERKLARING VOOR LOUIS FERDINAND COETZEE verklaar in Afrikaans onder eed. 1. Ek is ‘n Speurder-Inspekteur in die Suid-Afrikaanse Polisiediens en verbonde aan die Teen-Korrupsie-eenheid, Wes-Kaap en gestasioneer te Bellville. 2. Gedurende Maart 1986 was ek verbonde aan die Moord- en Roof-eenheid en gestasioneer te Bishop Lavis. Op 2 Maart 1986 het ek opdrag ontvang om saam met Direkteur Kleyn, toe ‘n Kaptein, en oud Adjudant-Offisier Bothma, wie beide ook verbonde was aan die Moord- en Roof-eenheid, op 3 Maart 1986 om 3:00 te rapporteer by die Honde-eenheid te Wingfield. Van wie die opdrag gekom het, kan ek ongelukkig 3. Ek het op 14 Oktober 1986 ‘n beëdigde verklaring verstrek oor wat op die 3de Maart 1986 plaasgevind het. ‘n Afskrif van die verklaring waarmee ek volstaan, word aangeheg. 4. Ek wil net verder meld dat indien die persoon nie ‘n handgranaat na ons gegooi het nie, sou daar geen bloedvergieting of enige verlies aan menselewens gewees het nie. Met die optrede van die persoon met die handgranaat was dit duidelik dat hy van voornemens was om ons drie noodlottig te beseer en indien daardie handgranaat in of naby die motor geval het, sou ons insittendes geen kans op oorlewing gehad het nie. 5. Aangesien die persoon ‘n Bylae 1 misdryf in my teenwoordigheid gepleeg het, was my hele optrede daarop gemik om hom te arresteer terwyl hy ontvlug het, en was daar geen ander manier om sy vlug te stuit nie. Behalwe voormelde, het ek geen ander opset of bymotiewe gehad nie. 6. Ek het dit nie nodig geag om die Waarheidskommissie vrywillig te nader nie, aangesien ek by geen growwe skendings van menseregte of dade of misdrywe met enige politieke oogmerke betrokke was nie. Ek was ook op geen stadium in my polisieloopbaan verbonde aan die destydse Veiligheidspolisie nie. Ek is reeds vir die afgelope 22 jaar verbonde aan die Speurdiens en as sulks gemoeid met die ondersoek van gewone kriminele sake. Are you now going to read the statement that you made in 1986 [indistinct] Mnr die Voorsitter die volgende is ‘n verklaring wat ek gemaak het die 14de Oktober 1986. MNR COETZEE LEES SY VERKLARING VOOR LOUIS FERDINAND COETZEE verklaar in Afrikaans onder eed. 1. Ek is ‘n Speurder Sersant in die Suid-Afrikaanse Polisie verbonde aan die Moord- en Roof-eenheid en 2. Op Maandag, 3-3-1986 om 03:00 het ek vir diens aangemeld te Wingfield Honde-eenheid saam met Kaptein Kleyn en Speurder Adjudant Offisier Bothma en rapporteer by Majoor Odendal. Aldaar was ons toegespreek deur Majoor Odendal. 3. Die bespreking het gehandel oor inligting wat ontvang is dat terroriste ‘n polisie Kombi wat lede na Guguletu polisiestasie vervoer, wil aanval en uitwis. Die aanval sou na bewering beplan wees om op die hoek van NY1 en NY111 te laat plaasvind. Na die bespreking was die lede teenwoordig in verskillende seksies opgedeel en aan elkeen ‘n sekere observasiepunt gegee. Ek is saam met Kaptein Kleyn en Speurder Adjudant Offisier Bothma geplaas. Ek het opgetree as bestuurder van motorvoertuig SAP 56140B met registrasienommer CA 488184. Kaptein Kleyn het links voor en Speurder Adjudant Offisier Bothma links agter in die voertuig plekke ingeneem. Ons het toe posisie gaan inneem in ‘n verlate straat ongeveer 400 meter van die NY1 en NY111 kruising. 4. Hierdie observasiepunt het ons beman tot ongeveer 07:25 waarna ons in opdrag van Majoor Odendal ons onttrek het. Die onttrekking het gevolg aangesien die polisie Kombi vir wie die lokval na bewering sou gestel wees, sy bestemming bereik het. Tot op daardie tydstip het daar geen aanval plaasgevind nie. 5. Nadat ons, ons onttrek het, het ek gery na NY111 waar ‘n voertuig vroeër daardie oggend uitgebrand is. Aldaar het ons gepoog om die eienaarskap van die voertuig te probeer vasstel. Ons was nie suksesvol nie en het toe besluit om terug te keer na ons kantore te Bishop Lavis. Op pad na die kruising van NY1 en NY111 het ons by vyf onbekende swartmans gery. Hierdie persone het ons aandag getrek aangesien dit opmerklik was dat almal met hulle hande in hul broeksakke loop. 6. Ek is deur Kaptein Kleyn aangesê om by die kruising links met NY1 af te ry. Terwyl ek stadig in NY1 in ‘n suidelike rigting ry, het ek opgemerk in die truspieël dat die vyf persone die kruising kruis en voort loop in ‘n westelike rigting. Nadat hulle agter ‘n gebou verdwyn het, was ek aangesê om te draai en die persone te volg. Ek het by die kruising van NY1 en NY111 na links gedraai en die vyf persone voor my in die straat gewaar. Hulle het steeds aangehou met loop in ‘n westelike rigting. Ek het verby die persone gery tot waar die pad doodloop by ‘n woonstel kompleks. Daar het ek omgedraai en teruggekeer na die aankomende persone. 7. Ek het die voertuig ongeveer 15 - 20 meter voor die persone tot stilstand gebring met die voertuig se vooraangesig in hulle rigting. Kaptein Kleyn het sy deur oopgemaak en met sy dienspistool in sy hand uitgeklim. Die voertuig se oopstaande deur was tussen Kaptein Kleyn en die persone. Net nadat Kaptein Kleyn uitgeklim het, het ek gesien hoedat een van die swartmans sy een hand uit sy broeksak ruk en in dieselfde beweging ‘n voorwerp na ons gooi. Ek het onmiddellik die voorwerp identifiseer as ‘n handgranaat. Ek het gesien dat Kaptein Kleyn na die grond duik, terselfdertyd het ek met my motor na vorentoe weggetrek en weer tot stilstand gekom. Ek het ‘n slag gehoor van iets wat die voertuig se oopstaande linker voordeur tref. Kort hierna het ek ‘n ontploffing skuins agter die motor gehoor. 8. Ek het dadelik uit die stilstaande motor gespring met ‘n R1 diens geweer. Ek het opgemerk dat drie van die swartmans in die rigting van die bosse hardloop. Ek het drie skote in die rigting van die voortvlugtendes gevuur. Ek weet egter nie of enige van die skote iemand getref het nie aangesien daar toe baie geweer vuur was en ek genoodsaak was om plat te val. Dit was onmoontlik om te bepaal wie daar in my rigting geskiet het. 9. Toe die geweer vuur gestaak is, het ek teruggekeer na my voertuig daarin geklim en na die N2 Nasionale Pad gery. Al daar het ek op die treinbrug stelling ingeneem en die bosse onder observasie gehou waar die verdagte swartmans ingehardloop het. Later het ek oor die radio gehoor dat die verdagtes almal opgespoor is. Ek het teruggekeer na die handgranaat toneel en my weer by Kaptein Kleyn aangesluit. 10. Ek het op die swartmans gevuur omdat dit onbekend was aan my hoeveel van hulle nog oor handgranate en/of vuurwapens sou beskik. Ek het opgetree uit vrees vir my en my ander kollegas se lewens en ek besef het dat ek wel met die terroriste te doen het. Ek het geen beserings tydens die konfrontasie opgedoen nie. By nadere ondersoek het ek vasgestel dat dit wel ‘n handgranaat was wat die linker voordeur getref het, aangesien daar van die handgranaat se groen kleursel teen die deur gesit het. Ek het later vasgestel dat die handgranaat ongeveer 4 meter die veld ingeskiet - waar dit ontplof het. Die skade aan die voertuig se deur was gering soos per Foto 33, Punt L. Mr Chairman I believe that these statements have already been handed in to the Commission. I would assume so [indistinct] I would suggest that this should be a convenient stage to take the tea adjournment and we should adjourn until quarter past eleven. MEETING ADJOURNS FOR TEA: ON RESUMPTION Finish up gentleman - thank you. Now Inspector Coetzee I must remind you that you are still under oath - Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela will ask you questions - will lead questions - Pumla. Please excuse the delay - thank you Chairperson - good morning again Mr Coetzee. Could you tell us what you mean by a Schedule 1 offence? Could you tell us what you mean by a Schedule 1 offence? Do you want me to repeat the question? Ja ‘n Bylae 1 oortreding is byvoorbeeld soos moord, verkragting, roof, poging tot moord ensovoorts. Murder, rape, robbery, attempted murder - so if a - in this cases there are firearms involved, what happens, what happens around the Schedule 1 offence? Wel hy bly ‘n Bylae 1 oortreding met verswarings. Yes but in terms of the investigation what would happen normally with a Schedule 1 offence? Nee ek verstaan nie die vraag nie. You are involved in a - forget about other things but let’s talk about describing a Schedule 1 offence and what happens after the offence has been committed and you come in as a police officer and you’ve been called to a scene of a Schedule 1 crime, what do you do - what would you do normally? Wel as ek as polisieman soontoe ingeroep word en ek is ‘n ondersoekbeampte ondersoek ek die saak. It’s really a simple question could you give a simple answer in what way do you investigate? Soos ek sê jy ondersoek die saak. Dis net meer ‘n graad van ernstigheid - jy gaan meer intensief in die ondersoek in. Let us assume that it is serious and firearms were used, what do you do? Wel as ek die ondersoeker is, ek sal alles daar notuleer wat ek nou waarneem daar op die toneel. And what do you do with the firearms that are found at the scene? Wel as jy die ondersoekbeampte is en dan word dit van jou verwag om beslag te lê op daardie vuurwapen en in te handig as Bewysstukke. When would you submit them as Exhibits if you are the investigating officer? Sodra ek op hulle beslag gelê het. In other words immediately after you - after the scene of the incident? And after you submit them where would they go? Ja afhangende waar die voorval plaasgevind het - as hulle dit bepaal by hierdie voorval van Guguletu - dan verwag ek dat die Bewysstukke sou by Guguletu se bewysstukkamer ingehandig gewees het. And what about further investigations about just the types of firearms that were used and everything, where would that go? Ja nadat dit ingehandig is as Bewysstukke word daardie vuurwapens weer in ons taal getrek en dit word versend aan die Forensiese Laboratorium om deur Vuurwapendeskundiges nagegaan te word. En hulle sal hulle verslae uitbring omtrent die toets van hierdie wapens. And does this include spent cartridges and unspent cartridges? Thank you - do you know who investigated this case - this particular case - the Guguletu 7? Ek glo dit was daardie tyd Majoor Brits. Which department did he come from? Hy was ook verbonde aan die Moord- en Roof-eenheid te Bishop Lavis. And that is associated with your department? Dis korrek ja - ek kan net meld dat daar was op ‘n later stadium ander ondersoekbeamptes aangestel, maar ek weet nie wie hulle was nie. But the operation was run from you department? Die ondersoek na die voorval ja. Could you describe to us the scene at Guguletu after the shooting, just describe to us what you saw after the shooting had been completed. Na watter skietvoorval verwys u nou? I am referring to the Guguletu shooting - the entire shooting when everything was - had died down when the shooting had stopped, I just would like you to describe to us what you saw. Wel na die skietvoorval soos ek gemeld het in my verklaring het ek eers gery na die brug by die N2, ek het teruggekom en met my terugkoms was die hele wêreld vol mense wat daar rondgeloop het, die polisiebeamptes en ook van die - ek dink daar was nog ander lede ook op die toneel. I am referring more to the scene of the bodies lying around and everything lying around that’s the description I am talking about - from your memory what do you - what did you see. Ja ek kan ook maar net meld soos wat dit aangedui word op die sketsplan van die persone wat daar - waar hulle na verwys word waar hulle lê - ek het hulle gesien lê daarso. You saw bodies lying around - I really just want a - at the present moment just a visual image of what was happening you saw bodies lying around - guns strewn all over, grenades flying all over the place, just a picture - just a general picture, this is what I am asking about at the moment. Did you see guns lying around bodies lying around - what did you see? Ja daar het liggame rondgelê ja - nie rond - ja ons kan dit maar rondgelê. Ek kan nie onthou van die wapens en goed wat ek - dat ek enige persone met wapens gesien het nie. Wat ek wel gesien het met ‘n wapen is - ek dink dis die een wat daarso by die hoek van NY111 en NY1 aan die suidelike kant - gemerk op die sketsplan E en D dat daarso ‘n persoon met ‘n geweer by hom gelê het. With that one firearm so according to police procedure that firearm would obviously have been handed in with the ammunition that was in it and the ammunition that was lying around. Would it surprise you if we told you that in fact the firearms were not - the firearms that were found at the scene were not submitted on the same day and were submitted several days after the [indistinct] - would it surprise you? Ja en veral - ja ek sal verbaas wees aangesien dit ‘n redelike ernstige voorval was en ek verwag dat so iets onmiddellik ingehandig sou gewees het. The firearms according to the record we have were submitted only on the 26th of March, everything that was found there was submitted on the 26th of March and not on the same day so it is surprising and one wonders what was happening to this Exhibits before then. So in your knowledge of police procedure this should have been submitted on the 3rd of March and not later. I want to ask you a bit about the preparation of the meeting of the - of the operation - your operation. Do you remember which departments were at the meeting of the night - the morning - early morning of the 3rd of March, which department were involved in that meeting? Ja afgesien van ons drie van Moord- en Roof was Majoor Odendal met sy eenheid daar gewees en Luitenant Liebenberg - en Sersant Bellingham en sover my kennis strek [intervention] Could I - could I interrupt please could you - could you also mention which departments these men came from please - you started with Odendal - just for the record to say which department he came from. Ja daardie tyd was hulle die - ek dink hulle het hulle self genoem die Onluste-eenheid. En Luitenant Liebenberg en Bellingham sover my kennis gestrek het, was verbonde aan die Veiligheidspolisie. The Security Police in Pretoria. Bellingham is van die Veiligheidspolisie in Pretoria en Liebenberg van die plaaslike - of van Kaapstad Veiligheidspolisie. So Bellingham was from the Section C-1 of the Security Branch in Pretoria. Wel ek weet net hy van Veiligheidstak in Pretoria, watter afdelings of eenheid wat hulle hulself noem, weet ek nie - dis nie - dra nie kennis daarvan nie. So you just knew that they were from Pretoria and Liebenberg was from Cape Town. Ja ek het net geweet Bellingham was van Pretoria en Liebenberg was plaaslik. And who else was at that meeting - which you - could you continue please. Which other department was represented in that Unit? Nee ek dink dit was al gewees. In other words yourselves. Your departments as well. Ja die drie afdelings wat ek genoem het ja. The three departments which I mentioned. We have information that there was one black person who was at that meeting, do you remember what his name was? Ek kan dit nie onthou nie, ek dra nie kennis van so iemand wat daar was nie. So in your knowledge you don’t know that there was a - you don’t remember a black person who was at that meeting? Nee ek kan dit nie onthou nie. And if he was present at that meeting would you have remembered? Dis ‘n bietjie lank terug, ek kan nie onthou of hy wel daar was nie. I believe a presence of a black person is quite [indistinct] especially if there is just one of them present at a meeting. Is it really that difficult for you to remember a black person who is in the mist of white people in a - such an important meeting. Ek is elke dag in die diens van die polisie is ek in teenwoordigheid van Nie-blankes - so of hy daar was en of hy nie daar was nie, weet ek nie - dit is algemeen by my - dit maak nie ‘n spesiale - notisie van my om te kyk of daar ander mense is nie. Mr Coetzee the idea of a early morning meeting especially 2:30 am is certainly not common occurrence, I am sure even in your service as a police officer. So I am not sure that I agree with you that it was common occurrence to - to have been in die presence of a singular black person in such a meeting. That was a particular meeting. Soos ek sê hy kan daar gewees het, ek weet nie, ek kan dit nie onthou nie. En ek kan net sê net daar by die bymekaar kom plek waar ons was is die Honde-eenheid se Eenheid-kantoor gewees en daar het ook - daar is ook heelwat Nie-blankes verbonde aan die Honde-eenheid. So dit sal nie my aandag spesiaal op hom gevestig het nie. Okay I’ll ask one last question about the meeting in particular - do you remember if the meeting was a whites only meeting - I mean if there were only white - white policeman at the meeting? Do you remember who was present at that meeting you just gave me names of people who were present, you seem to remember that fairly well. Do you remember if they were all whites - the people - the names you’ve given me. Die name wat ek vir u gegee het onthou ek omdat hulle ons toegespreek het. Wie die ander persone was wat op die vergadering was, weet ek nie. How big was this meeting Mr Coetzee? Ek weet nie hoeveel persone teenwoordig was nie. Can we just talk about estimates, were there ten men - I assume there were no women - were there ten men - were there five - just approximately how many? This is an important operation you are at a planning meeting to decide who is placed where - your lives are in danger, you are dealing with what you called terrorist. You suppose to be - to try to stop them killing your colleagues and you don’t know who exactly was there in such an important meeting where your lives were in danger. Soos ek sê ek kan nie onthou nie, wat tien jaar terug gebeur het, en hoeveel mense teenwoordig was, kan ek nie sê nie. Ek weet daar was mense teenwoordig, die persone se name wat ek genoem het kan ek onthou, maar wie almal nog daar teenwoordig was, weet ek nie. Your description of the grenade incident, has been consistent, you remembered that quite well, at least certain parts of your memory seem to be in tact and we pleased about that. We will reply on those in tact parts for the rest of the questioning. Do you know a person known as - called Sergeant Mbelo? You don’t know about Sergeant Mbelo. Ek het net gehoor tydens die getuienislewering voor die Kommissie hulle praat van Mbelo - ek persoonlik ken hom nie. En om terug te kom na daardie verwysing, dat ek kan alles onthou, seer sekerlik as u in my posisie was en ‘n handgranaat word op jou gegooi, dit gaan definitief ‘n onuitwisbare indruk op jou maak. I agree and I think that if I were in your position and I was told that my life was in danger, I would have known who is with me to help me make sure that my life is in tact and if my life is protected I would remember who of my colleagues were there. But I accept that you have forgotten and I will not [indistinct] any further - [indistinct] into that issue any further - you forgotten that is fine, the point I wanted to make is you seem to remember certain aspects of the events fairly well and that is quite acceptable. I will again try and - I will request you to try and remember again another name I will give to you - the name of Rudolph Lazaro - do you remember that person? Or perhaps if you could you how you got involved with Rudolph Lazaro - maybe that will make it a little bit better to explain to us, how did you get involved with Rudolph Lazaro? Ek dink hy was ‘n klaer by my in ‘n gewapende roofsaak, maar wat niks te doen het met die besigheid - met die Guguletu voorval nie. Dit was op ‘n ander geleentheid gewees, as ek reg onthou - ek praat onder korreksie. I am glad that you do remember even that incident. Can you tell us about it, what exactly was - how were you involved with him? Ek kan nie die datum onthou nie. It doesn’t matter I mean you say it was not connected to Guguletu in what was it not connected - in other words what exactly was it about Rudolph Lazaro if you could just tell us, never mind the dates. Ek dink dit het gegaan oor ‘n gewapende roof en as ek my reg onthou ek weet nie - ek dink dit het op die Swartklip pad gebeur na Mitchell’s Plain se kant toe - ek is nie seker nie. You’ve got a very good memory - that is exactly what it was - can you say a bit more about this events, this robbery Lazaro’s robbery - what - what was it about that made you get involved in it - what were you doing with their case? Ek was die ondersoekbeampte in die saak daar. There is some very tiny detail but very important detail that you - you remembered incorrectly - you said it had nothing to do with the Guguletu 7, but according to documents that we have in front of us, in fact it had everything to do with the Guguletu 7. I will remind you - in fact I will read your own statement about it. Please excuse me for a moment. This is a statement signed by yourself on the 27th of March 1986 you state your position, but I am going to read, it’s in Afrikaans the second paragraph of the statement, I will make it available - I believe you have a copy, you could - if you want to. Anyway it reads: Op Donderdag 1986, Maart 27 omstreeks 10:15 het ek ‘n aantal foto’s aan die klaer Rudolph Lazaro getoon. Van die persone se foto’s was deur die klaer geïdentifiseer as van die persone wie hom beroof het. Die foto nommers van die twee persone wie hy uitgewys het, is nr DR/704/86 en 705/86. Hierdie twee persone was beide gedood tydens ‘n optrede van die polisie op Maandag 3 Maart 1996 te Guguletu, geteken … And it goes on, and your signature at the bottom - before your signature it says: Ek is vertroud met die inhoud van bostaande verklaring en begryp dit. Signed by yourself on the 27th of March at Bishop Lavis police station by L Coetzee, I guess this is your number W4057840S/SERS. Now I will circulate this photographs that you refer to in your own statements, there is a Commissioner at the bottom who has confirmed that you have signed the statement. The photographs DR/704/86 and 705/86 - now DR/704 is a photograph of Themba Mlifi, who according to our map, lies on M and K. Mr Chairman is it possible that we may have sight of that statement that was read out to the witness. I thought that you had it advocate Van Zyl. So did I but apparently not Mr Chairman. Now do you remember the way you, you use to sign in 1986? Mr Chairman may the witness - may the witness have an opportunity to read this statement please. Do you remember that to be your signature? Dit is heeltemal reg Edelagbare - dit is my persoonlike verklaring gewees. So now it turns out that Rudolph Lazaro did have something to do with the Guguletu 7. Agterna - nie tydens die Guguletu voorval nie, agterna het hy die persone se foto’s uitgewys, hy het niks met die voorval as sulks tydens die optrede te doen gehad nie. Dit is eers agterna wat dit uitgekom het. Yes, thank you - could you explain to us what happened if you could perhaps just explain a bit more how you came to make that statement. Wel ek glo ek het die verklaring afgelê na aanleiding van ‘n uitwysing wat deur mnr Lazaro gedoen was aan my. So Mr Lazaro identified those pictures - where are the others - are they still there. Can I just interpose here, I don’t want to have to use the big stick, I’ve indicated that we should switch off our telephones, our cell phones and I believe that the person who has just run out is the same person who had his cell phone running during the course of the proceedings, please can we observe these proceedings and treat them with the same decorum that we treat any proceedings of their calibre. So I will kindly again have to ask all individuals including myself to make sure that their cell phones are switched off. And I would like the orderlies to be watchful for people who interrupt these proceedings with their cell phones. Thank you Chairperson, I just want us to dwell a little bit more on - on your - the link you make between Rudolph’s assailants and the Guguletu 7. So you say that Mr Rudolph Lazaro identified this man and of course on your statement you indicate that you’ve sent - you went up to him where he was to show him the pictures. Dis korrek ja Edelagbare - ekskuus tog mnr die Voorsitter hy - ek het die foto’s aan hom getoon en hy het daar - hy het daardie twee foto’s aan my uitgewys op daardie twee persone se foto’s uitgewys aan my. Why did you show him this pictures end of Tape 8, Side B… As ek dit reg het, het hy destyds aan my gemeld dat hy was geroof deur mense met AK47’s. En ek dink ek het dit op die ingewing van die oomblik het ek dit - die foto’s aan hom getoon. So did you take to him this two photographs or did you take other photographs as well? Nee daar is - as ek reg onthou het ek nou nie die foto’s na hom toe geneem nie, ek het hom na my kantoor toe gebring en toe al die foto’s gewys van die persone. Is it possible for you to indicate perhaps in your statement my grasp of Afrikaans is limited but can you indicate in your statement where you say that you brought him to your office to show him the photographs. Ek sê mos ek is nie seker nie, ek dink ek het hom gaan haal na my kantoor toe, ek was nie in besit van die foto’s self nie, aangesien ek nie die ondersoekbeampte was in die saak nie. Ek dink ek het hom na my kantoor toe laat kom en toe het ek die foto’s van die ondersoekbeampte gekry en aan mnr Lazaro getoon. So Lazaro came to report the matter to you that he had been robbed on the night, did he come to you, because these pictures are shown on the 27th - I think that’s what you say here, so did he come to report to you something that happened on the 3rd or on the 2nd - whenever, and you immediately read out these photographs. I just want us to have an understanding - just to understand the sequence of events. Mnr die Voorsitter die mnr Lazaro het die klagte van gewapende roof gerapporteer by Mitchell’s Plein polisiestasie. Die Moord- en Roof-eenheid is daarso om alle klagtes van roof te ondersoek waar vuurwapens betrokke is. As gevolg van sy bewering dat hy was deur mense beroof met vuurwapens, was ek aangesê om aandag te gaan gee aan sy klagte. Dis hoe ek met mnr Lazaro kontak gemaak het. And you do remember showing him the pictures, it doesn’t matter that much where it was, you do remember showing him the pictures and him identifying these two men as some of the one’s who accosted him. At least you say that in your statement anyway. Dis wat - dit is wat my verklaring sê ja. And you stand by your statement - it is your sworn and signed statements. Korrek ja - ek wil net by dieselfde verklaring stilstaan, daar is met ‘n pen of iets ingeskryf, roof met verswarrende omstandighede, dit is nie deur my gedoen nie. Wie dit ingeskryf het, weet ek nie. Can you read that just for the record, can you read that out please clearly - this stuff that’s been filled in with a pen. Na die sin ek is ook belas met die ondersoek van Mitchell’s Plein MR/68.03.86 en na dit staan geskryf in pen of potlood ek weet nie dis ‘n afdruk wat ek hier mee sit, roof met verswarrende omstandighede. Dit is nie my handskrif daardie nie. Okay let’s not look at that, that’s not really what I am - but we accept that, that is not your handwriting, but the typed statements and the statement that I read - part of which I read, which is typed by you, this is what you stand by. In other words Lazaro did confirm with you that these other men who robbed him [tussenbeide] Can I remind you again that you are under oath, so this is your - this is your signature and this is what you said and Lazaro did indicate to you these men did rob him. Just for the record, the two men referred to here - photograph DR/704/86 refers to the person lying on L/K and that is Mlifi and 705/86 is Zabonke Konile who is lying on G/F just for the record. So those two people Mlifi and Konile according to yourself and according to signed statements of the 27th of March, were identified by Rudolph Konile as having been the man who robbed him. And this was used as an Exhibit, this was handed in as part of an Exhibit. Do you remember where this was handed in, what inquest - which inquest was this handed in, your Exhibit, this statement - the one that we just passed to you. Where was it submitted? Wel the verklaring was in die eerste plek geliasseer in die dossier van Mitchell’s Plein, MR/68/3/86 en dan sien ek hier bo-aan die verklaring is geskryf Guguletu GO86/95/86. To confirm your statements - I am going to read a statement signed by Lazaro on the 7th of November - do you have this copy of this statement signed by Lazaro 7th November 1996. Can you find it for him please. Mr Chairman we don’t have a copy of that statement if it may be placed before the witness. Can you give it to him please - and also Lazaro’s statement - can you give them this statement and that statement - both of that statements okay, this the one [inaudible] - please give him the statements no - no not this one - okay anyway there is another statement here which is going to be passed on to you dated the 27th of March. Now this is signed by Lazaro himself to probably support your statement. Lazaro says here that: Op Donderdag 27 Maart 1986 omstreeks 10:15 het ek ‘n aantal foto’s te Bishop Lavis by die Moord- en Roof kantore nagegaan. Ek het twee foto’s naamlik [the ones I’ve mentioned] uitgewys as twee van die persone wat my beroof het op Sondag 2 Maart 1986 omstreeks vyfuur in die môre langs Swartklipweg naby Mitchell’s Plein. Ek maak nie ‘n fout met hul identifisering nie en is seker dat dit hulle was, wat my beroof het. Foto nr DR/705/86 is die persoon wat my in die maag wou geskiet het. Ek is vertroud met die inhoud van hierdie verklaring en begryp dit. Ek het geen beswaar teen die aflê van die voorgeskrewe eed. Ek beskou die voorgeskrewe eed as bindend vir my gewete. Now you are the Commissioner of Oath and you certified that this is the correct statements by Lazaro. And this is signed on the 27th of March 1986 and you are the Commissioner. I just want to make sure that this is your signature again that and this is the statement that Lazaro made as we have read it according to your own signature as a Commissioner of Oath, I just want to confirm that this is it. Dit is korrek ja Edelagbare - ag mnr die Voorsitter. So would you say that statement corroborates what you - the statement that you yourself made before - the statement that we read before? Nee ek gaan sê my verklaring staaf sy verklaring - ek het eers sy verklaring geneem en toe myne [onduidelik] Oh! sorry maybe second language problems. But anyway this is your signature here as the Commissioner of Oath. Now Mr Coetzee last year in November of 7th of 1996, our investigators went to Mr Lazaro and in fact Mr Lazaro at a public hearing gave a statement - without saying much about why he said I will read what - some of what he said. I will read what - some of what he said at a public hearing held at the offices of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Cape Town on 106 Adderley Street. Now he starts off by saying I hereby [intervention] Mr Chairman I am sorry to interrupt, but is it possible that, that document can be placed before the witness. Can I just read, you will get a copy is it all right? Okay you will be given an extract advocate Potgieter has just consulted with me, but I will read - you will get the document, parts of the documents. I think I will leave that to [intervention] Mr Chairman am I to understand then that the statement or that document will be read to the witness and he will not be afforded the opportunity to check it on record. Let me think about what ruling I must give to that advocate Van Zyl. In the meantime can I go ahead and read this extract. Yes you are entitled to read the extract that you want. I will just - thank you - I will just state that Mr Lazaro came to the public hearing last year and this is his written statement. He states in English: I state in English under oath that the following statement made by me and submitted to the TRC is both true and correct. He reports the kinds of items that went missing and he goes on to say that: Several weeks later that same month I was fetched from my house by some white detective from Murder and Robbery Units and taken to Bishop Lavis police station. At Bishop Lavis police station I was shown several photographs of persons who had been brutally shot. I informed the officers that I could not identify any of the persons on the photographs due to the fact that they were so badly shot up. There was no way I could identify these people. I did identify two persons from the photograph that I always saw in Guguletu but they were not involved in the robbery, I only saw them at the shebeens. On the 10th of October 1996 I was visited by three investigators of the TRC who asked me if I had signed a sworn statement identifying any of the persons who had robbed me in 1986. I vividly remembered the incident and my experiences at Bishop Lavis police station. I specifically remembered the photo’s of those young men and the fact that at no time did I sign a typed statement identifying anyone of those people as the persons who robbed me. Now we have - we - he says further on that: I was shown a copy of a signature which had my name and details below. In other words he was shown by the TRC investigators. I scrutinised the signature and informed the investigators that this is not my signature. I also informed them that I was not even aware that the statement had been used in any court proceedings. It is my hope that the TRC will clear my name if this fraudulent statement with a forged signature was used to commit a criminal act. Now Mr Coetzee you have told us that according to the statement that you made, you’ve told us that the statement that you made on the 27th of March saying something that contradicts what Mr Lazaro said last year that you indeed, you stand by your statements, it has your signature. You’ve confirmed that it is your signature, you further confirmed that a statement that has Mr Lazaro’s signature was oathed by yourself that’s the signature that appears as the signature of the Commissioner of Oath at the bottom of that statement is indeed your signature. Now we would please ask you to enlighten us as to these contradictions between what you signed in March 27th and what you say Mr Lazaro signed in March 27th 1986 and what Mr Lazaro says to the Commission and said in a public hearing last year. Could you please enlighten us. So ver dit my aangaan, is dit wel mnr Lazaro wat daardie verklaring onderteken het, dit is in sy handtekening. I am sorry the Chairperson interrupted could you repeat what you said please. Ek sê weer die verklarings wat mnr Lazaro aan my gemaak het en wat ek laat tik het, is wel deur hom onderteken in my teenwoordigheid. So you stand by your statements and you stand by what you said to the Commission and are you suggesting therefore that Mr Lazaro lied at a public hearing last year at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission? So Mr Lazaro - Mr Lazaro’s statement should be considered a lie and incorrect and a fabrication of the truth and yours should be accepted as the truth? Volgens my ja, want hy het daardie verklarings in my teenwoordigheid onderteken. I think one thing that will probably relieve us of this burden is to compare the signatures - the signatures that you claim are Mr Lazaro’s signatures and the signatures that all these investigators witnessed Mr Lazaro’s to be making. Perhaps we should - we will make the document available and you will have a chance to compare the signatures. Mr Chairman at this juncture, I’ve asked for that statement, may that statement now be placed before us? There was also reference made to a statement that Lazaro made apparently in November, we would also like if possible to see that statement. Yes a copy of he statement that is being referred to is being made at the present moment. Is it also possible that [intervention] So it couldn’t be made, it couldn’t be made available in fact [intervention] Is it also possible that a copy of the November statement can be made. That is the statement that is being referred to. Mr Khoisan is going to pass the statement on to you - just give him the statements. I must just indicate that we have not consulted with Mr Lazaro’s as to whether he wants to make the statement available, but I have taken into account the fact that you know this is proper in terms of fairness to the-to the witness concerned. We have taken the liberty to remove Mr Lazaro’s address which was at the top of the statement, but otherwise the statement is as full as it can be. It’s really in - just to protect Mr Lazaro I think that this is really our concern because he does not know that his statement is going to be passed on to yourselves, so it’s considering issues of - several issues given a number of considerations. May I just indicate that we are not pretending to be handwriting experts, nor are we calling upon you to pretend to be any. I think what we are trying to do is to ask I think the witness is being asked to make an prima facie observation of the two signatures and to make a comment thereon. What is your comments Mr Coetzee? Mnr die Voorsitter die verklaring wat op die 27ste Maart 1986 deur mnr Lazaro onderteken is, en die verklaring wat hy op 15 Oktober 1986 onderteken het, en die verklaring van die 7de November ’96 - daar is ietwat van ‘n afwyking by die laaste verklaring in vergelyking met sy handtekening. Daar is in elk geval - ek sê daar is moontlike - daar is ‘n moontlikheid dat dit kan ooreenstem. Ek is nie ‘n deskundige nie, so ek kan my nie verder uitlaat oor die handtekeninge nie. Since Mr Lazaro came to the Commission and told us himself that he never signed this statement that you submitted as an Exhibit on the 27th of March 1986, we - we’ll assume that if you go by what Mr Lazaro says - we assume that there is a problem with accepting the fact that it was his signature on the dates of the 27th of March 1986. But since you also say under oath that in fact Mr Lazaro did sign that document, then we have got several scenario’s here, one is that Mr Lazaro came to your office, signed the documents - another one is that in fact he did not come to your office to sign the document and you just drew up the statement and signed it, to link these men to this crime. The other scenario is that Mark Killian who is a Commissioner and an investigator in the Truth Commission is lying and that Mr Lazaro did not come to sign the document that Mark fabricated the statement. Another scenario is that Mr Lazaro may be lying to us all. Now I am not sure what it is and it stands to us to establish which one of this versions is true, what is worrying though is that your statements was used as part of an investigation in which these men died - in particularly in relation to the matter of Mlifi and Zabonke Konile they implicated - they died - you linked them to an ordinary -to a criminal offence and you used that evidence in court. So it is worrying that there are inconsistencies and I am not sure where it is going to lead us from here, but I think that this is where we are now. I don’t know if you want to say anything about that, what if in fact it is established that Mr Lazaro never came to your office, what do you think will happen? Mr Chairman this witness has said more than once, that Lazaro did come to his office, that is his evidence. And certainly what is he expected to reply to this last question - he has said more than once that on his version he did come to his office, he did sign these statements or this particular statement of March 86 really with all due respects I don’t think to require him to answer it again will take us anywhere. There is this discrepancy there is the difference between his statement or his evidence and Lazaro’s and that is it. There are ways and means to investigate this. But I think she is wanting to know what his comment is - I mean she is - she has given various difficulties and this is a Commission and which -where he in the position - I think that’s the question that is being put, we are in the position of the panellist would - how would he regard the scenario that has been put, I mean there are several scenario’s and maybe that - all that is being required is for him to restate his own position. You never know when once a question has been in the form in which it was put here, a person’s memory might be triggered. There is the possibility one, that this - what he has said was Lazaro’s signature is a forgery and that has got serious implications both for him as a person who - who was a Commissioner of Oath for that statement. There is a possibility that this particular statement given to us by Lazaro is a forgery and I think all that the Commissioner or the panellist is requiring is for him to give a perspective what would he do to try and unravel this - or what is his views about it - an opinion which maybe in a court of law, in [indistinct] would not have been acceptable, but his being a Commission some latitude is given as you well appreciate. Wel ek bly staan daarby dat dit is mnr Lazaro wat daai verklarings onderteken het, ek kan niks verder byvoeg nie. Perhaps to - in a way comment on the - on the questions raised by council - one of the more oppressing matters I think is that if it is true and we know that our investigators did go to Mr Lazaro and further Mr Lazaro did appear at a public hearing and some of these people present here, were present at that public hearing and Mr Lazaro stated publicly that he never signed the documents, he never even knew that the matter of his robbery was used in this case. Obviously the first question that comes to mind is, is this fabricated evidence, and again the theme of the fabrication of evidence seems to be raising it’s head again and yesterday we heard a Tokarev that was supposedly found on a man - one of these men and there was a voice heard over the video about someone telling a Trompie Theron not to put - to place the firearm in a certain way. So those questions are concerning us, I mean what kind of evidence was led when this - when the findings on this matter were debated - what kind of evidence and if Lazaro comes to the Commission and says publicly he never came - he never signed a document - he never signed a statement, he did not even know that this case was linked to the Guguletu 7 and in fact very clearly remembers, he says in his statement I vividly remembered the incident and in no way did I identify Mlifi and Zabonke Konile, as the two men who were at the robbery scene and in fact I did not identify Konile as the man who pointed the gun on my stomach. So if this is what we have in front of us and you have a statement here that tells us that in fact Lazaro did identify this man and this was used in a court of law to establish the findings on such a matter where seven people died in the way that they did, surely we are liable to ask this questions to wonder about the kind of evidence that was led by respectable police officers at the time end of Tape 9, Side A … never the less I will the matter of Lazaro aside and I’d just like to bring us back to the scene of the crime. You were in the vehicle, if you could point on the map - you were in the vehicle with Bothma and Kleyn, you said you arrived at the scene at 7:25 is that right? Nee mnr die Voorsitter om 7:25 vm was die operasie afgelas gewees. In my verklaring van 14 Oktober 1986 in paragraaf 4. Hierdie observasiepunt het ons beman tot ongeveer 7:25 waarna ons in opdrag van Majoor Odendal ons onttrek het. So at what stage did that report come at about 7:00 - about 7:25 is that what you said? Dis wat ek sê in my verklaring ja. Do you remember any other police cars that were there at the scene at the time, other police vehicles when you arrived - at the time you arrived - were there any other police vehicles? Is dit nou voor die skietery of na die skietery? No I am talking about when you arrived, when you arrived at the scene before as you arrived - what other police vehicles were there? Ek kan nie onthou van ‘n polisie - ander polisievoertuie nie, toe ons daar gekom het, dit was omstreeks - dit was in elk geval na drie-uur wat ons op die toneel gekom het, het ons op ‘n plek gestaan waar ons geen ander voertuie kon gesien het in elk geval nie. En na [intervention] So you were the only people at the scene - your vehicle with Kleyn and Bothma, you were the only vehicle there. Waar ons gesit het ja - voor ons ontbind het, voor ons aangesê is om te onttrek. Okay I am talking about vehicles at the scene, so you were - your vehicle was there and at what point did Bellingham, Grobbelaar and Brazelle’s vehicle arrive? Ek weet nie - na die voorval het ek gesien hulle voertuig staan so skuins getrek in die kruising van NY1 en NY111. Dit is die voertuig wat op die sketsplan gemerk is as H. Yes I see that, but do you remember seeing Bellingham, Grobbelaar and Brazelle’s vehicle in the - in point marked A on the map - do you remember that vehicle? You did not see Bellingham at the scene at all? Na die voorval het ek vir Bellingham gesien. And was it parked in that place on the map marked A is that where you saw it? But you just don’t remember seeing it arriving. Daar was nie ‘n voertuig toe ons deur daai kruising gegaan het nie. Yes I - that has been established, I just wanted to find out whether you do remember the vehicle there, so you remember but you only saw it after the shooting. And what about the other Kombi, the other police Kombi, the other police Kombi on the place marked J on the map? Do you remember seeing that vehicle? So all these vehicles you started seeing them after the shooting, but did you know that Bellingham was driving the vehicle marked A on the map - or at least that was his vehicle whether -whoever was driving it, do you know that it was [tussenbeide] You don’t know - you didn’t know that it was [tussenbeide] Nee mnr die - nee mnr die Voorsitter. But did you know who was in that vehicle - who were in that vehicle? The people who were in it? What about the vehicle marked J - did you know who was in that vehicle? Nee - nee ek het nie geweet nie. You just knew that it is a police vehicle? Ek het - ek weet nie, ek aanvaar maar dat dit ‘n polisievoertuig is, ek het gesien die voertuig na die voorval die voertuie staan daarso en ek [intervention] So that vehicle marked J, just stood there and you were - you never bother to find out what kind of vehicle this is with people in it, you just did not know with a person in it, you just didn’t care to find out who it was, that was there. Toe ek die voertuig - toe ek die voertuig gesien het, toe was daar niemand in die voertuig nie, die eerste maal. The vehicle marked J - there was no-one in it. But you saw the vehicle marked H and you knew what vehicle it was. Ek het gesien dit is ‘n geel Datsun wat daar staan ja. Oh! the one that was described to yourselves. Maar sover ek onthou was dit ‘n geel Datsun wat daar gestaan het. What I am asking is - you knew that this is the vehicle that was your target. I am really just asking you know sort of basic questions, I mean this was your target and you knew about it, you were told when you were in the planning meeting that this is the - this is your target, this is really just what I want to establish. Sover ek kan onthou van die voorligting was daar gepraat van ‘n Kombi voertuig nie van ‘n motorkar nie. Vehicle is the -I am sorry maybe the translation said car, but vehicle is really fine, it includes Kombi as well so this - you do remember you were told about that. When did you hear about the arrival of your targets, these men that you were looking for, when did you hear about them over the radio? Dis toe ons beweeg het nadat die operasie afgelas was, en ons die - ‘n voertuig na gaan kyk het wat uitgebrand was in NY111 nadat dit daar klaar was, het ons in ‘n westelike rigting na die kruising van NY1 en NY111 gery. En toe het ons persone aan die regterkant van die pad [intervention] I am sorry to interrupt you sir, I really just wanted to know at what you were there, you told us that you were at the scene, when you were at the scene, when did you hear that these men had arrived. We have been told that there was voice that came over the radio that you were told that these men had arrived at what point - was it when you were parked at that point where are you marked on the map? Dit is wat ek nou aan u verduidelik - besig was om te verduidelik. Wat ons die kruising nader van NY1 en NY111 nadat ons by die uitgebrande voertuig was, het daar ‘n stem oor die radio gekom en gesê die mense is langs julle - min of meer in daai strekking van die woorde. So do you know who gave this information over the radio? So you don’t know that Sergeant Mbelo was assigned to be looking out for these men? Nor did you know that Sergeant Mbelo was attached to the Security Branch Units - Section C-1 then called in Pretoria. Hy is ‘n onbekende persoon aan my - ek het maar nou hier - met hierdie sitting het ek gehoor van ‘n Sergeant Mbelo ek ken hom nie. But you heard the voice over the radio. Ek het ‘n stem gehoor - ek weet nie wie se stem dit was nie. I find it quite interesting that you hear and obviously non English non Afrikaans speaking voice and a person who is not - does not speak English or Afrikaans as their first language, but you don’t wonder who this person is. But I understand that you probably did not - it didn’t matter to you that this was a - this was a black person over the voice - over the radio. But still you knew that you had these people, this Askari’s working with you from or rather this informers because you knew there was informers, you had this informers working with you on this case. Ek het hulle nie geken nie mnr die Voorsitter en die persoon wat op die radio gepraat het, was nie Engels of swart nie, dit was in duidelike Afrikaans gepraat en daardie persoon het nie ‘n aksent gehad nie. We heard information that Sergeant Mbelo gave the message over the radio that this men had arrived, but maybe there were two people who gave the information, or maybe Mbelo gave it over to an Afrikaans person and they both [indistinct] at different times. None the less, the informers that were driving the Kombi with these seven men, you - are you saying that you did not know that you had informers. Ek het gehoor hulle sê daar is informante tydens die voorligting sal daar informante in die Kombi wees, dis al. Wie hulle is, weet ek nie. Did they tell you what colour the informers were? Dis korrek, hulle het gemeld dit sal twee swart persone wees. Did you know that one of the informers was driving this Kombi? Would it surprise you if I told you that we have information that one of the informers was driving this Kombi. Dis baie moontlik ek kan nie kommentaar lewer daarop nie. Would you also wonder why - if you had an informer driving the Kombi, the informer would drive these people into a situation such as the one you had planned for. If you had an informer surely wasn’t it easier to drive the Kombi where these men could be arrested - drive it to a situation where they would be shot at? Ek weet nie wat die beplanning was omtrent hulle bewegings nie, ek was nie daarby betrokke nie. So you didn’t know that the Askari - an Askari was driving the Kombi that led the seven men to this shooting - or led them to a place where they would then conduct their operation on the other police bus, you did not know that either. Die woord Askari het ek maar agterna - agterna van gehoor wat se persoon is ‘n Askari. Self op daardie stadium het ek nie geweet wat is dit nie - wat is ‘n - daar is nie gemeld van ‘n Askari daar nie. This must have been a very carefully guarded planning by the people from the Security Branch, would you agree then if none of you know anything about this Askari’s - this Vlakplaas involvement, it must have been a very carefully guarded plan. Van Vlakplaas se bestaan het ek eers agterna in die koerante geplaas toe dit met Dirk Coetzee en sy besigheid te - te berge gebring is, Waaroor Vlakplaas gaan, waar hy is, waar hy geleë is, ek was nog nooit daar nie. So wat die verwysing na Vlakplaas is, of dit ‘n Vlakplaas optrede is, kan ek my nie uit ‘n - uitlaat nie. Dis algemeen bekend dat die Veiligheidspolisie wanneer hulle opereer, dit net tussen hulle hou. Dit word nie bekend gemaak waaroor die operasie gaan nie. So when you say these police - whom are you talking about? If you say these police it was known that these police kept to themselves, whom are you talking about? Ek verwys na die Veiligheidspolisie. Hulle het nie almal ingelaat by hulle beplanning nie. But in this case they did allow you into their planning, because you said to them on the night, on the early morning of the 3rd of March. Oppervlakkig ja. Hulle het ons gebruik om op te tree as ‘n tipe van ‘n stoppergroep. Ek glo nie Kaptein Kleyn of mnr Bothma of myself sou hulle ingelaat het by hierdie operasie as ons die agtergrond geweet het wat daar presies aan die gang was nie. Soos dit vir my blyk was dit op ‘n kort kennisgewing wat Kaptein Kleyn verwittig is en ons verwittig is om daar te gaan rapporteer. But if you say these police always kept things secret - how would you have known what their background is like? Maar ek weet nie wat hulle agtergrond is nie. Ek weet nou nog nie presies alles nie. I think I will leave it with just one last question - just the Units that these police came from, the Security men from Pretoria, there seems to be - to have been an enigma about them, just judging about the way you refer to them as these people - these police did not let you in to their secret. What did you know about this people - I mean did they came from a mysterious Unit - what was it that they were secretive about? Mnr die Voorsitter ek kan my nie in laat oor hulle bewegings en goed nie, ek het nie kennis gedra van hulle nie, ek weet net hulle het van die Veiligheidspolisie - dis die storie. Thank you Pumla. Any further questions from the panel - Mary. Thank you Chairperson - Mr Coetzee just one thing about the question of Mr Lazaro and his statement and the complaint about the robbery. He as I understand it - lodged that complaint at Mitchell’s Plain and then that the information about that case, must have been transferred to Bishop Lavis to come under your knowledge. Would that have been a routine procedure? Mnr die Voorsitter soos ek gesê het, alle klagtes van roof waar vuurwapens betrokke by is was die verantwoordelikheid van die Moord- en Roof-eenheid om te ondersoek. In hierdie spesifieke geval van mnr Lazaro het hy ‘n klagte van gewapende roof gerapporteer te Mitchell’s Plein, die saak dossier was geopen en ons by die Moord- en Roof-eenheid was in kennis gestel van die saak wat gerapporteer is, dis hoe ek - die saak was toe aan my opgedra om verder ondersoek en wat ek gedoen het. Thank you, then the question of what you heard over the radio about identifying these people who were approaching you or had arrived in the area as the people that you have been briefed about. Can you just take us back to that, because there may have been several bits of information given over the radio. Inspector Bothma referred to what he had heard in the car radio saying those are the people who are near you. Did you hear that or did you hear something else as well? Ons al drie was in dieselfde voertuig, en wat hy gehoor het, gaan ek akkoord mee. And that is referring to the people who were walking towards you at that stage, the four or five people? Daardie radio spraak het plaasgevind toe ons direk langs die persone verbyry terwyl hulle aan die regterkant van die pad geloop het. Nee dis voordat ek - nadat ek by hulle verby is, voordat ek in NY1 afgedraai het en toe ek opdrag gegee is om, om te draai, toe het ek weer na die kruising toe gegaan, toe het ek weer afgedraai in NY111 in ‘n westelike rigting in - voor dit. I am trying to get the timing quite precisely in my mind, we know 7:20, 7:30 some of that, so would you be able to place that anymore precisely from a timing point of view? Soos ek gemeld het, 7:25 was ons aangesê om te onttrek, daarvandaan af na die kar toe waar ons gegaan het, is ‘n kwessie van twee - drie minute kan dit wees en dan daarvandaan af na die - van die kar af wat ons na die kruising toe gery het, dis baie naby, dis nie ver nie, dit kan ook ‘n drie minute plus gewees het. So dis in die omgewing van 7:30 - 7:35 ek is nie seker nie. Okay, and then the next event was that you turned back into NY111 and turned around and then there was the question of the grenade. Nadat ek terug in NY1 is in ‘n noordelike rigting het ek weer afgedraai in NY111 in ‘n westelike rigting, ek het onder gaan omdraai by die woonstelle en teruggekom en toe het ons die - toe het die kas - stilgehou en was die persoon gekonfronteer en het die handgranaat voorval plaasgevind. And that would have been probably just after 7:30. You - you said in your - in your statement that nothing would have happened and all of this would not have occurred if that hand grenade had not been thrown. Is that correct? I am sure we all wished that, that had been the case. Would it perhaps also be true to say that it wouldn’t have happened if all of that police contingent had in fact withdrawn when the instructions were given to withdraw. Dit is moeilik om te sê, die groot ding wat hierdie hele onaangename voorval laat plaasvind het, was vir my die gooi - gooi van die handgranaat. As daardie persoon net - en ek sê weer as hy stilgestaan het laat hy kan visenteer gewees het, al was hy in besit gevind van die handgranaat, dit kan definitief nie doller as kopaf gegaan het met hom nie. Hy kan aangekla gewees het vir die besit van onwettige ammunisie, of vir plofstof, maar hier trek hy die handgranaat en dit het die - soos hulle sê ge-trigger die hele besigheid wat toe plaasgevind het. And who had given the order to withdraw? And you also heard that over the car radio when you - previously. Thank you - thank you Mr Chairman. Thank you Mary. Glenda Wildschut. Mr Coetzee there was quite a lot of questioning with regard to Mr Lazaro’s statement which we noticed was made on the 27th of March 1986 and this signing of the statement. Could you explain to us please why it is that your statement which you read into the record this morning, was made on the 14th of October 1986. Ek weet nie Edelagbare, ek was nie die ondersoekbeampte in die voorval nie, van die skietery by - daar by NY1 en NY3 nie. Waarom my verklaring sewe maande na die tyd geneem is, weet ek nie hoekom dit gedoen is nie. Would you have not wanted to make a statement anyway seeing that there was this link between a case which in fact you were investigating namely Mr Lazaro’s case and the Guguletu 7 case just to cover yourself in a way, wouldn’t you have wanted to make a statement anyway. Just as a matter of procedure? Nee ek weet nou nie wat word bedoel by dek nie - ek het my verklarings afgeneem sover dit my aangaan - my saak aangegaan het. Yes I understand that, but there is a link between the matter that you involved with and the Guguletu 7 matter and there is a whole lot of activity - administrative activity around this case and you were present. But you make your statement several months after the event, is that what normally happens, that statements of this nature are made so long after the event? Is dit nou my verklaring wat ek vanoggend uitgelees het - ja soos ek sê hoekom my verklaring eers verkry was daardie tyd weet ek nie, ek was nie die ondersoekbeampte in daai saak nie. Indien het ek nie - asook die vorige getuie hierso mnr Bothma se verklaring was ook daardie tyd geneem. En ons het dit vreemd gevind, want ons was darem lelik betrokke in die voorval daarso. Yes I am asking more from a routine point of view when such an important event happens and there was quite a lot of activity there was all the story in die media and there was quite a lot of activity immediately after the - this event and still you feel that you don’t want to make a statement. A statement is only made seven months if my arithmetic is correct - seven months after the event. Doesn’t that sound strange to you in any way? Op geen stadium wat ek as - was ek onwillig om ‘n verklaring oor die voorval te maak nie. Waarom ek nie genader was om ‘n verklaring te maak nie, sal ek nie weet nie. But couldn’t you have voluntary offered to make a statement. I mean just to say hey, there is so much activity going on here, I would like to write down my statement and make it official - wait for somebody to ask you to make a statement when there is so - when in fact you are investigating something which is linked to this event. Doesn’t it sound a bit strange to you? Ek sê weer sover dit my saak gehad het, wat ek geondersoek het in Mitchell’s Plein, het ek die nodige gedoen. Ek het mnr Lazaro se verklarings daaromtrent gekry, ek het my verklaring verstrek in my verklaring - in my dossier. Wat die ander ondersoekbeampte se idees was, weet ek nie, hoekom hy vir my opdrag gegee het of my genader het vir ‘n verklaring nie. And could that have been because there was now a court inquiry and after the fact you were asked to make a statement? Could I appeal to you as a senior police officer and just to give the panel an idea of whether this is in keeping with normal procedure, just - can I just hear from you whether it - it is not in keeping with normal procedure for a statement of this importance to be made several months after the event, or is it possible that this routinely happens. I am appealing to you now as a senior police official and I am asking you in that capacity whether it is something which is rather strange that an event of this magnitude is - you are questioned about it only several or you are asked to make a statement only seven months after it, just a police officer. Mnr die Voorsitter indien ek die ondersoekbeampte was in daardie saak, sou ek gepoog het om ten minste die volgende dag of die daaropvolgende paar dae alle verklarings van persone teenwoordig op daardie toneel te gaan kry het. So this is not in keeping with normal procedure? Thank you end of Tape 9, Side B … Thank you Chairperson I will be as brief as possible. Mnr Coetzee net om bietjie terug te kom u was gevra oor die samestelling van die groep polisiemanne - polisiebeamptes wat betrokke was by die voorval en u was gevra of daar enige swart polisiebeamptes deel uitgemaak het van die groep polisie wat opgetree het die betrokke dag. Nou by die samesprekings die oggend van die kant van Moord- en Roof, was dit net die drie van u, u Kaptein Kleyn en mnr Bothma. Julle is al drie blanke [tussenbeide] Ek aanvaar daar was op daai stadium swart lede van die Moord- en Roof? Ja daar was swart lede verbonde. Het dit u - het dit vir eienaardig opgeval dat dit die drie van u - die drie blanke mans is wat Moord- en Roof se belange waardig. Nie eintlik nie Edelagbare - mnr die Voorsitter. Kry - het ‘n mens optredes gekry wat net deur blanke lede van die eenheid uitgevoer was? Van die Moord- en Roof-eenheid? Ons het as ‘n span saamgewerk, almal was deel daarvan gewees. Ek glo wat hier gebeur het is omdat ons drie was op bystand groep was ons toe versoek om aan te sluit, dis wat ek - ek bespiegel maar daarop. Maar as ek u korrek [tussenbeide] Wat normaalweg wanneer daar ‘n optrede geloods word deur die Moord- en Roof-eenheid dan word al sy lede betrek. So as ek u korrek verstaan dan - dan was die ‘n buitengewone situasie gewees, dis buitengewoon dat daar nou net blanke lede van die eenheid by ‘n optrede betrek word - dis nie ‘n normale situasie nie. Dit was nie ‘n normale situasie nie. Het u navraag gedoen daaromtrent waarom dit [tussenbeide] Waarom dit nodig is dat daar net blanke lede van Moord- en Roof betrokke is. Kan u aan enige rede dink waarom dit sou gebeur het as ons nou terugdink aan die situasie? Nee ek weet nie, ek kan nie kommentaar lewer nie. Maar dit lyk vir my u stem met my saam daar was ‘n duidelike rasse element betrokke by die beplanning minstens lyk dit. Ja soos ek sê ek was nou nie in beheer van die beplanning nie en ek het ook nie - op daardie stadium was ek ook nie in posisie om enige - sal ek maar sê instruksies uit te reik nie. So ek moes maar saam met die stroom gaan. Kan dit wees dat die swart lede van die eenheid nie vertrou was om betrokke te raak by die - ‘n voorval van hierdie aard. Dit sal ek definitief nie sê nie, want ons lede by die Moord- en Roof-eenheid het met groot sake gewerk en hulle - van hulle was van ons betroubaarste persone op die eenheid. Sonder hulle kon ons maar soos hulle sê shop toegemaak het. Het u getuienis gegee later in die verrigtinge wat gevolg het - die geregtelike doodsondersoek - die verhoor van mnr Tony Weaver? Ek was net by mnr Tony Weaver betrokke, maar ek was nie by die nadoodse ondersoek betrokke nie. Was daar enige swart getuies wat getuienis afgelê het. Het u enige swart getuies gesien wat saam met u sou getuienis aflê? Ek kan nie onthou nie. Dit is moontlik maar ek kan nie onthou nie. U kan nie - u kan nie ‘n swart lid onthou wat deel uitgemaak het van die span getuies aan die polisie se kant nie. Toe ek getuig het was daar nie ‘n swart lid nie. Geen swart lede, net blanke lede. Wel ten tyde van my getuienis was ek al persoon - Kaptein Kleyn was saam met my - ek weet nie van ander lede wat daar betrokke was nie. Ek het agterna gehoor Superintendent Sterrenberg was ook daar betrokke en wie die ander - of daar nog getuies was, weet ek nie. So al wat u gehoor het, het verband gehou met blanke lede wat getuig het. Dis reg ja, wat ek van geweet het. I am in a bit of a dilemma, I believe one or two of my colleagues would like to put further questions, but I have a half past one appointment in Town. And I would therefore request that you - you indulge me by allowing us to take the lunch hour adjournment at this stage and that we continue with the further examination of - of Inspector Coetzee after lunch. I believe that it might be inconvenient for you advocate Van Zyl that the one thing you don’t want to be on the wrong side of [indistinct] so I have a very urgent appointment with [indistinct] in Town and can I ask everybody’s indulgence that we should return at two - or so soon thereafter as we can deal with the matter. [indistinct] remind Inspector Coetzee that you are still under oath and I would like to ask advocate Potgieter to continue with your questioning. Mnr Coetzee daar is een ander aspek wat ek na wil verwys - het u gesien hoe die persoon wat later by punte L en K gevind was, hoe daardie persoon geskiet was? Dis moontlik ja advokaat ek kan nie onthou nie. Het u enige idee gehad wie verantwoordelik was vir die skietvoorval ten opsigte van daai persoon? Kon u op enige stadium vasstel wat eintlik daar gebeur het? Nie op daardie betrokke dag nie. Het u op ‘n latere stadium vasgestel wat gebeur het daar? Ja ek het nou geluister hoe - hoe dit beskryf is hierso by die Kommissie. Ja maar nou behalwe vir dit, het u op enige stadium kon vasstel of enige een van u kollegas op die toneel verantwoordelik was vir die skietvoorval en indien wel - wie die kollega is wat die skietwerk gedoen het daar. Het u daardie liggaam gesien terwyl u op die toneel was? Ek het gesien daar lê ‘n persoon ja. Watter van u kollegas was by daardie persoon gewees toe u dit - toe u die liggaam sien? Wel toe ek hom daar opgemerk het was daar niemand by hom gewees nie. En op ‘n later stadium? Het u later enigeen van u kollegas gesien daar by daai liggaam? Ek het op ‘n later stadium daar by voertuig H die geel voertuig, het ek vir Inspekteur Grobbelaar en Bellingham gesien. Hoekom ek van Bellingham onthou want sy een oog was bloed in sy gesig gewees, dis hoe ek hom plaas op die toneel. Watter een van die Grobbelaar’s is dit wat u gesien het. Dit is nou by die voertuig H en voertuig J -het u dit opgemerk op die toneel? Ek het die voertuig later gesien staan daarso ja. En watter van die polisiebeamptes was by daai voertuig? Het u - was dit ‘n polisievoertuig? Het u geen van die polisiebeamptes by daai voertuig gesien nie? Nee die voertuig het leeg gestaan daarso. Ja - wel wat ek bedoel by leeg gestaan, daar was niemand binne-in hom gewees nie. En voertuig A - het u dit gesien terwyl u op die toneel was? Ek weet nie wat was voertuig H nie. Maar u het ook nie daardie voertuig op die toneel gesien nie. Ek weet nie wat se voertuig dit is nie. Ek kan nie onthou- my in dink van so ‘n voertuig nie. Indien daar so ‘n voertuig op die toneel was, sou u dit gesien het? Op daardie spesifieke - wat hy daar aangedui is - ek weet nie - dis moontlik. Maar u kan nie uself herinner dat u daardie voertuig gesien het nie. Nou u het ook getuig dat u het vyf persone gesien in die pad in NY111. En as ek u getuienis nog reg onthou het u gesê dat drie van die persone het in die bos gehardloop. Het hulle in die rigting van die bosse gehardloop ja. Drie van hulle - dit is in die bos waar die liggame later gevind was - of in daai rigting, in die rigting waar die liggame later gevind was - P, T,S,Q en R. In daardie rigting het die drie gehardloop? Die drie gehardloop dis korrek ja. En die ander twee wat het van hulle geword? Nee ek weet nie wat het van hulle geword nie. Waar was daai ander twee toe u hulle die laaste keer op die toneel gesien het? Hulle was so - hulle was so effens maar wat ek [onduidelik] ‘n tree of drie agter die voorste drie wat ons gekonfronteer het langs NY111 toe Kaptein Kleyn uitgeklim het. So - so die drie was nader aan u gewees. En die twee was bietjie agter - agter hulle, bietjie verder van waar u was. En wat het hulle gedoen, die twee nou net toe u hulle laas opmerk, het hulle gehardloop of het hulle nog gestap of wat? Nee - nee toe u hulle laas - laaste sien op die toneel, kyk u het hulle gesien entjie agter die [onduidelik]. Wat het hulle toe gedoen - het hulle nog gestap of het hulle al gehardloop? Wel hulle - in dieselfde rigting beweeg as wat die drie voorste gegaan het. En toe word die handgranaat gegooi en u sien net drie [tussenbeide] Maar wat kon van die ander twee geword het? Ek weet nie, my vermoede is dat hulle heel moontlik teruggehardloop het in die rigting uit wat hulle kom - gekom het. En hoe is dit dat u hulle nie weer gesien het nie. My aandag was vasgevang op daai persoon wat die handgranaat gegooi het. Was hulle ver uitmekaar uit die drie en die twee? Ek skat so drie treë uitmekaar uit. Hulle is redelik naby aan mekaar gewees. En ‘n mens moet aanvaar dat - wel laat ek maar liewer vir u vra wat u - u observasie was, het u die indruk geskep dat hulle deel van dieselfde groep is of watter indruk het u gekry? Op ‘n vroeër stadium toe ons hulle gekry het by die kruising voor ons links afgaan of voor ek links afgedraai het met die voertuig, op daai - aan die regterkant van die pad toe was al vyf so te sê bymekaar. So dan moet ‘n mens aanvaar hulle was deel van dieselfde groep. Ek het geglo hulle van dieselfde groep. En dan moet ‘n mens aanvaar dat as die drie beginne hardloop het, dan sou die twee waarskynlik ook gehardloop het. Het u al drie die liggame gesien wat - of laat ek dit maar liewers dan vra watter - watter liggame het u eintlik gesien na die skietery? Want na die skietery, ek het daardie liggaam L en K gesien, en dan het ek die een gesien by E en D. Ek dink ek het die een gesien by G en F ook. En die een wat gemerk P is. So dis L en K, en G en F - E en D en P. Dit was na - heeltemal na die besigheid. Het u vier - vier liggame gesien. U het nie ‘n liggaam gesien by C en B nie? Ek kan nie onthou van hulle nie. So u kan nie onthou van C en B, punte C en B nie en verder in die bosse - Q en R en T en S? Ja mnr Bothma was ook daar gewees. Wat in dieselfde voertuig was. Ja dit was ook - wat ons by P was, was nadat ek teruggekom het van die N2 pad, toe het ek gegaan daar - gaan kyk. O! ek sien - so u - u is eers na die brug toe soos u verduidelik het om te kyk is daar nie mense wat u sien wat weghardloop nie. Het u vermoed dat daar is van die - ek aanvaar dit is - ten opsigte van die groep van vyf dis die enigste persone wat u gesien het op die toneel. En het u vermoed dat van daai groep kon daar van hulle wees wat weggekom het of wat [onduidelik] Dit was my vermoede - daar in die bosse ingaan, deurhardloop ander kant toe. Toe het u nou op die brug gaan staan en ‘n uitkyk gehad voor in die bos. En het u enigeen van hulle gesien - enige iemand gesien vlug? Niemand nie, die persoon by Punt P was hy een van die groep wat u gesien het? Dit was die persoon wat die handgranaat gegooi het. In die groepie van drie wat voor was. En enigeen van die ander liggame? Was enigeen van hulle deel van daai groep van vyf, of was dit die enigste lid van daai groep wat u gesien het? Ek glo u verwys na L - L/K en G/F. En al die ander liggame wat u gesien het, L/K, G/F, E/D. Ek kan nie sê nie - ek dink nie so nie. Hulle - hulle - volgens u rekolleksie is hulle waarskynlik nie deel van daai groep gewees nie. Nee ek glo nie - al - dis moontlik dat L/K miskien een of dat dit die twee wat sal ek sê wat - wat ek vermoed het wat teruggehardloop kon gewees het, ek weet nie. Ja miskien kan ek u net help, L/K stel eintlik een persoon voor - die L is die L is die liggaam en K is ‘n wapen of iets, maar dis so - so dis een - dis een persoon - dis nie twee nie, so daar was een liggaam gevind by L/K, daai punt. Maar wie sou daai persoon geskiet het as hy nou - as hy inderdaad deel van die vyf was? Daar was geen ander polisiebeamptes in u onmiddellike omgewing nie, was daar? Toe die voorval plaasgevind het? Ek meen kyk u het nou - u het gekyk in ‘n oostelike rigting na die interseksie toe. So as daar van die ander polisievoertuie of u kollegas in daai onmiddellike omgewing was, dan behoort u hulle mos nou op te gelet het. Mar in elk geval u sê dat dit is moontlik dat van daai vyf kon weggekom het. En dit is inderdaad waarom u na die brug toe is? Dis waarvoor ek gegaan het ja. Is u alleen met die voertuig na die brug toe? Nou toe u - toe u ry met die voertuig, kan u onthou of die - of daar al ‘n liggaam was by Punte L/K? Ek kan nie onthou nie, wat ek weet is dat daai voertuie H en J het toe daar in die pad gestaan. Hulle was daar, ek het om hulle ge - soort van gery om uit te kom. En toe u ry was daar nog skietery of wat het gebeur? Toe u - toe u daar by die interseksie, kyk u het nou met NY111 gery en u het links gedraai in - in NY1 nè. NY1 - in ‘n noordelike rigting. Noordelike rigting ja, dis nou hier na die brug toe. Nou toe u - soos u gery het en soos u daar in die interseksie verbygegaan het, u sê dat die voertuie H en J was daar, en toe u nou indraai in NY1 links draai, wat was besig om te gebeur? Nee daar was - daar was beweging gewees, maar wat daar presies plaasgevind het, kan ek nie onthou nie. Toe u - toe u wegtrek ek is jammer. Daar het mense beweeg kan ek sê - ek het aanvaar dis polisiemanne. Okay, nou net om so entjie terug te gaan toe u wegtrek van waar u was - van waar u voertuig was, was u en Kaptein Kleyn en mnr Coetzee nou klaar geskiet al? So u het opgehou skiet en u klim in die voertuig, hulle twee bly daarso en u ry. Brug se kant toe - nou ons weet nou u skietery was klaar gewees maar soos u beweeg het was daar nog ander skietery wat u gehoor het. Daar was geen ander skietery nie. Het u enige skietery hoegenaamd gehoor behalwe u eie skietery? Toe ek daar op die brug gestaan het. Nee - nee op enige stadium - kyk vandat u gestop het voor daai groep van vyf ensovoorts. Ja in die straat - o! na ons uitgespring het uit die voertuig uit. Na die handgranaat aanvalle voorval. En nadat ons gevuur het, was daar baie skietery. So nadat u opgehou het toe - toe [tussenbeide] Die - in die tyd wat ons uitgegaan het, wat ek agter die kar om kom, toe moes ons platval. Toe kom die koeëls van al kante af. So toe u platval toe is daar nou ‘n hele skietery. En toe u nou opstaan en met die voertuig ry was daar toe nog skietery of was dit toe wat [tussenbeide] Toe was dit - toe was dit stil gewees. Toe was die skietery oor gewees. Daar was geen verdere skietery in die hele tyd wat u nou opgery het tot by die brug en later teruggekom het nie. Ja - nee terwyl ek op die brug gestaan het, toe het daar twee skote afgegaan uit die bos uit voor my. Wie geskiet het en waarop geskiet is, weet ek nie. So daar was twee skote in die bos? Daar was nog na alles ‘n hele ruk na die skietery was daar nog twee skote. In watter bos is dit - is dit in die bos hier waar in die omgewing waar P was - aan daai kant? Dis waar u later hulle - die liggaam P gesien het. Is in daai bos wat die twee skote afgegaan het. Ja die liggaam P is in ‘n - so in ‘n sandvoetpaadjie voor die bosse. Maar die twee skote het uit daai bosse uitgekom wat naby daai sand - paadjie is. Ja - ja aan die agterkant was ek van daai bosse gewees. Was dit die enigste ander skietery wat u gehoor het? Terwyl u nou op die brug staan? Maar toe is daar geen verdere skote geskiet nie. Toe is daar geen verdere skote geskiet nie? Nee daar was geen verdere skietery gewees nie. Kyk hierdie - die groep van vyf wat u gesien het, hulle was - sê net weer vir ons in watter rigting het hulle gestap in NY111? Westelike rigting - dis is nou - hulle het nou nader gekom na u voertuig toe - korrek? En hulle was al - hulle was al verby die interseksie? Hoe ver sou u skat was hulle al van die interseksie af? Toe ons hulle gekonfronteer het? En tot op daai stadium was daar geen skietery gewees nie? Die skietery is na die handgranaat gewees. As daar of laat ek vir u so vra - het u enige wapens gesien op enige een van daai vyf persone? Nee hulle het - hulle het met hulle hande - hulle sakke onder hulle klere geloop - dit het vir my voorgekom of hulle dit meer met hulle hande in hulle sakke loop as [tussenbeide] Meer met die hande - dit het meer gelyk hulle loop met hande in die sakke. En het u enige een van hulle gesien iets uithaal? Die persoon wat ons die handgranaat op - gegooi het, hy het sy regterhand uit sy sak uit gebring. Wat ‘n beweging uitgevoer het met sy hande. Dis die enigste persoon wat ‘n beweging met sy hande uitgevoer het. Ja, met die uittrek van sy hand uit sy sak uit en die bowl aksie, was omtrent een gewees. Nie een van die ander het ‘n geweer te voorskyn gehaal of enige iets soos dit nie. Ja toe hulle weghardloop - ek het nie op hulle [onduidelik] - my aandag was nie op hulle gevestig nie, my aandag was op die persoon gevestig met die handgranaat. En dit lyk asof die - die mees natuurlik ontvlugtingsroete vir die persone die vyf sou gewees het hier in die rigting van die bosse. Goed, as ek vir u mag vra, u sê dit was omtrent 600 - 800 meter verby die interseksie wat die groep was. Indien iemand min of meer dieselfde tyd wat die skietery plaasvind waar u was, indien iemand min of meer dieselfde tyd met ‘n AK47 in die interseksie sou beweeg het, dan moet ‘n mens aanvaar dat dit kon nie ‘n persoon gewees het wat deel van daai groep van vyf was nie. Want hulle was te ver al verby daai interseksie gewees. Korrek ja einde van Band 10 , Kant A … Are there any other questions - Pumla. Thank you Ms Wildschut - good afternoon again Mr Coetzee. Earlier on you showed us pictures I think they were DR/704 and DR/705 the ones you showed Mr Lazaro. Do you remember who took these pictures? Ek moet aanvaar dat dit is die polisiefotograaf mnr die Voorsitter. But you found them with the investigator who was in your department? There is a photograph there the one marked DR/704 - do you have that in front of you? One of the things that we see in that photograph - is a foot clad in a boot and blue pants, the bottom of a blue pants, obviously police blue pants, do you see that? That boot is pushed against the neck of that body that body 704 - the dead body of that victim - do you see that foot in that boot? What do you make of that - a policeman’s foot pushed against the neck of a dead body of one of the victims of the Guguletu 7. What do you make of it, what is that foot doing on that man’s neck? Ek sal nie weet nie die Voorsitter. Ek aanvaar die foto is geneem in die lykshuis aangesien daardie etiket met DR daarop dit is die etiket van - wat gebruik word by die lykshuis. So wie die persoon is wat daar trap - weet ek nie, ek was nie daar teenwoordig nie. Yes it was, but my question is not about the person, is just your imagination what do you think that foot is doing - that foot is pushed against the neck of that person’s body, what in you view do you think is that, this is really just, I am asking your opinion. A man is in a morgue and you are taking pictures and this is for the records - for the death register - this picture is being taken and a policeman is pushing his foot against his neck. What do you think is happening there? Ek weet nie wat daar gebeur het nie, maar vir my is dit verregaande. It’s outrages I agree with you, it looks totally outrages for a dead man to have a foot pushed by a policeman in his neck. Now you considered earlier when you were questioned by Ms Wildschut that some of the procedures that were followed were not proper - I think this is what you considered, you said yes the normal procedure were not followed during questioning by Ms Wildschut, do you remember that - just before lunch. Sy het - laat ek net weer -sy het vir my gevra oor hierdie - ek kan nie so lekker onthou nou nie. Yes but you remember your response - it was just before lunch about an hour ago. Kan u my net herinner daaraan - waaroor die vraag gegaan het wat sy my gevra het. Your response she was putting it to you that some of the procedures that was suppose to have been followed, during the investigation and the course of things - in the course of assessing things and collecting evidence, that certain things were not - certain procedures were not followed and she asked you if this was the proper thing to do and you - you considered that normal procedures were not followed. I am just reminding you this is what you said. I will like you to remember that this is what you said, you do remember. Now we have a situation here where seven men are killed or are shot, and they die, and we have an investigation that you yourself have considered that was conducted in a way in which normal procedures were not followed. We have a situation where photographs of these men are taken and one of those photographs shows an outrages picture in your words - an outrages picture of a policeman pushing his foot on the neck of a dead man. And we have the image again of a Riot Squad policeman standing with a satisfied smile over a body of a dead man, what do you make of this story, of this scene, what do you make of this whole affair? Ja mnr die Voorsitter soos ek gesê het, wat die oorsprong van die foto is, weet ek nie. I am not asking you to comment - I really am not asking you to comment on - on the persons in the photographs - I am merely asking your opinion in the same way that you gave an opinion about the kinds of procedures that were followed - the same way that you gave an opinion about the outrageousness of the nature of that - of what that policeman whoever he is, was doing in the same way that you commented that what seems to have been the tampering of evidence that we gleamed on video material was not normal procedure. I really am asking your opinion what do you make of this - the finding and investigation of a incident, of a shooting in which seven people died and in the background of all of this, we see policeman shoving their feet in dead men, standing and smiling over dead men’s bodies. We overhear something that suggest to us that evidence was tampered with. You yourself, have considered that normal procedures were not followed, what do you make of it, I am not saying name -names, I am merely asking your opinion, what do you make of this situation. Ja persoonlik dink ek dit is - ek weet nie hoe om my uit te druk nie. Ek sal voel na aanleiding van wat u nou gesê het en goed, dat daar kan ‘n ondersoek gelas word waarom daar so opgetree is. Thank you Chairperson. Mr Coetzee I’d just like to go back to the time after the shooting, when you got back into the vehicle and you drove northwards on the NY1 to have a view from the bridge back towards the area where you had come or back towards the bushes. You mentioned that you hoped to see whether anybody was - tried to escape and also that you heard two shots fired. Would you be able to estimate the time that it was then? Dis moeilik om te sê mnr die Voorsitter. Ek skat dis in die omgewing van tien minute. So there was quite a long period that elapsed between the large number of shots that were fired and then those two subsequent shots a little bit later, maybe ten minutes later. Ek skat so - ek is - gaan nie my verbind daaraan nie. The time that it would have taken you to get back into the vehicle to drive that distance and get out and look and so on - ja. Okay, thank you - nothing else Chairperson thank you. Advocate Van Zyl do you have any questions to ask your client? Thank you Mr Chairperson, Mr Coetzee - sorry I should keep this in Afrikaans really. Mnr Coetzee u was gevra daarna waarom het u ‘n verklaring gemaak so lank na die voorval plaasgevind het. U is bekend met hierdie dokument. Dis ‘n dokument van Landdros Hoffman wat hy sekere navrae omtrent hierdie ondersoek van die saak gerig het aan die ondersoekbeampte. Ja Landdros Hoffman was die landdros wat verantwoordelik was vir die hou van beide die geregtelike doodsondersoek ter sprake en so is dit die prosedure met ‘n geregtelike doodsondersoek is, het hy nadat hy die stukke bestudeer het op die 16de September 1986 sekere navrae gerig aan die senior Staatsaanklaer. Ek wil net vir u paragraaf 2 daarvan lees: Wat he Speurder Adjudant Offisier en Speurdersersant Coetzee - dit is u nè. Wat saam met Kaptein Kleyn was gedoen na die eerste konfrontasie? Van Sersant Coetzee is daar net verklaring A17 wat oor die foto identifikasie handel. Nou kan u net kyk na die verklaring wat vanoggend aan u getoon was en wat is sy nommer. Het hy nie op die toneel na die aanval op Kaptein Kleyn self ook gereageer nie en wat van Speurder Adjudant Offisier Bothma, hoe het hy opgetree - sy verklaring asseblief. Nou as u daardie paragraaf in gedagte hou met die datum 16 September 1986 en u verklaring, wat u vanoggend ingehandig het, wat gemaak was op die 14de van Oktober ’86 - tot watter slotsom kom u daaruit. Die verklaring was van my verkry na die opdrag van die landdros se versoek. Daar is ook ‘n verdere verwysing. Chairperson I believe that you are in possession of this particular document, I made enquiries during the luncheon adjournment but it is available should you require it. Paragraaf 6 van die dokument lees as volg: Verklaring A17 is te beknop - in die opsig dat dit nie aandui wat die vermiste artikels is ingevolge Mitchell’s Plein MR/68.03.86. Insgelyks moet die klaer Lazaro van A16 asseblief aandui watter artikels daar by hom geroof is. Nou kan u net vir die Kommissie sê was daar toe ‘n verdere verklaring van mnr Lazaro geneem behalwe die verklaring van 27 Maart 1986 waarna u vanoggend verwys was. Ek het ‘n verdere verklaring van mnr Lazaro geneem - ek dink dis daar iewers in Oktober gewees, ek kan nou nie die datum presies onthou nie. Ek wil aan u ‘n verklaring wys wat ingehandig was by die geregtelike doodsondersoek as Bewysstuk Y. Mr Chairperson I also believe that this document is in possession of the Commission as part of the inquest, the original inquest. Is dit die verklaring wat u van hom geneem het? Dis die verklaring wat ek geneem het van hom. Die 15de Oktober 1986 - 15:00 die middag. So u het ‘n verklaring van mnr Lazaro geneem op die 27ste Maart, die kortetjie waaroor u vanoggend gekruisverhoor was. Na die landdros se navraag in September het u ‘n verdere verklaring van hom geneem waarin hy breedvoerig uitgewei het oor wat gebeur het en wie die persone was wat hom beroof het. Chairperson I don’t think it’s necessary to tender this document, I believe a copy is in possession of the Commission. I just need to check with the staff quickly - can you look at [intervention] I am quite happy to hand this in. [indistinct] I just want to understand. Ja we would like to have a copy of that one. Dankie - nou mnr Coetzee daardie verklaring is nou baie meer breedvoerig, ek verstaan - ek verstaan uit die vrae wat u vanoggend gekry het, dat mnr Lazaro blykbaar getuig het voor hierdie Kommissie, en dat hy ontken dat hy enige verklaring voor u geteken het. Ek weet nie of mnr Lazaro gekruisverhoor was nie, ek weet nie wat die aard van die getuienis is nie, maar dit is wat u mee moet saamleef. U sê vir die Kommissie dat mnr Lazaro het hierdie verklarings persoonlik geteken. Ek wil ook vir u vra na hierdie verklaring wat gedateer is 15 Oktober 1986 - is dit ook hy wat daar geteken het? Is dit die - is dit u - die verklaring wat u geneem het? Dis my handtekening hierso onder. Ja en daar waar die deponent geteken het, wie was dit? Dit was mnr Lazaro wat daar geteken het. Daar was vir u gesê dat die - soos ek die vraag verstaan het, dat die handtekeninge nie ooreenstem - u is nie ‘n handskrifdeskundige nie. Ek is nie ‘n handskrifdeskundige nie, ek gaan my nie uitlaat daar nie. Desnieteenstaande wil ek tog aan u toon, die verklaring geteken op die 15de Oktober 1986 en die verklaring onderteken op die 7de van die 11de maand 1996 geneem deur die Kommissie waar die persoon tien jaar later sy handtekening gemaak het onderaan die huidige verklaring. En ek wil graag u aandag vestig op die manier wat hy die eerste A in sy handtekening of in sy van skryf, maar meer belangrik die manier wat hy die Z in sy van maak, asook die manier waarop hy die Z gemaak het waar hy parafeer in die verklaring van 7 November 1996, kan u net daarna kyk en u kommentaar daarop lewer alhoewel u nie ‘n handskrifdeskundige is nie. Mr Chairperson I made copies for the panel of just those pages and I’ve highlighted the initialling on the side as well as the two signatures in questions, may I hand this in? Groot yes - sommer een vir jou ook. As u eerstens net kyk na die manier wat die Z gevorm is, het u enige kommentaar daarop te lewer? Mnr die Voorsitter vir my as leek blyk dit al drie dieselfde te wees. Die manier wat die Z gevorm is. En as u kyk na die manier wat die A gevorm is, die lang eerste voet en die deursny na agter van die A self. Weer eens lyk dit vir my of dit dieselfde kan wees. Want u was gesê gewees by implikasie, u was daaraan herinner dat u onder eed is, en daar was vir u by implikasie gesê dat u besig is om ‘n leuen te vertel as u sê dit is nie so nie. Is u bereid om - dat hierdie handskrifte voorgelê word met die volle inligting aan ‘n onafhanklike handskrifdeskundige om te ontleed? Mr Chairperson I can tender the name of an independent handwriting expert I have used many time, who are held in high esteem, he is Mr Peter Horley - H O R L E Y, he lives in Johannesburg, he does a lot of work in this field for banks and international institutions - his telephone number is 011-8032822 and we invite this Commission to subject all three these statements to Mr Horley and that it be pointed out to him that these signatures are ten years - or ten years separate these two signatures and ask him for his expert opinion in the matter. Thank you I have no further questions for this witness. Thank you advocate Van Zyl I think that it’s very important to point out that this Commission’s attempt is to try and establish as far as possible all the details and all the events that had happened and I think that it was appropriate for the panellist to remind people who have came before this Commission, that they are speaking under oath - there was in fact the attempt to point out that it is puzzling for the panel to try and understand why in our view there was this discrepancy and it was imperative on the panel to try and clear an clarify that. And I think that it was in that spirit that the questioning occurred, thank you very much. |
