MR BOOYENS: I call Mr John Tait. His evidence appears at page 100.
MR SIBANYONI: Your full names for purposes of the record please?
JOHAN HENDRIK TAIT: (sworn states)
MR SIBANYONI: Sworn in, Mr Chairperson.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: I will repeat the question. You have your amnesty application before you, is that correct?
MR BOOYENS: From page 100 up to the top of page 103 you give a brief summary of yourself, is that correct?
MR BOOYENS: The evening when the assault took place on the deceased you were in the canteen at Vlakplaas, is that correct?
MR BOOYENS: What did you see there?
MR TAIT: I saw Maj de Kock strike the person with a pool cue and that the other persons knocked him about and hit him, but I cannot say who the other persons were.
MR BOOYENS: The other persons?
MR TAIT: Yes, I cannot say who the other persons were.
MR BOOYENS: And what did you do then?
MR TAIT: I was enjoying a drink in the canteen and at that stage when the hitting and assault was ongoing I walked out. I am not certain who I sat outside and spoke to, it may have been Bellingan.
MR BOOYENS: On page 104, the first paragraph at the bottom you mention the name of Mr Willie Nortje, and I think it has been put by one of my colleagues that insofar as - that Mr Willie Nortje was not there. Will you concede that you may be mistaken there?
MR TAIT: Yes, I may be mistaken there.
MR BOOYENS: Why did you walk out?
MR TAIT: I did not agree with what was happening in the canteen.
MR BOOYENS: And you were then outside the canteen, did you see the further assaults which we now have heard of from the other sources?
MR BOOYENS: Did you then later once again go back into the canteen?
MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: And at that stage the man was wrapped up in a blanket, is that correct?
MR TAIT: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: And did you assume that it was Mr Ntehelang?
MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: You did not have much to do with him, and I see you mention his name and I see you refer to him as "Geeletjie", his nickname.
MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: When the assault had taken place there by Mr de Kock and the other people, did you interfere in any manner and if not, why not?
MR TAIT: No, Chairperson, I did not interfere because I personally felt that I was not empowered to interfere and how can I put it, it was not expected of me to interfere.
MR BOOYENS: Oh, it would not be suitable for you to interfere?
MR BOOYENS: And it is also correct that you never attempted to report the incident?
MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: You have heard the answer that Mr Baker who at that stage was second-in-command and it was conveyed to you what Mr de Kock's evidence was about the tradition on Vlakplaas. What Mr Baker said on a question from the Chairperson, that there was a tradition of silence at Vlakplaas with regard to things that had happened at Vlakplaas and about Vlakplaas, one does not report such things, is that correct?
MR BOOYENS: Was there a perception ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: And there ... sorry, carry on.
MR BOOYENS: Was there a perception at Vlakplaas that if one would tell tales of Vlakplaas it would lead to your own detriment?
MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: So one just did not speak about these things?
MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: And as far as you are concerned, if the Vlakplaas operation was disclosed it would be an effective piece of machinery, according to you perception, possibly it would have rendered it useless and so on, is that correct? ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions. Or I beg your pardon, a further aspect.
Do you confirm the balance of your amnesty application?
CHAIRPERSON: You just said that there was a perception that if you told tales it would lead to your own determent. In fact it did go a little further than that, as we have heard and as we have seen elsewhere in these applications, there was a perception that if you told tales it might lead to your own death or to the death of members of your family.
MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, we have no questions.
MR ROSSOUW: Rossouw, Mr Chairman, no questions.
MR BOTHA: Botha, Mr Chairman, no questions.
MR CORNELIUS: Cornelius on behalf of Flores and van Heerden, no questions.
MR JANSEN: Jansen, Mr Chairman, no questions.
ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.
MR SIBANYONI: No questions from me, Mr Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: Just one question from me.
Mr Tait, you say you walked out of the canteen because you did not agree with what was happening there. Did you have any reason for not agreeing and even joining in with your colleagues in what they were doing?
MR TAIT: Chairperson, as I have said, I did not associate myself with it, it was not the applicable place or time for such an incident.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: By that I take it you mean that the majority of the people there were drunk, it was getting on in the evening, I don't know if you noticed that the deceased was also under the influence of liquor and it was certainly not the way to question people, or the place in which to conduct an inquiry.
MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: Ja, but can you - did you notice that the deceased, Mr Ntehelang, was also drunk?
MR TAIT: Chairperson, I cannot comment to that.
MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that concludes the evidence on behalf of the applicants that I represent.
CHAIRPERSON: Well that concludes the evidence on behalf of the applicants altogether doesn't it, unless other witnesses are to be called. Are you calling ...?
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I do not intend calling any witnesses. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Right gentlemen, what do you propose we do now?
MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I think in certain instances the political motive in this matter may require a bit of thought before one addresses you.
CHAIRPERSON: I would certainly - we've discussed this already, we would welcome a carefully thought out address rather than something that you have to do on the spur of the moment. Not only on the political aspect, but on the possible conflicts of versions between certain - how long would that take you gentlemen? As you know, we have the rest of the week.
MR BOOYENS: Yes. Mr Chairman, I would - subject to what my colleagues say, I would suggest tomorrow morning 10 o'clock.
MR HATTINGH: That would suit us too, thank you, Mr Chairman.
MR CORNELIUS: We agree, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Well we'll adjourn then till 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, on the basis that if any of the representatives feel they require further time, then they may apply then. I'm not - in the light of the fact that arrangements have been made to allow ample time for this hearing, I don't want any of you to feel that you are under undue pressure and it may be that when you start going through this you come upon somewhere where there's some other evidence available as to intent and things which you think may be desirable and you will certainly be allowed to apply.
So we adjourn tentatively till 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, but on the basis that if you feel you do require further time, you can let us know then.