CHAIRPERSON: While you're doing that, I'm just going to get the record in order. The following application is that of W F Schoon, reference number AM4396/96. It is in respect of the Joe Pillay incident and the Panel is as previously indicated and the appearances on behalf of Mr Schoon are as indicated earlier. There is no other legal representative involved here and then of course the evidence leader is as indicated.
MR VISSER: I believe that Mr Jansen has an interest in the matter.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps you want to put that on record, Mr Jansen?
MR JANSEN: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Jansen on instructions of Julian Knight Attorneys. We act for an implicated party, Mr Dirk Coetzee, in the next two incidents which is Joe Pillay and Griffiths Mxenge. Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jansen.
WILLEM FREDERICH SCHOON: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Chairperson, we have prepared a statement yet again in order to conserve time which will be the one on the exhibit list marked as C2. I understand it's already before you?
MR VISSER: If I may be permitted to then immediately carry on?
MR VISSER: Brigadier, you have given evidence previously in this series of amnesty applications before the current Committee?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.
MR VISSER: We will not be reiterating everything. You have referred to Exhibit A and a series or at least you have already referred to other evidence which you wish to incorporate in your application?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.
MR VISSER: Can we then proceed to your application which one can find in bundle 1 on page 10 to 12 and 39 to 43. Do you confirm the correctness of the contents of this statement?
MR VISSER: And do you also confirm the correctness of Exhibit C1 which has been submitted on your behalf?
MR VISSER: I beg your pardon, that's actually C2.
You request a limited amnesty in this particular matter namely defeating the ends of justice or any other offence or delicts which could emanate from the facts which has to do with an abduction, is that correct?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.
MR VISSER: And this abduction took place from Swaziland?
MR VISSER: In order to give the Amnesty Committee some background regarding Swaziland, could you please go to paragraph 2 in Exhibit C2 and move from there?
MR SCHOON: At the end of 1980 and at the beginning of 1981 a summit was held in Simon's Town where all the role players in the security community were involved. General Johan Coetzee reported back to us at security head office and said that a decision was taken at the summit, that there should be closer co-operation between the individual members of the security community and other divisions and departments with regard to the collection and exchange of information in order to prevent that there should not be a duplication of information and that certain members of the security community would not possibly have information at their disposal while it already was in existence with other members of the security community. It was also reported that the South African Defence Force which at that stage had been acting in support of the SAP internally would continue to do so but that there would be a clear division with regard to internal and external actions.
With regard to the internal situation it would fall under the jurisdiction of the SAP regarding external operations, this would fall under the jurisdiction of the South African Defence Force with the exception of Swaziland which also, despite the fact that it was a neighbouring state fell under the jurisdiction of the SAP. This was as a result of the good relationship which existed between Swaziland and the R.S.A.
I would just like to add, Chairperson, with special regard to the co-operation between the individual police forces.
MR VISSER: And that Simon's Town summit led to certain orders been given through?
MR SCHOON: That is correct. General Coetzee gave the order that information was to be collected regarding activities of members of the liberation movements in Swaziland.
MR VISSER: So you are talking about liberation movements?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct. I gave Captain Dirk Coetzee the order to liaise with General Jack Buchner, he was a major or a lieutenant colonel at that stage, as well as Colonel Baker in order to monitor information about persons in Swaziland and their activities and to report, among others, to myself as well.
MR VISSER: May I just interrupt you? What was General Jack Buchner at that stage and Colonel Baker, what were their tasks or positions at that stage? Why was Coetzee to liaise with them?
MR SCHOON: Because they were the persons who were responsible for interrogation and the collation of all information regarding terrorism. According to existing information, there were two Pillay brothers namely Ivan and Joe during that time who were actively involved with assistance to fledgling terrorists by accommodating and transporting them between Swaziland and Mozambique.
MR VISSER: Why do you say that, was that available information which existed at head office?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct. I was informed that after Mr Joe Pillay was abducted by operatives of Captain Coetzee, they handed him over at the R.S.A. Swaziland border to other operatives. Mr Joe Pillay was detained in terms of the stipulations of Section 6 of the Terrorism Act, initially at a police station in the Eastern Transvaal and after that at the Old Observatory in Pretoria. These premises were used by the military intelligence of the South African Defence Force.
MR VISSER: Might I just ask you, is that your own information or was that reported to you?
MR SCHOON: That was according to my own knowledge except that this detention in the Eastern Transvaal was reported to me.
MR VISSER: So you knew that he was being detained at the Old Observatory?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.
MR VISSER: I was informed that Captain Dirk Coetzee in his Amnesty Hearing gave evidence that Pillay was first taken to Vlakplaas, that is in bundle 3, page 671 and we must just delete Captain there as well, it's incorrect and that he reported to me, bundle 3 page 672. I do not know that Pillay was taken to Vlakplaas, however, I will not deny this. It is also possible that Captain Dirk Coetzee reported to me. However I have no recollection of this.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, I don't see much point in reading those passages to you, what is there is what is precisely stated here so there's no reason to. Thank you.
Please continue, you are at paragraph 10.
MR SCHOON: Pillay was interrogated by Lieutenant Colonel Jack Buchner, SAP, and Major Kallie Steyn, MI. I deny that I had Andy Taylor or Jerry Fourie come in from Natal, bundle 3, page 672 and bundle 3 page 679. I believe that this could have been Buchner or Baker.
MR VISSER: That had them come in?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.
MR VISSER: Please repeat that? Who had them come in?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct. I also do not know about the involvement of Messrs Andy Taylor and Jerry Fourie and their interrogation to which Captain Dirk Coetzee referred to in his evidence before the Amnesty Committee, bundle 3, page 673 to 674. However, I cannot deny this.
After Captain Dirk Coetzee's people had handed over Pillay at the border as already stated, they returned to Manzini. The group consisted of one Black member from Vlakplaas and three Mozambican citizens. The "was" should be changed to "who" - who were applied by Captain Coetzee as sources. Apparently (if one wants to believe stories) it was their intention to rob a bank.
MR VISSER: Where did you hear that?
MR SCHOON: I heard that somewhat later from the then Major Eugene de Kock and Colonel Jack Cronje.
MR VISSER: Very well, we will leave that as stories because it's not relevant with regard to the current application.
MR SCHOON: 15 - during the abduction of Pillay the Black police officer lost his appointment certificate or identity book at the scene. That was reported to me. The motor vehicle in which they travelled was apparently identified by the Swaziland police. When they were confronted by the Swaziland police, they chased away which led to their vehicle being shot full of holes. They were then arrested and detained in Swaziland.
MR VISSER: And this what was reported to you?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that was reported to me. I deny particularly that I had anything to do with the abduction of Mr Pillay.
Bundle 3 page 678 of Captain Coetzee's evidence, the entire affair was conceived by Captain Dirk Coetzee and his operative and executed by them as well. He stated in his evidence before the Amnesty Committee that he was in Pretoria when he was informed about the abduction of Lieutenant van der Lith.
Bundle 3 page 668 and 669 - ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: Might I just interrupt you once again?
I'm going to read to you from page 678:
"In his amnesty application Mr Dirk Coetzee"
towards the bottom of that page said, the question was asked of him:
"And the original planning or the mention"
because it wasn't a planning he had already previously said that it was just mentioned or the mention of the possible abduction of Mr Pillay:
"From where did that come?"
"If my memory serves me right, from Brigadier Schoon."
and that is what we're referring to.
And then at page 668, Chairperson, the evidence of Mr Coetzee in this regard, you will find at the top of the page, as to how this abduction or how he heard about it, he says - the question is:
"During his abduction, where were you at the time?"
"In Pretoria at police headquarters but later that night at my house after briefing my C Section Chief, Brigadier Schoon."
"How did it come about that you were in Pretoria at the time?"
Whilst we were surveiling several ANC houses for the purpose of operations against them I was called back to Pretoria by Brigadier Schoon to come and make a full report on the progress that we were making."
Chairperson and if necessary I will refer again to that in argument.
Will you proceed from paragraph 18 please?
MR SCHOON: I do not know about any assaults on Joe Pillay, bundle 3 page 734 as well as pages 673, 674, 682, 683, 708.
MR VISSER: Yes and on those pages Mr Coetzee sets out the assaults which were committed with regard to Mr Pillay and you maintain that you do not know anything about this?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct, I have no knowledge of this.
MR VISSER: And you also maintain that it would appear from Bundle 3 page 720 that assaults could have been carried out against Mr Pillay during his abduction?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.
MR VISSER: Paragraph 19 please?
MR SCHOON: The Swaziland government made objection about Mr Pillay's abduction. After high level negotiations that would be with Foreign Affairs, the Commissioner of the Swaziland Police, Mr Pillay was given back to the Swaziland authorities. I received the order that this was to happen. I assisted him by telling his family where he was. I was present at the Lothair border post or it could have been another border post when he was handed over by General Johan Coetzee and Mr Ray Killan of Foreign Affairs to the Swaziland authorities. I cannot say how long after his abduction he was handed back.
MR VISSER: Can you just pause there? Chairperson, we now know ex post facto that the abduction took place on the 19th February. That's according to Mr Pillay's affidavit that he has presented. I don't know whether that's been handed to you. According to that evidence we have no reason to doubt it, the correctness of that aspect. In paragraph 3, Chairperson, he says he was abducted on the 19th February and later on it appears that he was handed back on the 10th March, in paragraph 46, all of which took place in 1981. So it's from February 1981 to 10th March 1981.
MR SCHOON: I would accept that as correct because I know that he spent several weeks in detention and the reason why I know that is because General Coetzee personally on two successive weekends travelled to Swaziland in order to discuss this matter with the Swaziland authorities.
MR VISSER: In paragraph 20 the second sentence please continue?
MR SCHOON: I cannot say how long after his abduction this ...(inaudible) assaulted.
MR VISSER: Brigadier Schoon, you are not requesting amnesty with regard to any assault?
MR VISSER: Are you saying then that you were not at all aware that he had been assaulted?
MR SCHOON: No, I was not aware but what I was aware of was that he had been manhandled quite heavily during his abduction.
MR VISSER: Continue, paragraph 21.
MR SCHOON: As a result of diplomatic negotiations, the one Vlakplaas policeman and three Mozambican informers of Captain Dirk Coetzee were released and brought to the R.S.A. The three Mozambicans were accommodated for a while at Vlakplaas. As far as my knowledge goes, Captain Dirk Coetzee and all those under his command with regard to this matter acted without authorisation and on their own initiative.
MR VISSER: Yes and we know that this caused a great deal of embarrassment?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.
‘Apparently, I have committed a defeat in the ends of justice by not reporting my knowledge of the true facts regarding the matter. I committed these actions or these omissions on behalf of the South African Police and the former government and the National Party whose interests I wished to protect by means of this. The acts and omissions which I committed, I did in the execution of my official duties and as part of my opposition to the struggle. This was aimed against supporters of a liberation movement. I request, with respect, that I be granted amnesty for my acts and omissions in this regard."
MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairperson, that is the evidence-in-chief.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. I just want to check with you for the purposes of the record, do we have a signed version of Exhibit C2?
MR VISSER: I don't know but he has confirmed it under oath, Chairperson, he has but we can have it signed, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Well let Ms Thabethe get a signed one. I see that C2 has been prepared in the form of just an ordinary statement, not an attested statement if I am not mistaken. Yes, I don't think that we need to get it attested, he can simply just sign it. Ja, alright. Thank you. Mr Jansen?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.
Mr Schoon, my purpose here today is simply to put Mr Coetzee's version to you and not to go into detail regarding the discrepancies between your version and his version, I do not wish to debate that. I would also like to put it on record that I believe that the most important distinctions which Mr Coetzee has regarding this matter with the other members of the security forces are actually worth General Johan Coetzee and not with you.
You have already discussed most of the aspects of Mr Coetzee's evidence and I would like to invite your commentary once again regarding why it would have taken approximately three weeks before Mr Pillay was returned to the Swaziland authorities.
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, the delay was ascribed to the fact that this matter had to be handled on a diplomatic level and that was quite a lengthy process. As I had already mentioned, General Coetzee on two successive weekends travelled to Swaziland in order to discuss this with the Swaziland authorities and in order to clear up the matter. Then there was also the one policeman and the three collaborators of Mr Coetzee who had been detained and we needed to negotiate their return from detention in Swaziland and this took approximately three weeks, it took three weeks to get these things to a point.
MR JANSEN: The other aspect is that much has been made since then of the fact that Mr Coetzee acted completely alone and that he created an embarrassment for the South African Government and the security forces. Now I would like to ask you the following question in relation to this. Why would the security forces and specifically the security police have associated themselves with the scandalous behaviour and embarrassing behaviour by bringing Mr Pillay to Pretoria and drawing advantage from his abduction by interrogating him, apparently allowing him to be interrogated by various people in the country. This person was abducted, he was in our hands in the republic and for that reason we deemed it acceptable to interrogate him and to see what kind of information he could give us.
MR JANSEN: You see the final aspect in this regard is that Mr Coetzee's version is that initially his superiors and more specifically General Coetzee were rather impressed with the fact that Pillay had been abducted even though it took place upon the own initiative of the Askaris but that this abduction became a bit of a problem and a hot potato when the people in Swaziland were arrested and I would like your commentary regarding this following statement of mine.
In 1982 the South African Security Forces and even the Attorney General did not regard it as unheard of that persons were abducted from neighbouring States, were interrogated here and even prosecuted here and my question is, do you have any commentary regarding this fact that according to Coetzee's version it would appear that it may have been a question of convenience to say that this was such an embarrassing incident.
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, the only commentary which I can give is that the evidence which we had at that stage was not sufficient in order to charge Mr Pillay and the actual person for whom this evidence was overwhelming was Ivan, his brother.
MR JANSEN: Well then, as Mr Coetzee has said, it appeared from Mr Pillay's interrogation that he had had no recent contact with the ANC machinery. You are aware of that aspect of Mr Coetzee's evidence?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that was the impression that I gained as well.
MR JANSEN: However, it would not have been strange that should he have had extensive knowledge and if he had been involved in these activities that he would have been charged, that would not have been strange?
MR JANSEN: And if I recall correctly, one of the reasons why he was detained in the Lothair Police Station for a period of 10 days to almost two weeks was to treat swelling and other injuries which emanated from his assault, to give it the opportunity to disappear or to heal. Do you have any commentary regarding that?
MR SCHOON: I cannot agree with that, the process of his return was delayed as a result of the mediation of foreign affairs and nothing else. We were prepared to retain him immediately, however foreign affairs was involved and they arranged the whole matter and he was personally returned to their Ministers of Foreign Affairs at the border post.
MR JANSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Jansen.
Ms Thabethe have you got any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Yes Mr Chair.
Mr Schoon, have you seen the affidavit for the statement that was written by Mr Pillay?
MR SCHOON: I have not yet read the statement personally.
MS THABETHE: Well, basically in the statement he narrates how he was tortured during the abduction. What would be your comment to that? Would you know of such torture and assaults and would you associate yourself with them or not?
MR SCHOON: No Chairperson, in the first place I do not associate myself with that as I have already said. It was told to me that he had resisted greatly and I would not be surprised that he would have bruises which he had incurred during the abduction.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I just want to have this document marked, Ms Thabethe, I think that would now be?
MS THABETHE: I. Exhibit ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: I'm sorry Chairperson, there's also a covering letter, I'm not sure whether that forms part of what has been placed before you but I suppose all that is relevant is really the affidavit, I would submit.
MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, I would have thought that Mr Wagener and Advocate Visser won't be interested in the letter because he states that he has no ill feelings, I mean the letter, the last paragraph.
MR VISSER: It's not whether we're interested in it or not, it's a question of your decision what you're going to allow before - I'm just drawing your attention to the fact that the part of what is placed before you is not an affidavit, that's all I'm doing.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I haven't personally read these things so there is a letter. Ms Thabethe, in your view are all these things relevant to the proceedings?
MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, I would like it to form part of the affidavit, the letter.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright, we'll then mark the entire bundle as Exhibit J.
MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair, can I proceed?
MS THABETHE: Mr Schoon, I understand you are applying for the obstruction of justice with relation to this incident. Are you also applying for the abduction of Mr Pillay or you're only applying for obstruction of justice?
MR VISSER: ...(inaudible) of justice whether that's exactly the same. I'm not making a point of it but it will fall under any other acts or offence. I'm not objecting to the question but I think we refer to it as defeating the ends of justice, it came afterwards.
MS THABETHE: Okay, are you applying for defeating the ends of justice together with the abduction of Mr Pillay or are you just applying for the defeating the ends of justice?
MR SCHOON: I am applying for defeating the ends of justice, Chairperson.
MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabethe.
Mr Visser, have you got any re-examination?
MR VISSER: No re-examination except that I must draw your attention to the fact that in bundle 5 we have bound in at page 42 the presentation, the written presentation which Brigadier Schoon made before the Human Rights Violations Committee in his evidence as we referred to earlier, Chairperson, on the 19th November 1996 and at page 42 at the bottom you will find that he deals with the kidnapping and assault of Mr Joe Pillay in 1981 in Manzini, Chairperson, I didn't refer you in particular to it because
it's identical to your evidence before you here today.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Have you got any other evidence that you were going to lead?
MR VISSER: There's no other witnesses which we wish to call and that's basically the application, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Right. Mr Schoon, you are excused for the purposes of this matter.
MR SCHOON: Thank you Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, would you like me to wrap this up and deal with the argument, because there really isn't an argument, you've heard the evidence?
CHAIRPERSON: I think so, I just wanted to - I assume you don't have any evidence that you want to place before us?
MR JANSEN: No Mr Chairman, unless argument, if argument is going to be short, it's not a problem, unless argument is going to be long I think it might be more convenient to deal with Mxenge Matter because that's going to be similarly be very short and then we can be excused and then argument can take place whatever the position is.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright, you won't have any evidence to him?
CHAIRPERSON: Alright, that concludes this matter then I think Mr Jansen's suggestion is a good one. Let's take the other one and then you take it together and then you deal with it. Alright.
WILLEM FREDERICH SCHOON:: (s.u.o.)
EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Yes, that is in order, Chairperson. We then perhaps - well, he is under oath so we could perhaps just get straight onto it, the Mxenge matter, Chairperson, requires another statement to be handed to you which will be Exhibit C3 and the evidence or rather the application in the Mxenge matter is similarly in volume 1, bundle 1 rather, page 35.
I must draw your attention to the fact that in this case Captain Dirk Coetzee has been granted amnesty for the murder itself of Mr Griffiths Mxenge. I'm not sure whether you have a copy of that decision before you. Well, perhaps Chairperson, I do refer to it in Exhibit C3 but perhaps at this stage there is one part of it and that appears at page 3 which effects Mr Schoon. The passage as found by the Amnesty Committee reads:
"The evidence before us also disclosed that sometime after the killing, Brigadier Schoon gave the first applicant R3000 which he had apparently received from Brigadier Jan du Preez and which was to be given to the three persons who actually participated in the killing. This included the second and third applicants."
They were Nofomela and Tshikalanga if I remember correctly, Chairperson.
"Although they received this reward for having acted as they did, we do not feel that in killing the deceased they acted for personal gain as referred to in Section 23(i) of the Act."
The point is, Brigadier Schoon's name is mentioned in that regard and we ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I assume that the first applicant would then be Coetzee?
MR VISSER: My learned friend inclines his head in the positive, Chairperson.
Brigadier Schoon, with regard to the application which you have made for the Mxenge matter, you request on page 2 for amnesty for the possible accessory after the fact with regard to this murder and defeating the ends of justice because you did not make public the facts which were known to you, you are also requesting for amnesty for perjury and any other omissions or delicts emanating from this?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, I am aware of the fact that Captain Dirk Coetzee or Nofomela and David Tshikalanga received amnesty for the mentioned murder. I was informed that the incident took place on 19th November 1981. This was shortly before Captain Dirk Coetzee left Vlakplaas as it's commander. I have no personal knowledge of the murder or any aspect of the planning or execution thereof. I was definitely not involved in the planning and execution of this murder. Captain Dirk Coetzee did indeed say himself that he received the order from Brigadier van der Hoven, bundle 3, page 730.
Brigadier van der Hoven and Colonel Andy Taylor were charged with Captain Dirk Coetzee, Almond Nofomela and Spyker David Tshikalanga in Natal of the murder during which Van der Hoven and Taylor were found not guilty.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, that is also referred to in the amnesty decision. I don't know whether you have it? Perhaps we can organise a copy if you don't.
CHAIRPERSON: We can get access to it, I don't have it immediately in front of me but we can hold of it without difficulty.
MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, no we didn't believe it was terribly relevant but just for the sake of wrapping up all references to this document, I can refer to you at page one of that document where the Amnesty Committee said - he says the final cut-off date for the applications for amnesty has now passed and the three applicants have been charged and convicted of one of the offences in respect of which they apply for amnesty, that is for the murder of Griffiths Mxenge. They were charged with Brigadier van der Hoven and Captain Andy Taylor who were both found not guilty at the trial. That's all really all that we're referring to at this stage.
MR SCHOON: That's paragraph 5 - According to the best of my recollection, Brigadier Jan du Preez handed over an envelope with money in it to me approximately two weeks after the murder, it could have been shorter, and he then said that this was for Captain Coetzee's Black members. When Brigadier Jan du Preez handed over the envelope to me it took place in his office. It was a brown official envelope, approximately half A4 size. The envelope was thickly stuffed. I did not open the envelope but I had no reason to assume that there was not money inside. Brigadier du Preez said "give the money to Dirk, it comes from Koevoet." He also added that this was for Captain Coetzee's Black members. Brigadier Jan du Preez managed Koevoet's financial affairs while Brigadier Piet Goosen managed the Republic's secret fund.
After that I handed over the envelope to Captain Dirk Coetzee at Vlakplaas and informed him that it had come from Jan du Preez and was intended for his Black members. He appeared to know what it was about and nothing further was said in relation to this. Captain Dirk Coetzee said in his evidence in London before the Harms Commission, he referred to this money but he did not say that he had received it from me.
London Record, pages 324 and 325 - He did indeed say before the Amnesty Committee that he had received it from me.
Bundle 5, page 22 - I drew the inference that the money was intended as a reward for the murder Mr Mxenge. Consequently I made myself guilty of being an accessory after the fact. The reason why I drew this inference was because Brigadier Jan du Preez mentioned to me that it was apparently planned to send Mxenge's motor vehicle to Koevoet in Oshakati because it was a reasonably new motor vehicle. He also told me that he had given the order that the motor vehicle be burned immediately at the Swaziland border.
MR VISSER: Can we just pause there, Mr Schoon? There are people who are hearing evidence for the very first time which you and the others have been living with since 1990.
Chairperson, first of all if you'd like to pencil it in, if you'd like to pencil it in the London Record which reference is made to in paragraph 8 is also in the bundles before you, in bundle 5, pages 15(f) and 15(g), those are pages 324 and 325. They are before you.
Now we'll come to it in a moment but you also made an affidavit before the Harm Commission. Did the Harms Commission take place in 1990?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.
MR VISSER: And you say that you were informed that this money came from Koevoet?
MR VISSER: That is the same evidence that Dirk Coetzee gave and you have also stated that the motor vehicle was to be sent to Koevoet?
MR SCHOON: That is the impression which I gained.
MR VISSER: And that was coincidentally also the same evidence which Captain Coetzee gave. You refer in paragraph 11 to these facts which I have just mentioned. Are these the facts that you say are substantiated by the evidence of Captain Dirk Coetzee in London, before the Harms Commission?
MR VISSER: And you give the reference, that will be bundle 5, page 15(c). Very well, can you continue with paragraph 12?
MR SCHOON: I drew the inference that it was silence money or reward money for the Mxenge murder. I may mention that it was the policy to give money to Askaris for their achievements. However, it was not given as a reward for illegal activities. Police members did not receive such financial allocations or rewards except in exceptional circumstances where they displayed particular bravery or did good work. This case was the only case of which I was aware during which policemen were given money for the commission of a murder.
Although I was not involved in the operation during which Mr Mxenge died, I inferred after discussions with Brigadier du Preez that the SAP had been responsible for the deed. I did keep silence about this knowledge and in the process I'm guilty of defeating the ends of justice. Captain Coetzee initially alleged that the radio which had been removed from Mxenge's motor vehicle was placed in my motor vehicle. That is not true, I have a yellow Ford Granada, official motor vehicle, which I inherited from General Viktor. This motor vehicle already had radio cassette player.
I refer in this relation to the record of the evidence of Coetzee in London pages 327 and 388. On page 327 he admitted that he had removed a radio and speakers from Mxenge's motor vehicle and placed them in Brigadier Jan du Preez' Mercedes 230 vehicle.
MR VISSER: Might I just interrupt you here?
Chairperson, that is bundle 5 page 16 and in the evidence and this is just presented to you for completeness and no point is made of it, the evidence was by Captain Coetzee in London:
"I just want to say that that radio of Mxenge's car went into Brigadier Jan du Preez' Mercedes 230. I did in Mauritius give the impression that it either went into Jan du Preez or Brigadier Schoon's car but Brigadier Jan has always been very close to me all these years up until last year still and his wife has written me a letter after I have left country but I mean he was close to me and that's why I lied about it but it went into his car."
So just for the sake of completion, we're referring it for no other reason.
Very well, you have discussed that, continue?
MR SCHOON: I submitted an affidavit before the Harms Commission in which I committed perjury by denying that I had any knowledge of the Mxenge murder.
MR VISSER: Could you please pause there?
Chairperson, I refer you again to bundle 5, page 24, where you will find that the Harms Commission affidavit is bound in at page 25 and the affidavit before Mr McNally is at 24.
MR SCHOON: I made a similar affidavit for the McNally Commission, I request that amnesty be granted to me with regard to this perjury.
MR VISSER: What was the perjury that you committed, Mr Schoon?
MR SCHOON: In the McNally affidavit on page 24 of bundle 5 you stated in the second paragraph
"All that I know about Mxenge's murder is what I read in the papers"
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.
MR VISSER: And that was false?
MR VISSER: Because today you have told the Committee that you drew an inference that Captain Dirk Coetzee had to have been involved from what you heard from Jan du Preez?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.
MR VISSER: And you kept quiet about it?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.
MR VISSER: And in the fifth paragraph you say
"I deny that I have any knowledge that any member that served under my command was involved in any assassination or murder or abduction within the borders of the R.S.A. and for various reasons this is a false statement?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.
MR VISSER: And this affidavit was made in 1989?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct, in December.
MR VISSER: If we can then study page 25, more specifically page 26, in paragraph 5 you stated
"As previously stated, I have no knowledge of the murder of Attorney Mxenge in Durban during 1981. My knowledge with regard to that incident emanates from what I read in the papers and from verbal statements which were made to me. I have no knowledge of the incident and I was not personally involved in the matter. Particularly, I deny the allegation that I gave instructions that Dirk Coetzee or Spyker Tshikalanga or Almond Nofomela had to travel specially to Durban in order to commit the murder. The allegation that after the murder I called the entire Vlakplaas group back to Pretoria and after that requested Dirk Coetzee to burn the Mxenge vehicle and that I later made funds available for the payment of Black members who allegedly would have committed the murder."
Now the aspect for which you are requesting amnesty is about that first sentence in which you say that you have no knowledge of the murder of Attorney Mxenge during 1989 because you did indeed possess information from Brigadier Jan du Preez?
MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.
MR VISSER: We have now come to paragraph 15, we have completed that and we have also completed 16. Could you proceed with 17?
MR SCHOON: I committed these acts or omissions on behalf of the South African Police and the former government and the National Party whose interests I wished to protect through that. The acts and omissions which I committed, I committed in the execution of my official duties and as part of my opposition to the struggle and it was aimed against supporters of a liberation movement. I request, with respect, that amnesty be granted to me for my acts and omissions in this regard.
MR VISSER: With regard to this perjury and false statements that you have made before the McNally Commission and before the Harms Commission, would you like to tell us why you did so?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, it was to protect the persons involved and not to create an embarrassment for the government of the day.
MR VISSER: And to protect yourself?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, my attorney draws my attention to again bundle 5, page 40, paragraph 7, which is again part of the written presentation made by Brigadier Schoon to the Human Rights Violations Committee on the 19th October or November, I can't remember which. At paragraph 7 where he refers to this issue, it's just one paragraph, which is in line with what he says here today.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, the reference that you gave to us now, page 40, is it a submission to the TRC, what did you say what was that?
MR VISSER: That's his written submission on the 19th, I believe, of October - November, 19th November 1996 and that you'll find at page 36, Submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission by Brigadier Schoon. That was in reaction to Section 19 subpoena, Section 29 subpoena. We did refer to it earlier Chairperson, it's still the same document that we're referring to.
CHAIRPERSON: So what is the effect that he lied in that as well?
MR VISSER: No, no, what he said there is true, what he said there is true but this is the evidence he repeated here today that with regard to the murder itself he had no personal knowledge. At that stage, Chairperson, of course they were already preparing his amnesty application for defeating the ends of justice, that is not specifically mentioned here but the fact that it's not mentioned does not amount and in our submission to perjury and in any event it was a statement made and not an affidavit so we submit nothing turns on that, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes but if you can help me, are you saying that this page bundle 5, page 40, paragraph 7, do you say that is correct that the two sentences that appear there?
MR VISSER: Yes that is also in line with his evidence today, Chairperson, he didn't have anything to do with the planning, he didn't know beforehand about it. Where his involvement came was after because of a discussion which took place in the office of Brigadier Jan du Preez where he was given information which led him to believe that Captain Dirk Coetzee was in fact involved and all of this evidence is directly in line with the evidence of Captain Dirk Coetzee.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Is that your evidence-in-chief?
MR VISSER: That is the evidence-in-chief, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen, have you got any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you Mr Chair.
Once again Brigadier, I do not want to debate any of the discrepancies with you, just for the purposes of the record the parts of Mr Coetzee's evidence are what I wish to put to you where he names you and I assume that you are aware of those instances. The one is where he says that when he was in Durban he called you and asked you to send Joe Mamasela down?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, he did not call me. I later heard that it was Colonel van Glinsberg who made the necessary arrangements for him and not I.
MR JANSEN: And one could grant that that is not difficult to think that there could have been a fault in terms of the identity.
The following aspect is an accepted fact even in the Harms Commission, was that a large group of Vlakplaas members was at that stage of Mr Mxenge's murder, this was the 19th November 1981, were in Durban and the whole Vlakplaas contingency went back to Vlakplaas the day after the murder?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, yes I had heard that just about all of them were there and this I heard from Colonel van Rensburg and nobody else remained. Even the mechanic was told to leave.
MR JANSEN: And Mr Coetzee says it was you who called them back, in other words had said that make sure that all the Vlakplaas persons returned from Durban and come back to Pretoria?
MR SCHOON: No Chairperson, it was not I.
MR JANSEN: And then in conclusion to the extent that Mr Coetzee says or Captain Dirk Coetzee says that there was a discussion or discussions with you afterwards or where there was reference to this aspect, do you say that he is wrong there?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson, I did not discuss the issue with him personally.
MR JANSEN: Thank you Mr Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jansen.
MS THABETHE: No questions Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabethe.
Mr Visser have you got anything?
MR VISSER: No re-examination, thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: I assume that is your case in respect of this incident?
MR VISSER: Indeed so yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And there are no witnesses, Mr Jansen and Ms Thabethe?
MR JANSEN: Nothing Mr Chair. MS THABETHE: No Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Visser would you like to address us on these two incidents?
MR VISSER IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson...(inaudible) that the offence of manstealing, kidnapping is a human rights violation's offence, you know that and that is why the matter is before you. Brigadier Schoon knew nothing about the assaults, if he had he obviously would have asked for amnesty in that regard. I'm talking about Mr Joe Pillay now. He came to know of it one way or the other. Captain Dirk Coetzee suggested that he in fact was the one who told Brigadier Schoon about the abduction. That may very well be, that may very well be because Brigadier Schoon can't remember today clearly where he got the information from but the fact is, according to his evidence, he admits that he knew. At the time when Mr Pillay was still in the country and he did nothing about it where presumably one can argue that with the knowledge at his disposal he ought to have reported the matter to the relevant branch of the South African Police so that the offence could be investigated etc.
Chairperson, the personal contact which Mr Schoon had with Pillay, he explained to you he received instructions obviously from General Coetzee who was personally involved in the negotiations regarding Mr Pillay that he must be handed back, he didn't transport Mr Pillay himself but he was present at the border post where he spoke to Mr Pillay and he told you also that he made arrangements for Mr Pillay to phone his people from the border. He then further had nothing to do with it. He added that as far as his recollection goes, he cannot recollect seeing any marks on the body of Mr Pillay which would suggest that he was assaulted.
Mr Pillay has placed before you an affidavit in which he says that he was abducted, he stated that he violently resisted the abduction and he says that the abduction was accompanied by assaults and him kicking out at his attackers. There seems to be on his evidence in his affidavit a very clear picture that this was a rather violent incident at the time when he was abducted. You will find that in paragraph 7 and following where he says that
"four men immediately entered the premises, one held a knife to my throat and stated that I was a communist and a terrorist. Another man carried a quantity of rope, one of the men stated that they and Dube were the police and that they had come to take me"
And then at paragraph 8 he says:
"A violent struggle ensued during which I was dragged from the premises to a vehicle. While I attempted to prevent being forced into the vehicle by holding onto the door of both the premises and the vehicle, I was finally forced in."
"The vehicle proceeded from the area containing all five men as well as myself. Several of the men then inflicted upon me a physical assault during which I was subjected to numerous physical blows in the face and body and my pants were torn open and my genitals squeezed."
In the letter in Exhibit J Chairperson, at page 2, the same scenario is sketched. He states in the third paragraph:
"My struggle at the scene of the abduction paid big dividends. Jeffrey Basigo as a result of the struggle had lost his South African passport at the scene of the crime, incriminating evidence indeed. The morning after my abduction a very close teaching colleague just happened to make his way to Manzini"
And then he goes on to say how these people were then traced.
But quite clearly there was violent assault and in the language of Mr Pillay himself, several blows were administered to his face inter alia. You have heard the evidence, well the evidence of Captain Dirk Coetzee is that he was assaulted at the Observatory, he had marks on his body, he suggested that he was kept for as long as they did keep him in order to allow the swelling and the marks to heal before him being handed back.
Now Chairperson, Brigadier Schoon, having known nothing about the assaults and having only seen Pillay right at the end on the 10th March, can really in my respectful submission, not argue too strenuously with the evidence of Mr Dirk Coetzee. It's not as if Brigadier Schoon had seen him before the 10 days to which my learned friend, Mr Jansen, had referred and therefore we don't make any issue of that evidence of Dirk Coetzee simply because it's irrelevant to the present proceedings. Brigadier Coetzee, having known nothing about the assault does not ask for any amnesty in that regard and he only asks for that which he knew and which he did not bring forward and that is the fact that he was abducted. Oh, I said Coetzee, I mean Brigadier Schoon.
Chairperson, as far as that is concerned there really is very little to add, there is no evidence before you contracting the essence of the evidence upon which Brigadier Schoon relies for his amnesty application. I would ask you to accept that evidence. The probabilities do not show anything contrary to his evidence, in other words there's no inherent improbability in any way in his evidence.
Referring to my learned friend's cross-examination, Chairperson, I think even he conceded that there are no serious or material differences between him and Captain Dirk Coetzee and we would ask you to favourably consider granting him the amnesty for which he prays.
In the Mxenge matter, Chairperson, it was a matter which
received great publicity at the time. We know about that, the Harms Commission went into the Mxenge murder in quite some detail. Captain Dirk Coetzee, who at the time absconded from the country gave his evidence in London, he would not accept the indemnities which were offered to him to give evidence in South Africa. He gave full evidence about a number of incidents in which he was according to him involved including the Mxenge murder. As a result thereof, various people whom Captain Coetzee had implicated were asked to state their position on oath and it was because of that that the affidavit before the Harms Commission was made.
Prior to the Harms Commission the then Attorney General of Natal was instructed to enquire into the allegations by Mr Almond Nofomela, he was on death row in November 1989, made an affidavit in fact on the evening before his execution would have taken place in which he revealed the instances in which he was involved. This led to a stay of his execution and the McNally Commission as well as the Harms Commission then followed. McNally also asked people to state their positions on oath and that was the affidavit at page 24, bundle 5, to which we have already referred you to.
Chairperson, it is easy to understand why perjury would have been committed by Brigadier Schoon and many, many others in regard to incidences which took place during the shameful past of the struggle of our country. The obvious one will obviously be self-preservation, there's no question about that, that part of the motivation would have been not to give oneself away and I would be dishonest if I argued anything else and Brigadier Schoon also conceded that but we would submit that that aspect, Chairperson, does not disqualify a person who so acted when he now appears before you asking for amnesty because if it hadn't been for the struggle, clearly none of this would have happened. Then it would have been a straightforward offence, a crime which would have been dealt with in the normal course of events but all of this must be seen against the background of the struggle and the background which we sketched to you of the position of the members of the security police in their fight to maintain the government in power and to confront the revolutionary onslaught.
Again, in the present case even less so and in Pillay's case there appears to be no material dispute in the evidence between Captain Dirk Coetzee and Brigadier Schoon. In fact their evidence appears to be in line of that with each other. Why Brigadier Schoon is before you today is because of a conversation which took place in the office of Brigadier du Preez in which reference was made to Mxenge's motor car and that it had to be sent to the then South West Africa, now Namibia, to Koevoet because it was a new car and that he was informed that Du Preez said under no circumstances take it to the border and destroy it and from that he drew the inference of necessity that Dirk Coetzee, who he knew was in Durban with his squad at the time, had something to do with it and particularly because of the money which Brigadier Johan Coetzee asked Brigadier Schoon to hand to Dirk Coetzee. This is also, Chairperson, confirmed by Mr Dirk Coetzee and I might give you that reference, it's in bundle 5 at page 15(f). His Chairman asks him:
"On the Monday, Sir. The Monday after the murder and it was decided that David" and that is Tshikalanga, "Joe", that was Mamasela, "and Almond" that was Nofomela, "will receive R1000 each as "koopgeld" - bounty money for the job they had done "and Brian nothing because he played most and he was interrupted".
And then again at page 22 of bundle 5 he says - oh sorry, what we've done, Chairperson, is just for your information, is we have bound certain extracts from the so-called Mauritius Statement. Now just if you haven't been exposed to this part of the history before, can I just very briefly tell you what that is about?
When Almond Nofomela made his revelations, Captain Dirk Coetzee left the country. He contacted Mr Jacques Paau of the Vrye Weekblad whom he was friendly with and Mr Jacques Paau arranged for Captain Coetzee to leave the country and to go to Mauritius. At Mauritius Mr Jacques Paau and Captain Dirk Coetzee held a conference in which Dirk Coetzee then told him of all the incidents in which he was involved. That was recorded and retyped and that document became Exhibit B before the Harms Commission and it was generally referred to as the Mauritius Statement and in that statement we bound in at page 22 - yes it runs from page 18 but at 22 he talks about the money and he says:
"They then asked Brigadier Hans Dreyer to put in a claim for R3000"
So he takes it a little bit further, he suggests that the then Brigadier, the present General Hans Dreyer who was the Officer Commanding Koevoet ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) purposes of, he received the money from Jan du Preez? The evidence today and whether Jan du Preez received it from Dreyer or whoever it might have been, the fact that he received the money was the factor that triggered off his knowledge about this and that he didn't disclose?
MR VISSER: Indeed, Chairperson, I'm probably just wasting your time, that already as Commissioner de Jager points out is full disclosure, what I'm probably trying to do is to make fuller than full disclosure just to give you the background but in essence there is no problem that you have to be alerted to between the evidence of Captain Dirk Coetzee and Brigadier Schoon in regard to this particular application.
Chairperson, I really have nothing else to add. The other considerations which we've mentioned in our earlier argument we would ask you also then obviously to incorporate here and we don't see much point in repeating all of that again. Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Visser.
MR JANSEN: Mr Chair, we're not opposing in any event so in any event we have no argument. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Jansen.
MS THABETHE: No argument, Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, I assume you won't have anything else to say?
MR VISSER: No thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that concludes the incidents of Pillay and Mxenge. We will take time to prepare our decision and we'll likewise indicate to the parties when that's available.
Now is there anything else that is on the roll for today?
MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, our agreement with Mr Wagener is that if there's some time left we could tackle the matters where Mr Schoon is the only applicant and where there are no interested or implicated parties who are going to appear before you, so I don't know whether we should proceed with this. It's the two incidents of murder of two ANC terrorists and the matter of two PAC detainees which are very short matters as well.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes well ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, this is what happens with when somebody sits in an office two weeks before a hearing and try to tell you what you're going to do and the hearing happens, the point simply here is this that we have already had on standby since Wednesday the applicants in the Take Five and Pillay matter because we thought that matters would progress much quicker than they did and they're still here and what we would suggest to you is that we start making a dent in that and perhaps even finishing it today. If you took the - if the Committee took the tea adjournment now, we start it at half past eleven on the nose, half past eleven, half past twelve, I believe, I'm almost certain that we're going to finish the evidence. ...(inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, I wasn't sure whether there was anyone else involved in that?
MS THABETHE: Yes Mr Chair and I don't think it will be possible to hear the Take 5 incident today because yesterday the victims were here and they sat the whole day and we had to discuss with them, they said it would be possible for them to come back on Monday so because today there was nothing scheduled for today, Friday, and in our prehearing conference we had agreed with Mr Wagener that we leave Friday free so that we can do the short matters where Mr Schoon is also involved so due to the fact that the victims are not here and we have agreed with their lawyer and with them that we meet on Monday, I would say we proceed with that matter on Monday.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes it seems as if we've got no option but to do that. Mr Jansen have you got anything further?
MR JANSEN: May we just be excused that's our only request.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes indeed, I gathered that you wanted to do that. Well as we've indicated we will inform yourselves when the decisions are available but we thank you for your assistance.
CHAIRPERSON: You'll be excused. I'm going to take the tea adjournment now and perhaps you can apply your minds and perhaps let us know what is next?
MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, I must just say that the agreement was in fact, yes, we would fill in with matters in which Mr Schoon is the only applicant but we're rather surprised that the victims were told to go away while our applicants have been sitting here waiting to go on. We were never consulted about that and they are now here again today and I really don't know what one must do about it. One must come to some better arrangement than this, with all due respect so that if victims are going to be told to go home, at least that that be cleared with us.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no I take the point there. Obviously there's been a lack of proper communication here. But also it is as you yourself pointed out quite correctly, it's also very hard to always try work according to a schedule so let's do our best. If we can do anything else let's do it, if we can't, we can't. Let us know.
MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, can I say something on that? Yes I think it was an oversight on my part not to consult the applicants about this but I guess it was because the victims were panicking because they were sitting here the whole day yesterday listening to argument that didn't involve them and I would like to apologise to the applicants for that.
CHAIRPERSON: There seems to be some reconciliation. Now we will stand down at this stage.