MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I call D J Britz.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Britz, could you give us your full names please?
MR BRITZ: Dawid Jakobus Britz.
DAWID JAKOBUS BRITZ: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. Mr Cornelius?
EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Britz, you have prepared an application in Cape Town for amnesty and have given your complete co-operation to the Investigation Officer of the TRC, is that correct?
MR CORNELIUS: You were at all times during this operation, in the employ of the South African Police as defined in Section 20(2)(a) and 20(2)(f) of the Act, is that correct?
MR CORNELIUS: You were only involved in the incident of Tiso Leballo at Penge Mine, you were not involved with the Nelspruit incident, is that correct?
MR CORNELIUS: Do you confirm your amnesty application as it appears before this Committee from page 16 up to the end of your statement on page 24, is this correct?
MR CORNELIUS: And I notice that you also in the statement that was taken down by Capt Holmes, you included this to your amnesty application, is that correct?
MR CORNELIUS: At all times you acted within the scope of your duties and in the execution of your duties within the SAP?
MR CORNELIUS: And you executed the instructions of Col Eugene de Kock who was the Commander of Vlakplaas and that you operated on a need to know basis, is that correct?
MR CORNELIUS: What was your rank at the time of this incident?
MR BRITZ: I was a Warrant Officer.
MR CORNELIUS: The workings of Vlakplaas and the background, is completed in the Bundles, is that correct?
MR CORNELIUS: How did it happen that you became involved at Penge Mine? Did you receive a calling from whom?
MR BRITZ: I received a call from Nick Vermeulen Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: He is a fellow applicant, who will give testimony after you?
MR CORNELIUS: What did he tell you?
MR BRITZ: He only told me that there were problems with the operation and that we had to go to Middelburg to go and meet people there.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you then go to Middelburg?
MR BRITZ: That is correct, he came to pick me up at my house and we went to Middelburg.
MR CORNELIUS: When you arrived at Middelburg, what did you find at Middelburg? This was at the Shell Ultra City?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: What did you find there?
MR BRITZ: Upon our arrival there, I found Capt Gevers, Blackie Swart and Charlie Chait in Blackie's vehicle.
MR CORNELIUS: This was Blackie Swart?
MR CORNELIUS: What did you find then?
MR BRITZ: Capt Gevers came to us and told us some things.
MR CORNELIUS: What did you understand from what Gevers told you?
MR BRITZ: He told us that they were involved in the operation in Nelspruit, but there was another person and this was the driver of Mrs Mandela, that this was a trained person and that he had to be eliminated and his body had to be destroyed.
MR CORNELIUS: Did he refer to Tiso Leballo?
MR BRITZ: At this stage I did not see him, he told me that the person had been in the vehicle's boot.
MR CORNELIUS: I see, what did you and Mr Vermeulen do then?
MR BRITZ: We went back to Pretoria where we went to go and fetch explosives.
MR CORNELIUS: Can you tell us why you went back to Pretoria?
MR BRITZ: We did not have the explosives with us that was necessary, that we were going to use.
MR CORNELIUS: Yourself, are you an Explosives' Expert or not?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: And the explosives that you did have in your possession at Shell Ultra City, what was that?
MR BRITZ: That was basically cortex and detonators.
MR CORNELIUS: Cortex is just an explosive?
MR CORNELIUS: And this would have been enough to destroy a body?
MR CORNELIUS: You then went back to Pretoria and can you remember which volumes of explosives you went to fetch?
MR BRITZ: I think it was 25 kilograms, military and we also used normal, commercial explosives.
MR CORNELIUS: The 25 kilogram military explosive, was this for the destruction of the body?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: It is common cause that you then went back and that you then went to Penge Mine, at an old ruin after you went through the security gate? Is this correct?
MR CORNELIUS: Did interrogation take place of Tiso?
MR BRITZ: I interrogated him and Blackie Swart and one of the witnesses kept notes.
MR CORNELIUS: Who else did the interrogation?
MR BRITZ: Rolf Gevers asked a few questions every once in a while and left again.
MR CORNELIUS: I understand that Tiso was assaulted, was he assaulted?
MR BRITZ: As far as I can remember, there was one incident where Gevers came in and Gevers gave him a few smacks and he kicked him.
MR BRITZ: No, he did not bleed.
MR CORNELIUS: After the interrogation, what happened then?
MR BRITZ: After the interrogation, Vermeulen said that he was ready and then we all went with his kombi to the open mine.
MR CORNELIUS: Just to make it clear for the Committee who was not there with Japie(?) Mabotha, the ruin is a distance away from the open shaft mine and it was necessary to go there with a vehicle?
MR CORNELIUS: Up the hole, to the outside of the hole?
MR CORNELIUS: You went down into the hole and what happened at the bottom?
MR BRITZ: I was walking on Tiso's left hand side, I held him by his arm. When we came close to the place where Vermeulen was standing, I turned him around and Rolf Gevers then shot him.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you hold him?
MR BRITZ: Yes, I also held him.
MR CORNELIUS: I understand that the first shot was not successful, something went wrong?
MR BRITZ: The first shot made some sound Mr Chairperson, he was hit, but it was a question of it not being a complete shot.
MR CORNELIUS: Did he die as a result of the shooting?
MR BRITZ: Yes, Gevers then shot him twice after that, and then he died.
MR CORNELIUS: What did you do with his clothes?
MR BRITZ: We then took off his clothes.
MR BRITZ: This was for, if we were to destroy his body, that no tissue would be stuck to his body and it was to hide all evidence.
MR CORNELIUS: It is common cause that the body then had been destroyed by explosives, is that correct?
MR CORNELIUS: And the next morning you went back to the scene?
MR CORNELIUS: What did you do then?
MR BRITZ: The part surrounding the explosion scene, we basically swept it to get rid of pieces of bone and tissue and then we made a couple of more explosions.
MR CORNELIUS: Until all the body parts had been destroyed?
MR CORNELIUS: What happened to the clothes?
MR BRITZ: The same evening, we placed the clothes in a drum and we burnt it.
MR BRITZ: I took the shoes and put the shoes in a bag and left this inside the kombi.
MR CORNELIUS: What did you do with the shoes later?
MR BRITZ: At a later stage, I gave the shoes to Blackie Swart and I asked him to go and destroy it for me.
MR CORNELIUS: After the interrogation of Tiso, what did you think his political affiliation was?
MR BRITZ: Well, he did admit to me that he was a trained MK member.
MR CORNELIUS: For which organisation?
MR BRITZ: The ANC. He said that they were committing robberies for the ANC in order to gain funds.
MR CORNELIUS: Can you please tell me did you receive any reward or remuneration for your services?
MR BRITZ: After we returned to Pretoria, about two or three days afterwards, Capt Gevers came to me and told me that Col de Kock gave instructions that for a certain amount of time, we had to fill in false claims that would amount to R2 000. For about two to three months I did fill in claims of amounts of about R200, R300 or R400, I am not sure.
MR CORNELIUS: Was that stopped? What happened?
MR BRITZ: Yes, Capt Gevers came to me and told me that Col de Kock told him that we must not fill in false claims any more, it is not necessary any more, because there aren't enough funds.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you do this so that you could be rewarded?
MR CORNELIUS: Did you have any personal hate against Tiso?
MR CORNELIUS: And did you give a full disclosure of the facts according to your knowledge?
MR BRITZ: This is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: And you request that this Committee gives you amnesty in terms of Section 20 of Act 34 of 1995 for the murder on Tiso, is that correct?
MR CORNELIUS: Did you ever make a statement about this incident to the police where you did not tell the truth?
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius. Mr Hattingh, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. Holmes, the police officer who helped you with your statement, he was indeed the Investigating Officer in the de Kock trial, is that correct?
MR HATTINGH: The actions at Penge Mine, you tried to cover this up, trying to pretend that you were going for training, is that correct?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Apart from the body parts that had been destroyed the next day with explosives, did you cause any other explosions to create the impression that you were busy with training?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: What kind of explosives did you use the next day?
MR BRITZ: We used normal commercial explosives.
MR HATTINGH: Can you please tell us what this looks like?
MR BRITZ: I would say that it looks like polonies.
MR BRITZ: Rolls, yes, that is right.
MR HATTINGH: And the ones that you used the previous night?
MR BRITZ: That was in a container, in a cardboard container.
MR HATTINGH: A square or round container?
MR BRITZ: In a square form, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that the amount that you got for a reward could possibly be more than R200 per month, that you had in the meantime forgotten that it was in fact R2 000 a month?
MR BRITZ: It was definitely not R2 000, the total amount would at the end of the day be R2 000.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. Mr Lamey, have you got any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson. The reward that you did receive, did you understand that this came from Mr de Kock?
MR LAMEY: It was his instruction?
MR BRITZ: That is correct, although he did not tell me this, Capt Gevers told me this, but I assumed that it would be coming from de Kock.
MR LAMEY: Were you present when notes were made regarding the interrogation of Tiso?
MR BRITZ: This is correct Mr Chairperson, I led the interrogation for most of the time and Swart took notes for me.
MR LAMEY: You said Gevers was not present all the time?
MR BRITZ: He was not present all the time, he came in and out sometimes.
MR LAMEY: Were you present, do you know what happened with these notes?
MR BRITZ: At a later stage I asked Blackie Swart what he did with these notes and he told me that he had given the notes to Willie Nortje.
MR LAMEY: Can I just ask you, was there a reason why it was not given to Capt Gevers as the senior person on the scene?
MR BRITZ: No, I cannot give evidence regarding that Mr Chairman. I do not know why he gave it to Willie Nortje.
MR LAMEY: But you were not present when it was given to Willie Nortje?
MR BRITZ: No, I was not present.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr van den Berg?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Were you previously involved in a similar incident?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: That was the matter of Mabotha?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You say that you were phoned that morning by Vermeulen, is that correct?
MR VAN DEN BERG: In this time did you also receive a call from Nortje?
MR BRITZ: I cannot remember that Mr Chairperson, I know that Vermeulen phoned me, but I cannot remember that Nortje phoned me.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Nortje's evidence was that he was worried that Mr Vermeulen would not understand very well, and this is the reason why he phoned you too?
MR BRITZ: It could be that he phoned me Mr Chairperson, but I cannot remember it really.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What did Vermeulen tell you?
MR BRITZ: He only told me that he had received a telephone call from Willie Nortje and that we had to go to Ultra City, there was a problem with the actions and we had to go and help.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did he mention to you what problems it was?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Had there been an instruction that you had to take explosives with you?
MR BRITZ: No Mr Chairperson, not at that stage.
MR VAN DEN BERG: But nevertheless you had explosives with you?
MR BRITZ: Yes, we had explosives with us at that stage.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The cortex and the detonators?
MR VAN DEN BERG: At Middelburg you said that Gevers told you certain things?
MR BRITZ: That is correct, yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did he inform you about the operation the previous night or in the early morning hours?
MR BRITZ: Not in detail, he only said that there was a shooting and that some of the robbers had been killed. He further told me about Tiso.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What did he tell you about Tiso?
MR BRITZ: He told me that he was Winnie Mandela's driver and that he was a trained MK member and that he had received orders that we had to eliminate the person and that the person's body had to be destroyed.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You mention in your amnesty application at page 18, in answer to paragraph 10(a)
"... I wanted to prevent that further damage and loss of innocent people."
MR BRITZ: During robberies, there is a shooting and innocent people would then be killed during these incidents.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Then you carry on, you say that
"... the person had to be taken out of the system because he was Mrs Mandela's driver."
MR BRITZ: This is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And this was your motivation to kill him, he was Mrs Mandela's driver, is that correct?
MR BRITZ: That is correct yes. And if you go further Mr Chairperson, at (b) I gave more detail about this.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You say there
"... he admitted to me that they were planning robberies and executed robberies to be able to get monetary support for the ANC."
This interrogation, according to Gevers this person had been assaulted, do you agree with this?
MR BRITZ: Gevers did at some stage, I am not sure, but I believe it was just once, he did go to him and give him a few smacks and he did kick him.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Gevers' evidence was that the man was assaulted for about 15 minutes?
MR BRITZ: This is not correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Initially and then during the interrogation, he was also assaulted?
MR BRITZ: No, as far as I can remember, he was only assaulted once and this was during the interrogation, that was not in the beginning, it was during the interrogation.
MR VAN DEN BERG: This was when he did not give you satisfactory answers, is that correct?
MR BRITZ: No, I would not put it this way Chairperson, he always gave his full co-operation.
MR VAN DEN BERG: When was it necessary to assault him?
MR BRITZ: I don't know Mr Chairperson, I cannot give evidence on his behalf, I don't know why he was assaulted.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Was your evidence then that only Gevers assaulted the man?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: From the interrogation, Mr Leballo confirmed to you that he was a trained MK member, that is correct?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And there is no dispute about this, he was a trained member. Did he disclose to you that he had spent most of his time in Quatro Camp, did he reveal this to you?
MR BRITZ: No Mr Chairperson, I did not question him about his training as much, I just questioned him regarding his involvement at that specific time.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And the questions were then in the line of that they were busy robbing banks?
MR BRITZ: This is correct and they were busy smuggling with weapons.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And this was asked of a person who had spent the whole day in the boot of a vehicle?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Was he afraid of you?
MR BRITZ: I don't believe so Mr Chairperson, I did not give him reason to be afraid.
CHAIRPERSON: What was your position at that point, to which unit were you attached to?
CHAIRPERSON: You were an Explosives' Expert?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: You were not involved in investigations?
MR BRITZ: Yes, I was involved in investigations as well.
CHAIRPERSON: What types of investigations?
MR BRITZ: Weapon smuggling, smuggling with endangered species and I also worked with organised crime.
CHAIRPERSON: So at that stage you had already received new focus from Vlakplaas and you were investigating normal crime?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you at that stage get involved in any political activities and the investigation thereof?
MR BRITZ: After this incident, not again Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr van den Berg.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Of the other applications referred to you as Duiwel, is this what they called you?
MR BRITZ: Yes, this is my nickname as they would say in English.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Where did you get this name from?
MR BRITZ: Probably about my ears Chairperson, because I have pointy ears, that is what they say.
MR VAN DEN BERG: It has nothing to do with your temper or something like that ... (no interpretation)
MR VAN DEN BERG: I then also see that you are wearing a jersey with a Comrades Marathon emblem?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Have you run this marathon?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: So you are a man who has knowledge of shoes?
MR BRITZ: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The fact that shoes are relatively expensive?
MR BRITZ: This is correct Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: You don't have a brother who also took part?
MR BRITZ: Not that I know of Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr van den Berg.
ADV DE JAGER: One with pointy ears?
MR VAN DEN BERG: What happened to Mr Leballo's shoes?
MR BRITZ: After we came back to Pretoria, I took the stuff that we had taken along with us, because I put the shoes in a plastic bag and I took the shoes with me and I put it in a cupboard along with my stuff and after this we went home, and I completely forgot about the shoes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Why were they not destroyed on the scene because his clothes had been destroyed at the time?
MR BRITZ: I thought it good not to destroy the shoes because it wasn't lace shoes, but it had buckles. We had already destroyed the clothes to be able to cover up the evidence, and I was afraid that the buckles would not burn out.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Swart says in his application on page 60
"... the clothes of Tiso was taken, but I cannot remember what happened to it. The shoes of Tiso was kept by Dawid Britz. These shoes were given to me long after the incident by Dawid Britz, and I destroyed the shoes."
MR BRITZ: This is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: So for a long time the shoes were in your possession?
MR BRITZ: This is correct, it was in a cupboard.
MR VAN DEN BERG: In your office?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Then there is evidence from Gevers that a lot had been drunk that day?
MR BRITZ: Later in the evening, Vermeulen and myself drank with them, but we did not drink during the day, we had far to drive, we had to drive back to Pretoria and then back again to Burgersfort. At that stage myself and Vermeulen did not drink.
MR VAN DEN BERG: There is also evidence that Tiso had drunk three beers?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson, I gave him three beers.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And you were also drinking at that time?
MR BRITZ: Yes, we were sitting with him and Blackie Swart was also drinking a beer, and we were drinking a beer with him.
MR VAN DEN BERG: May I just check my notes Mr Chairperson. The claim you say it was for an amount of R200?
MR BRITZ: I am not sure what amounts it was Mr Chairperson, but at the end of the day it would have been an amount of R2 000.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Because Gevers claimed that it was for considerably more, did you have knowledge of his claim?
MR BRITZ: No Mr Chairperson, the claims, I completed them and I gave the claims to him. I did not have insight into his claims.
MR VAN DEN BERG: He said that he received R2 000 a month, for three months?
MR BRITZ: I cannot comment on this Mr Chairperson, I do not know if he received this much.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The members who had been involved in Nelspruit and not at the Penge Mine incident, do you know if they received any reward?
MR BRITZ: No Mr Chairperson, I do not have any knowledge of this.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Klopper gave evidence about false claims that had almost normally been given in and this was the practice at Vlakplaas, do you have any knowledge of this?
MR BRITZ: I wouldn't say on a regular basis, but sometimes we received orders to lodge a false claim and then after this, the money was used for for instance a braai on the farm for senior officers.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you ever personally share in one of those false claims?
MR VAN DEN BERG: So this is the only time that you are giving evidence about here, concerning Tiso Leballo, that you received money?
MR BRITZ: This is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The cortex that you had, was this used for any of the explosions that you had caused there?
MR BRITZ: Yes, it was used to bind the body to the military explosives.
MR VAN DEN BERG: If I understand your evidence correctly, there was 25 kilograms of military explosives and then also the commercial explosives?
MR BRITZ: The cortex Mr Chairperson, the commercial explosives was used the next day.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The next day?
MR BRITZ: The commercial explosives was used the next day. That evening, the box of military explosives and the cortex had been used.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The 25 kilogram box?
MR VAN DEN BERG: This had also been destroyed?
MR VAN DEN BERG: No further questions Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van den Berg. Mr Francis?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FRANCIS: Just a few questions. Mr Britz, can you tell us who ordered that Tiso be killed?
MR BRITZ: I received the orders from Capt Gevers at Ultra City Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: I am not talking about, you know his body being blown apart, about the killing bit, obviously because before you were you know destroy the body, you must have killed the body first, who ordered that Tiso be killed?
MR BRITZ: No specific arrangements had been made, I think Capt Gevers said that he would shoot him.
MR FRANCIS: Did Gevers just volunteer on his own that he was going to shoot Tiso?
MR BRITZ: I believe that to be the case yes, because at the end of the day he did shoot him, I did not have a weapon with me. Not one of the other people had a weapon with them.
MR FRANCIS: Did you at no stage request any of the persons who were there, to kill Tiso?
MR BRITZ: After the first shot had been fired at him, he started to struggle and I held him down and then I told Gevers "what is happening, shoot the man and finish".
MR FRANCIS: But before the first shot was fired, did anybody volunteer to shoot him?
MR BRITZ: As I can remember, I am almost sure that Gevers said that he would shoot him.
MR FRANCIS: Was Gevers the senior there?
MR BRITZ: He was the Captain Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Did you at any stage see Gevers giving Swart a firearm?
MR FRANCIS: So when Swart testified here that he was given a firearm by Gevers, he is telling a lie?
ADV DE JAGER: He did not see, he did not see it, so it doesn't follow that it is a lie? You can't put it like that? If he did not see it, it could have happened, but he did not see it. It is not necessarily the only conclusion that it is a lie.
MR FRANCIS: Mr Gevers, I understood your testimony to mean that you held Tiso whilst you were walking to this open mine?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: So Tiso must have been quite close to you?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Where was Swart at that point in time?
MR BRITZ: He was walking behind us Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Where was Gevers at that time?
MR BRITZ: He was walking on the other side of Tiso.
MR FRANCIS: So you don't know who had the firearm at that point in time?
MR BRITZ: I do not know who had the firearm.
MR FRANCIS: So you don't know where this firearm came from?
MR FRANCIS: Do you know what type of firearm was used to kill him?
MR BRITZ: Later on I determined that it was a .38 revolver.
MR FRANCIS: You are quite definite about that?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Let me tell you what appears in Britz' affidavit, that is on - Gevers' affidavit, that is on page 303, paragraph 55. He says the following
"... at approximately 18H30 the five of us, Vermeulen, Britz, Swart, myself and Tiso went back in Vermeulen's kombi to the open shaft mine where we had previously passed. Then we had already agreed that Tiso would be killed. This was after Britz had asked who would kill him and I offered to do this. Britz had a 38 Special revolver that was loaded and he gave it to me. The decision and the handing over took place before we went to the open shaft mine."
MR BRITZ: This is wrong Mr Chairperson, I did not have this firearm.
MR FRANCIS: Then obviously, Mr Gevers must by lying about this when he says that you gave him the firearm and it was decided already that he would do the killing?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson, because I did not have the firearm.
MR FRANCIS: You testified and said that you were told by Vermeulen that Tiso had to be killed?
MR BRITZ: No, Gevers told me Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Gevers, I am sorry. Why did you kill him, why did you take part in this killing, what motivated you to take part in the killing?
MR BRITZ: I was told that he was an ANC trained person and that they were committing robberies and after - it was my instruction and after I was finished with the interrogation, I was sure that this was the right thing to do.
MR FRANCIS: Is it because he was a trained member of the ANC and was robbing, that motivated you to kill him?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: And this was obviously after the ANC was unbanned?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: And after your role, or the role of Vlakplaas had changed?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Was it a policy of Vlakplaas after 1990, to blow up people?
MR FRANCIS: It wasn't the policy?
MR FRANCIS: I recall that I read in one of the applications where it was said that you decided to keep Tiso's shoes because they were quite good, they were quite good shoes to be destroyed?
MR BRITZ: No, this is not the reason Mr Chairperson, I would not wear someone else's shoes.
MR FRANCIS: And Mr de Kock I think in his book had mentioned I think erroneously when he had said that Gevers, Rolf Gevers the Captain, had stolen Tiso's shoes.
MR BRITZ: No, this is wrong Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: When did you hand over the shoes to Blackie Swart?
MR BRITZ: It was a while after Mr Chairperson. One day we stood there and talked about the incident, and I remembered about the shoes and I immediately remembered, and I decided and I asked Swart to please destroy the shoes.
MR FRANCIS: How long after the killing of Tiso, did you give it over to Swart?
MR BRITZ: I cannot remember Chairperson, it could be a month, it could be two months.
MR FRANCIS: You've got damning evidence that will link you to Tiso and you still keep it with you for two months?
MR BRITZ: At that stage it was not a threat to me Chairperson, I forgot about that. It was damning evidence if they found it with us, yes.
MR FRANCIS: Not more that you stole it from him?
MR BRITZ: I did not steal it from him Chairperson, he was already dead when I took it.
MR FRANCIS: And that you saw that the shoes were quite expensive, they were leather I think leather shoes, somebody mentioned?
MR BRITZ: It was a relatively good shoe, yes. I don't really have knowledge of that type of shoes.
CHAIRPERSON: What size shoe was it?
MR BRITZ: I think it was a size 8 Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: What number do you wear?
MR BRITZ: I wear a nine and a half Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Let's just talk about the claims. In your application I think you mention that I think you claimed about, I am not sure, I may be mixing it up, but I think that you said that you claimed R200? I may be confusing you with somebody else? How much did you claim?
MR BRITZ: Yes, as I have said Mr Chairperson, I am not sure if it was R200, R400 or R600. It was not big amounts.
MR FRANCIS: What were you told, were you told to lodge false claims?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Who told you this?
MR FRANCIS: Who was going to authorise them?
MR FRANCIS: How many of these claims did you lodge?
MR BRITZ: I think it was for period of two or three months that I received this money.
MR FRANCIS: Were you told that it is because of the extraordinary events that had taken place at Penge Mine that you had to lodge the claims?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: You knew that the claims were false?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: And you knew that you were misleading the police about the claims?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: And that the taxpayers were basically paying for a false claim?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: You must have known that you were receiving compensation for, or reward for the killing of Tiso?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: But you reconciled yourself with what Mr de Kock said about lodging false claims?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR FRANCIS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Francis. Ms Patel?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. Just one aspect, sir, your instructions were that Tiso was to be killed, not so?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Why did you then interrogate him prior to him being killed?
MR BRITZ: That was on the spur of the moment and that was my decision.
MS PATEL: Yes, but why, what motivated you to interrogate him, you were going to kill him anyway, why put him through that?
MR BRITZ: I am a Detective Mr Chairperson, and for me information is very important. Possible information that I could have gained from Tiso, could possibly lead to further operations and further arrests.
MS PATEL: So you basically went on a whim of your own?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Chairperson, that was my own decision.
MS PATEL: And the fact that he was interrogated for how long, sorry, how long did you say he was interrogated for?
MR BRITZ: It was approximately an hour to an hour and a half.
MS PATEL: Did you do anything with the information that you got from him?
MR BRITZ: Constable Blackie Swart wrote it down on paper and at a later stage he told me that he had given it to Willie Nortje.
MS PATEL: No, I am asking did you use the information?
MR BRITZ: No, I could not use it, because I did not have it in my possession Mr Chairperson.
MS PATEL: But you knew, you don't have to have it in writing to know about it?
MR BRITZ: It was not detailed information Mr Chairperson, there were no addresses and that type of thing that I could directly work on.
MS PATEL: So there was nothing that was of material interest to you that you could use in any of your investigations, is that correct?
MR BRITZ: Yes, at the end of the day it was totally irrelevant. I could not use anything.
MS PATEL: And you insist that he gave you his full co-operation?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Were his hands bound when he was in the boot of the vehicle?
MR BRITZ: Yes, his hands were bound. When we got to the ruins, when they took him out of the boot Chairperson, I untied his hands.
MR BRITZ: I cannot remember Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Was there any reaction from him during the interrogation, did he ask you any questions about why he was being interrogated?
MS PATEL: Absolutely nothing, there was no reaction from him whatsoever?
MS PATEL: Even after he was assaulted by Mr Gevers?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Chairperson.
MS PATEL: So he voluntarily participated in this process?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Chairperson.
MS PATEL: I find that hard to believe sir. Anyway, I have no further questions for you, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Patel. Panel?
MR SIBANYONI: Mr Britz, are you saying he voluntarily participated until at the moment when he was killed?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Chairperson.
MR SIBANYONI: I just want to clear this, what happened first, on page 23 of the Bundle, paragraph 3.9 I am starting on the sentence which talks about the time
"... approximately 21H00 that evening of the 26th of March 1992, we took the man to the open shaft mine. We took the man's clothes off. Rolf Gevers shot the man with the revolver that he had in his possession."
So what took place first, was it the taking off of his clothes and then thereafter he was killed?
MR BRITZ: I am not hundred percent sure if the clothes had been taken off after he was shot or before he was shot Mr Chairperson. I could be wrong in my statement when I said it was taken off before he was shot. I am not sure when we took the clothes off, but it was definitely taken off at the place where he was shot.
MR SIBANYONI: I am just asking a hypothetical question, was it going to be difficult to take his clothes off after he was killed?
MR BRITZ: No Mr Chairperson. The reason why I say this is because I think it could make a difference in my statement, because I held him on his arm and I held him on his shirt and I believe that my statement is wrong there. His clothes had been taken off after he was shot.
MR SIBANYONI: You said you were also involved in the Johannes Mabotha incident?
MR BRITZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR SIBANYONI: What other incidents were you involved in of similar nature?
MR BRITZ: No, it was only these two incidents where explosives had been used, where I was involved.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Sibanyoni. Mr Cornelius?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson, only one formal correction. Naturally he is also applying for amnesty for contraventions on the law of explosives, is that correct?
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius. Thank you Mr Britz, thank you very much, you are excused.