amntrans AMNESTY HEARINGS 1998-06-09 JOHANNESBURG 4 https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=52696&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/1998/98060812_jhb_ridora2.htm MARIUS ETIENNE VISSER: (still under confirmation) The applicant already gave evidence, but I'd like to amend something, that the word "later" must be inserted before "Phil Klopper", meaning "later Phil Klopper told us that General Oelofse", page 93. CHAIRPERSON Was this gentleman your client, Mr Prinsloo? That's correct, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON And you have already... (intervention). That is correct, Chair. CHAIRPERSON Yes, Mr Knoetze. May it please you, Mr Chairman. Mr Visser, can I ask you to look at page 12, paragraph 17 of the set of applications? That application is the application of Phil Kloppers. I am reading it to you Do you see there that Mr Klopper said that he gave you the weapons? That is correct, yes. MR KNOETZE Furthermore, I'd like to refer you to page 239 of the record, 249 of the record, I will read it to you. It is Mr Kloppers that gives evidence "MR KLOPPERS: And it was said three of them did not have weapons, and Martin van der Schyff, Etienne Visser, I gave two pipe shotguns to them." Can you remember that in his evidence he said that he gave the pipe shotguns to them? I can hear that, yes. MR KNOETZE Can I then furthermore refer you to page 31 of the set of applications, it is the application of Deon Martin, paragraph 11. It says "Not all of us in the group had weapons and Phil Klopper gave two home-made pipe shotguns that he received from General Oelofse to Etienne Visser and Martin van der Schyff. Gerhard Diedericks had a baton." Can I refer you to page 28 of the record, where he gave evidence in front of this committee, he gave the following evidence:- Do you understand that? Yes, I do understand it. MR KNOETZE Yes. MR KNOETZE: "Not all of us had weapons, but Phil Klopper gave to Etienne Visser and Martin van der Schyff each a pipe shotgun, home-made shotguns. The pipe shotguns were given to him by General Japie Oelofse." Can I then refer you to page 61, paragraph 5, it begins on page 60, have you got it in front of you? Yes. MR KNOETZE: "Not all of us had weapons, but Phil Klopper gave to Etienne Visser and Martin van der Schyff each a pipe shotgun (home-made shotguns). The pipe shotguns were given to him by General Japie Oelofse." Then page 77, paragraph 6, that is the application of Meiring. You can read that paragraph again, you will see that they are the same as the others, with the spelling mistakes included. Can you see it? Yes, that's correct. MR KNOETZE Then page 121 of the record, when Meiring gave evidence in front of this committee, I read it to you "MEIRING: At that point I was not certain who did he give them to. One was given to Martin van der Schyff and the other one to Etienne Visser." That is a reference, if you read the foregoing paragraphs, referring to the hand shotguns. In other words, it's Meiring's evidence in front of this committee. That is correct, yes. MR KNOETZE And then page 109 of the set of applications, paragraph 14, that is the application of Badenhorst. It begins at page 108 at the bottom "Not all of us had weapons, but Phil Kloppers gave Etienne Visser and Martin van der Schyff each a pipe shotgun (home-made shotguns). The shotguns were provided by Japie Oelofse." Can you see that? That is correct, yes. MR KNOETZE And then page 131, paragraph 3, that is the application of Diedericks "Not all of us had weapons but Phil Kloppers gave Etienne Visser and Martin van der Schyff each a pipe shotgun (home-made shotguns). These pipe shotguns were given by or provided by Japie Oelofse. I only had a baton." Can you see that? That is correct, Mr Chairperson. MR KNOETZE Then page 93, that is your own application, paragraph 6, will you just read what it says in your own application? "Not all of us had weapons, but Phil Kloppers gave Martin van der Schyff and myself a pipe shotgun (home-made shotguns). These pipe shotguns were provided by General Japie Oelofse." MR KNOETZE And that statement you made under oath, is that correct? Yes, that is. MR KNOETZE And all these other applications that I referred you to, were they done under oath? Yes, that is correct. MR KNOETZE And the evidence that you gave and which I referred you to, was that also made under confirmation? Yes, that is correct. MR KNOETZE With respect your honour, Mr Chairperson, it was never said that the weapon was grabbed from someone, it was said that he was handed over, and then Diedericks will give evidence that he said what the problem was and that he did not know how to work this weapon. MR KNOETZE MR KNOETZE Yes, Chair, in terms of my notes, it was prefaced by "It would not have come out, but..." CHAIRPERSON I suppose, I think I recollect something like that, except that I thought, I don't know if this really makes any difference, maybe I misunderstood, I thought it was at the scene... (intervention). MR KNOETZE No, no, M'Lord, Mr Chairman... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON ...when he said, "Bring this..."... (intervention). MR KNOETZE ...it was at the road, at the roadhouse. CHAIRPERSON I see. All right. MR KNOETZE At the roadhouse. So... (intervention). Mr Chairperson, can I just rectify that. My learned colleague said in English, "He grabbed the weapon", and it's a difference than taking it off someone. So he will have to rectify that. ADV BOSMAN Maybe I can just help you here. I did indeed wrote it down verbatim. He said Van der Schyff took the weapon from Diedericks and said to him, "You do not know how to shoot, I will show you." MR KNOETZE Ja. Mr Chairman, with respect, whether he grabbed it or whether he took it, the crux of the matter is, according to the evidence, that he, on his own initiative, saw to it that he got it in his hand, but even that isn't so important, what is important is that which he allegedly said, namely, "I will show you how to shoot", and that is what I'm about to try and indicate to be a falsehood. The point, Mr Visser, is that for the first time yesterday this information was provided, or allegations was made, although these allegations are in opposition with evidence that was given in this court under oath and it is in opposition to what you said in your application as well as the other applicants. I put it to you that it is a lie and that the clear difference is now made clear again between my client's application and yours? That is your opinion, Mr Chairperson. MR KNOETZE No, it is not my opinion. You, under oath, said something else. Why did you, under oath, lied in your application? ADV SIGODI No, Mr Prinsloo, with respect, it was this witness that said it wouldn't have come out, Van der Schyff took this weapon by Diedericks and said, "I will show you", I can read you the note, "I will show you how kaffirs will be shot", and that is the verbatim I wrote down. Now the question is very clear, how did Van der Schyff get the weapon, did he take initiative or did he get instruction, that is two different answers, if it was handed to him with an instruction or did he take his own initiative, and that is two different sets of evidence, and I think Mr Knoetze may ask questions or cross-examine the witness regarding this matter. Will you answer please? Please repeat the question. The statement that I made to you was that the accusation against my client that he took the weapon and said, "I will show you how to shoot kaffirs" is a lie? That is his word, Mr Chairperson. Yes I do. I repeat my statement for the last time, the accusation that he would have said that, "I will show you how kaffirs will be shot", it is a lie, he never said that. What is your answer on that? Mr Chairperson, what can I answer? If he says that, he is saying it. CHAIRPERSON I'm sorry, Mr Knoetze, can I just try to help? In your statement you said that Mr Klopper gave him the weapon, in your evidence, you said that he took this weapon from Diedericks. Can you tell me what the correct version is? Mr Chairperson, all that we were trying to do was, we tried to shorten the story. CHAIRPERSON No, I'm asking you, what is the correct position, was it handed over to him by Mr Klopper or did he take it from Mr Diedericks? Mr Chairperson, he took it from Mr Diedericks. CHAIRPERSON: And he said? "I will show you how a kaffir will be shot"? CHAIRPERSON Can you just explain that to me, because this is strange to me, if I can just handle it now, why did he say that it wouldn't have come out? Like I said, Mr Chairperson, we wanted to shorten this story. I thought that it wouldn't have been relevant. CHAIRPERSON Why is it important to say it now? Because the witness now, or the applicant now change his evidence. CHAIRPERSON And you will be incriminated by his amendments? No, he did not insult me and I don't want to insult him. Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Mr Van der Schyff will say that the weapons was indeed given to him and Diedericks, and not like you just gave evidence or testified that it was given to you and him, what do you say about this? I would say that that is a lie. That is a lie, Mr Chairperson. Then he is the only person who did not hear that, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Mr Dreyer, have you questions to put to the witness? Just a very few questions. CHAIRPERSON They will have to be very few, because he has not incriminated your client, because normally we call upon implicated people to come and answer, to respond to incriminating evidence made against them by witnesses. So this witness, as far as I recall, he has not at all incriminated your client. But there may be, albeit a tenuous link between his evidence and that of Mr Kloppers, that is very tenuous. You may just have to ask a very few questions indeed. Yes. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Chairperson, if I can just say I broadly told what happened there, I did not refer to specific points. CHAIRPERSON (Inaudible). I would refer to his evidence as opposed to the two applications, just in connection with the... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON (Inaudible)? Yes, I did, but I also said that as opposed to his evidence. CHAIRPERSON (Inaudible). Page 93, paragraph 5. CHAIRPERSON (Inaudible). That's correct, Chairperson. And just after that the follow-up question was, "Anything else?", and you said, "No, that was all that I can recall", is that correct? That is correct, Chairperson. That was your evidence. Now I'd just like to refer you to your own application, your own application in paragraph 5 on page 93, it starts on page 92, where you say "Phil Kloppers told us that he just came from a meeting and that the waiting is over and the revolution is going to start on that day, the 12th of December 1993. Two weeks before the time we were already told that we should be on standby 24 hours because the revolution's going to start. Phil Klopper put it clearly to us that General Oelofse wanted to see bodies and that we should fulfil hard options, and later Phil Klopper told us that General Oelofse gave instruction that we had to have a roadblock and during this roadblock we must also intercept weapons which would be taken into our towns in order to kill our people, farmers and children, and then we would use these weapons against the ANC, SACP alliance, as well as the PAC, and the leader of the AWB, Terreblanche, also told us at several meetings that we must cause chaos and make sure that the election on the 24th of April do not take place." Later refers to Deon Martin's plot, and that's where it was said that we would set up a roadblock. Why do the man who's in command of this group, according to his own evidence, why does he say under oath in his application that there at the blockade he conveyed the instruction of Oelofse, and this morning your advocate amended your application by saying later he gave instructions with regard to the roadblock? Mr Chairman, we are talking about the order that was supposedly given by Oelofse to hold a so-called "padblokade", I'm referring to that order, but according to the application of Kloppers, that order to hold such a roadblock was given at the roadhouse, whereas this applicant's application was amended this morning to read that later on, and he now indicated that that only happened at the house of Martin. So my question is simply why would the person who had purportedly been in charge of this group state in his application that at the roadhouse already the orders of Oelofse were given through to the people under his command, whereas his application, the witness' application, has been amended this morning to state that later the order as to the holding of the roadblock was conveyed to them? That's the simple question I'm asking, because that is also relevant in view of the application of Mr Van der Schyff which has been amended, because according to him, no such orders were given at the roadhouse, that is what I'm trying to get at. CHAIRPERSON Can I just ask you, according to you how do you understand the latest version as to where the order was given... (intervention). As it pleases, Mr Chairman, first... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON Mr Chairman, if we read paragraph 17, page 12, the application of Kloppers, it clearly reads "I conveyed to them the instructions General Oelofse gave me, and they knew that Oelofse wanted to see corpses, and I also..." CHAIRPERSON Yes. ...and he conveys, but the application of this witness has been amended this morning to read that only later on they were informed, and he then explained that was at the house of Martin. So all I would like to know is... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON Well when you put to the witness, you conveyed to him that according to his latest version the order was given only later at the roadblock? No, no, no, I mean... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON You should have said at Martin's house. ...concerning the roadblock, that what I meant. CHAIRPERSON Sorry? I meant concerning the roadblock, the order. CHAIRPERSON Concerning the roadblock. The roadblock. CHAIRPERSON At Martin's house? Yes. That is so, Mr Chairman. MR PRINSLOO CHAIRPERSON Well, I don't know whether we should really stop and check our notes, because we don't have the record, I told you yesterday that we are always the last people to receive the transcribed record, but Mr Prinsloo, I don't understand, are you saying that in his papers Kloppers says the order was given, he conveyed the order at the roadhouse, but in his evidence he says it was conveyed at Martin's house, is that what you're saying? Mr Chairman, according to the application, Kloppers say that he gave the order at the roadhouse... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON Yes. ...but in his evidence here, when he gave evidence, he clearly stated that he gave the order to the people at Martin's plot, his house, Martin's house with regard to the roadblock. CHAIRPERSON Well I'm not sure about that, I can't remember that. That is indeed so, I will confirm that on my recollection, Chair. CHAIRPERSON It does affect my question, Mr Chairman, because I can even take it further. On page 249 of the record, in the evidence of Mr Klopper, of Kloppers, it's stated as follows, and that is on the leading of his evidence by his advocate, I read from page 249 "ADV BOSMAN: At this roadhouse did you tell them anything further about the order that you received? MR KLOPPERS: No, I did not tell them what the purpose of the work was. When we left from there, it was clear that we had too many vehicles and I knew that, I knew I what our objectives was, we had to go and set up a roadblock as General Oelofse instructed me." "I conveyed to them the instruction of General Oelofse." Which clearly conveys that there at the roadhouse already I told them exactly what the orders of Oelofse was. I can't see any other explanation. But the problem that I have is that there's a constant changing around of the stage at which certain orders were given. CHAIRPERSON As it pleases you, Mr Chairman, (indistinct). CHAIRPERSON What point you want to deal with these contradictions is of course up to you, but what I'm saying to you is that your question must be correctly premised. I will rephrase it, Mr Chairman. Let's start at the start, because we don't want there to be any doubt. Do you accept now, for the purposes of my question, I've read you a bit from the record which was testified by Kloppers and what he said in his application, do you agree with me that there's a difference? Chairperson, if I can just say something, on page 12, Mr Kloppers there gave us certain instructions at the roadblock, he didn't give us all the instructions, he only said that there had to be bodies and that's what Oelofse told him, that the revolution is about to begin and that he gave us the weapons. CHAIRPERSON (Inaudible)? And you are saying it's not the complete instruction, but let's go further:- "They were told that General Oelofse wanted to see corpses and the pipeshot guns were also given to Martin, sir, and Visser, and I gave them instruction that we have to set up a roadblock." Now where in this application does it say that "we left there and then we went to Deon Martin's house and there I gave them instruction regarding the roadblock"? Chairperson, there where he says "I gave them instruction to set up a roadblock where people would be questioned", and that we'd also take the weapons and ammunition, this was said later to us. Maybe it isn't put correctly here. Yes, I do agree with that. CHAIRPERSON CHAIRPERSON CHAIRPERSON Whether he accepts it or not, is immaterial to us. We see it, even if he says it's not there, it doesn't matter, we see it, we don't need his evidence to confirm to us that there is such a contradiction. Mr Chairman, all I would like to do is, obviously from the evidence it transpires that this witness and the other witnesses got their so-called command from Kloppers, which purportedly got that from Oelofse, so I just want to draw the line through, if I may. CHAIRPERSON Chairperson, Mr Kloppers did tell us it was coming from a group and that he received instructions and gave us instructions concerning what we had to do that night, he put it to us and he told us what to do, and that he received those instructions from Oelofse. CHAIRPERSON Chairperson, Kloppers could have held back some of that until we got to Martin's house and then he would have given the instruction to set up a roadblock, so I don't know why he didn't tell us everything at the roadblock. CHAIRPERSON The mentioning of Mr Oelofse is it not just a mere fabrication? I'm not, I don't understand? CHAIRPERSON Well, you tell us in your affidavit that Kloppers said that he had received orders from Oelofse, General Oelofse. Isn't this not just a fabrication? It's up to you to agree or disagree with me, but I'm asking you, because we need to make progress in this case. Chairperson, I accepted and assumed that Kloppers received these instructions from Oelofse. CHAIRPERSON Maybe Kloppers never even mentioned the name of Oelofse that evening? Chairperson, he did mention Oelofse's name. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Referring to your answer to the Chairperson now, you said that you assumed he received these instructions, you have no other confirmation that he did indeed receive these instructions? If he came from a group where orders were given, and this was at General Oelofse's house, then it must be obvious and logical that he had received these instructions from General Oelofse. But you believe so because he said so and he was head commander of that division and it's on that basis that you accept it? That's correct. Just one further aspect with regards to the ear. Evidence was given by Mr Kloppers that he would have received the instruction from Oelofse to cut off the ear, do you remember that? I remember that he testified to that extent, yes. Yesterday when you testified you said that first when you were in the vehicle you heard that the ear was cut off, is that correct? That is correct. You only heard about this in the vehicle, the fact that the ear was cut off. Now I would like to refer you to paragraph 19 on page 98 of your application. Now this refers to a stage when you already left the roadblock and you were at the town hall at Randfontein and then you went to the house of Jaco Badenhorst, and I read you paragraph 19 "We all got together again at Jaco Badenhorst's house. Therefore Klopper asked who shot. The people who had weapons all confirmed that they did indeed. Phil Klopper then showed us the ear of a black person and said that he would give that the next day to General Oelofse." Now I would just like to know, yesterday you testified that only in the car, now this is before this that you hear about the ear, and now in your application you say that at the house of Jaco Badenhorst he showed you the ear? Chairperson, what happened here was, at the scene I was with Kloppers, Martin and Diedericks now stayed behind with them, and when these things happened, and then when we were on our way home, when we wanted to drop off Diedericks, then he showed me the ear, so I did see the ear there, and I once again saw it at Badenhorst's house. So that was the second time? That's correct, Chairperson. I understand. Well let's leave it there. Can I just ask something here please? It's quite a horrid bit, this thing about the ear, where did you say you saw the ear the first time? In the car when we left the scene of the crime, Chairperson. Where in the car was the ear? In a bag. Wasn't it in the boot of the car? No, Chairperson. It was with you inside the car? That's correct. Just on the same topic, was it a shocking event for you, the showing of the ear? It was a - I had a shocking impression. But nowhere in your application you said that he showed the ear to you in the vehicle? If I saw it in the vehicle or at the house, I saw the ear. All that I want to know, that you do agree that in your application there's no indication that you've already seen the ear in the motor car, but you only saw it at their house. Then another aspect, on page 19 you say, I would just like to know, because the same contradiction appeared in the evidence of Mr Klopper and I would just like to clear that with you, I refer to paragraph 19 of page 98, you say there that "Phil Klopper asked who shot. The people who had firearms confirmed." Do you understand that word, it means yes? That is correct, yes. Well in both the evidence of you and Mr Klopper, I picked it up yesterday and yesterday you testified again that the people denied, and I thought maybe that I heard wrongly, and then you qualified it by saying, "I do not know if they were scared"? Yesterday I said that they admitted or confirmed that they shot. Mr Dreyer, I think you misunderstood it, he said that the people were scared saying that they did not shoot. I wasn't very sure, I just wanted clarity on that. I will put it to you, in conclusion, that no order was given to Mr Klopper, and as far as you believe that there was such an order, I believe that your action afterwards, or followed on that order, but I will put it clearer to you, the only reason why you believed you had an order or instruction was that because you believed that Klopper received such an instruction from Oelofse, is that correct? That is correct. Thank you, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Mr Brink? That is correct, Mr Chair. Did you hear any answer from the people being questioned about their political affiliation? No, Mr Chairperson. I just want to tell you that the evidence will be that at no stage did anyone ask the people in those vehicles questions relating to their political affiliation. I'm merely telling you that. Now is it not the truth that that night you people drank a considerable quantity of liquor, brandy and whisky? In other words, you were quite drunk? Mr Chairperson, a bottle of brandy or a half a bottle of whisky is not a lot if you share it amongst nine people. Well was there a bottle of whisky and a bottle of brandy between the nine of you? There was at Mr Visser's flat a bottle of whisky, from which we drank, and at Mr Martin's house there was approximately half a bottle of brandy. Was that to give you so-called Dutch courage? TAPE TURNED OVER - WORDS LOST MR MALAN Concerning the alcohol, can you remember that there was brandy at Mr Martin's house and it was poured into two bottles and it was mixed and that it was placed one in each car? Yes, I can remember that. MR MALAN Can you remember that one of the bottles was in one of the vehicles in which you drove? Was that with Mr Kloppers and Diedericks? Yes. MR MALAN Did you drink with them? No, I did not drink from the brandy, or of the brandy. MR MALAN Who else drank of it, because it seems as if just Mr Kloppers drank? I cannot say, Mr Chairperson. MR MALAN But you definitely did not drink with them? I drank the whisky. MR MALAN No, I'm talking about the alcohol in the vehicle? No, definitely. MR MALAN It seems like it, yes. And following on Mr Brink's question to you, you gave evidence or testified that at the road, or what happened at the roadblock, you said that the people was placed next to an embankment, Diedericks and Van der Schyff searched the vehicles, Kloppers and Martins questioned the people, questions was put to them regarding where they come from, where they're going, and you said, and also concerning the affiliation, and you assumed that they were ANC members, you did not hear them give the answer, but you only assumed it? Mr Chairperson, the people answered softly, you couldn't hear them, but I did not hear it. MR MALAN You only assumed it? Yes, that is correct. MR MALAN Are you sure that questions was put to them regarding their political affiliation? It was said to us that this will be the question. MR MALAN I understand that, but I would like to know if you indeed heard that the question was put to them? Yes, I heard the question. MR MALAN Now I want to know if you heard the question regarding the political affiliation? That is correct, yes. MR MALAN What was the question, or how was the question put to them? The question was put to them, "From what political party do you...", or to what political party they belonged to. MR MALAN Who was this question put to? I assume to all the people who were searched. MR MALAN Did you hear that at various times? If I can remember correctly, Mr Klopper stood in front of them and asked them, "To what political party do you belong?" MR MALAN Did he ask it once to each, to all of them? It could have been more than once. MR MALAN Did he ask it individually? It could have happened like that. MR MALAN No, I'm asking you as far as you can remember, because you said you heard it was asked. Tell us what did you hear what was asked? If you did not hear, if you cannot remember, you can say that, but if you did hear, I would like to know what you heard? Mr Chairperson, I heard more than once that he asked them what political party they belonged to. MR MALAN In a group, did he ask, "To what political party do you belong to?", meaning the group, or did he ask them individually? I assumed that he asked it for the group. MR MALAN And you said you could not hear the answer? No, I didn't. MR MALAN Thank you very much. ADV BOSMAN You gave evidence yesterday that before this incident there was incitement at meetings by Eugene Terreblanche and where General Viljoen was. You said that there it was told or said to you that there it was told or said to you that you will not allow that the country will be taken over, that you must arm yourself? That is correct. ADV BOSMAN I do not know if I understand you correctly, but you said that you did not own a weapon? Now that is strange to me, that you attend these meetings, it was said to you that there's a revolution on the way, that you must arm yourself, and you said that you did not have a weapon. Why is that so? Mr Chairperson, I did not have money for a weapon. ADV BOSMAN This incitement or instructions, did you take it seriously? Yes, I did. ADV BOSMAN And how did you thought, how would you take part in this revolution if you did not have a weapon? Mr Chairperson, that is why we used pipes, home-made weapons. ADV BOSMAN And then the incident itself, you testified that "I assumed that they were from the ANC". On what grounds did you make this assumption? ADV BOSMAN So, apart from the fact that Mr Klopper indicated the target group, you did not have any other grounds for this assumption? No, none. MR MALAN On the same question, I'm sorry that I come back to this, how did you know that the target group had to be ANC? It was said to us that the ANC/SACP alliance was the target group. When was this told to you? That is correct, yes. But nothing was said about the roadblock or how the target will be identified? No, Mr Chairperson. ADV BOSMAN You had one of the pipe shotguns, is that correct? I've got no technical knowledge about shotguns or a pipe shotgun, but how many rounds could one pipe shotgun take? Mr Chairperson, a certain amount of rounds can be shot with a pipe shotgun, it has got a - you put the rounds in the weapon, the shot is fired, you turn it around, remove the shell and then fire again, so you can shoot a certain amount of rounds and then you cannot shoot any further. ADV BOSMAN How many rounds did you have in that shotgun? Only one. ADV BOSMAN Is there any specific reason why it was only one round? Let's say it was necessary for you to shoot more than one? ADV SIGODI Did you notice amongst the people there that there was somebody who could have been in the age group 13? Mr Chairperson, I saw children at the scene. ADV SIGODI How many children? I'm not sure, I would say it was two. ADV SIGODI And were they also lined up for the purpose of being shot? That is correct. ADV SIGODI Were they in fact shot, or you may not know? Mr Chairperson, if they was in the line of fire, I would have shot them. ADV SIGODI I missed my interpretation? If they were in the line of fire, I would have shot them. ADV SIGODI I do not understand you. Are you saying that they were not targeted? No, I would not say that, Mr Chairperson, in a situation of a revolution or war, there's not a distinction between children, women and men, so if they were in the line of fire, I would have shot them or killed them. ADV SIGODI So they were also lined up so for the purpose of being shot and killed? That is correct, Mr Chairperson. ADV SIGODI Would you, in your view, regard them as legitimate targets, in terms of your objectives? Mr Chairperson, I saw it as follows: if your parents are ANC, you will also grow up as an ANC member. ADV SIGODI Really? Don't you know that in a multi-party democracy, the father can belong to party No 1, the mother to party No 2, the child to No 3? That is correct, yes. So I don't understand why you identified the child with the parents' political objectives? Mr Chairperson, I assumed everybody was ANC members. I see. Thank you. Mr Visser, just on this point, your own parents, to what political party do they belong? Currently, no party. Before, I think they were CP members. Were you ever a member of the CP? I moved in the right-wing area, so it was the Volksfront and the CP. But you grew up and became an AWB member? How does that then correspond with what you've just said? Like I said, Mr Chairperson, I assumed that they were ANC members, the same as their parents. CHAIRPERSON Mr Prinsloo? Mr Visser, did you see the AWB as a political organisation? It was a para-military organisation. And the members of the AWB, do you know to what political parties they belonged to or what they supported at that stage? If they did not belong to the AWB, Mr Chair-person, they were either Volksfront or CP. But when they would have voted, what political party would they have voted for? You said the AWB was a para-military organisation, so they could not vote for it at an election, but in the politics they would have voted for the Volksfront, Mr Chairperson. And the CP, was it regarded as a good political party? Some would have voted for the CP, I don't know. Did you yourself, that evening, when it was, shots were fired at the roadblock, did you aim at a child, to shoot a child? No, Mr Chairperson, I just aimed a gun at the people, I did not specifically aim at an individual. Thank you, Mr Chairperson. MR MALAN I'm sorry, you'll have to explain that to me, let's say you shoot one shot and you aim at the people who is in one line, where do you aim then if you aim at a whole group? Mr Chairperson, a shotgun sprays, if you stand a few metres from them, the shotgun would spray, at the most, 10 to 12cm, so then I can say that I did aim at a person. MR MALAN But you see that's the point, that was the question that was put to you, will you answer that question again please? Mr Chairperson, that round could have hit any person there. MR MALAN Surely you could have only hit the person that you aimed at? It could be, Mr Chairperson. MR MALAN Well will you explain it to us, why you say that? Mr Chairperson, like I said, a shotgun sprays. If I aimed at a person, it is possible that I did hit that person. But I understood you that you could have possibly have hit one of the victims, rather than aiming at the group? Mr Chairperson, a pipe is an instrument that you fit in, so it is not necessary that you will hit the person that you aim at. How far were you from the person who you shot? Approximately two metre. And you really think that at a distance of two metre, with a pipe shotgun, that you will hit somebody else rather than the person that you aimed at? I could have hit him or either the person next to him or both. CHAIRPERSON Did you want to put any question as a result of questions that have been put (indistinct)? No thank you, Mr Chairman, I've got no questions. CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you, Mr Visser. Thank you, Your Excellency. WITNESS EXCUSED MR PRINSLOO The next applicant is Badenhorst, Your Honour. His evidence appears on page 101 to page 116. FREDERICK JACOBUS BADENHORST (confirms to speak truth) EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO On page 108 of the application, paragraph 13, the sixth line from the bottom, of paragraph 13 that is, I'd just like to bring in an amendment, the words, to put the words "later" in front of "we", so and then to remove the "us" and to put "us" between "het" and "opdrag", so "later we received instruction". ADV BOSMAN Excuse me, I didn't get the amendment that you're making? Mr Chairman, it's page 108, paragraph 13, the sixth line from the bottom of that particular paragraph, insert the word "later" (indistinct) the word "ons", and delete the word "ons", and to enter the word "ons" between "het" and "opdrag", so it will thus read, "later het ons opdrag gekry". ADV BOSMAN Okay. And then also on page 107, Chairperson, paragraph 10, it says, "General Oelofse told us", or rather "command Klopper", it was told by Kloppers to the applicant, not Oelofse. Thank you, Chairperson. Mr Badenhorst, you were prosecuted in the higher courts of the Witwatersrand, Judge Marais, and you were found guilty on several charges of murder and other charges, and initially you received the death penalty? That is correct, Chairperson. And after the Appeal Court was, it was amended to life-long prison sentence? No, Chairperson, I got 28 years. Sorry, 28 years. Mr Badenhorst, you joined the AWB? MR BADENHORST That's correct. And when was this? MR BADENHORST 1991. How old were you at that stage? MR BADENHORST Chairperson, I was 17, 18 years old. And at that stage, what standard were you in? MR BADENHORST I finished standard seven and then I went to the technical college, and after I did my N1 there, I went to work at Diesel Services. But when you joined the AWB, you were 17? MR BADENHORST That's correct. And you were busy with your studies then, or were you already finished with it then? MR BADENHORST No, I was already finished with school then. I finished standard seven, I think it was when I was in college or just after I finished college. Mr Badenhorst, why did you join the AWB? MR BADENHORST Chairperson, I believe in the ideology of the AWB, I believe that we can rule ourselves, that's the Afrikaans people, I believe we have our own culture, and we have the right to maintain that culture. I also believe in own education and I also believe that we, as a nation, should be able to practise our own religion, and no-one should interfere with that. You don't have military service yourself? MR BADENHORST No. Was there any reason for you, did you want to receive military training? MR BADENHORST Chairperson, when I was quite small still, I always wanted to be a soldier, and it was one of my great desires to go and fight in Angola, and also to be in the Special Forces, and I really wanted to be in the South African Defence Force. Before you could do it, the army retreated out of Angola and you couldn't do it anymore? MR BADENHORST That's correct, Chairperson, there was a political change at that time. And in 1991, when you joined the AWB, was there any other thing that made you join them? MR BADENHORST Yes, there were two incidents in 1991. The first incident was that my brother in law, Johan du Plooy, went for his camps in Messina, his army camps, and during those camps, he and the men who were with him stepped on a landmine, and because of that he lost his leg. And the second incident, Mr Badenhorst? MR BADENHORST Chairperson, it was the battle of Ventersdorp, a good friend of ours, and also of my father, who also has the same surname as us, Andries Badenhorst, was there at Ventersdorp, there where the police fired on the white farmers because they offered resistance and they did not want that FW de Klerk could come and give a speech there, and during all that chaos, whilst the white policemen shot at the farmers, he was killed by a black taxi in the road, and the day thereafter, this convinced me to join the AWB, and the day after I did indeed join the AWB. Mr Badenhorst, when you joined the AWB and you fell under area 9 and the general in command was Japie Oelofse, is that correct? That is correct, Chairperson. Did you receive training in the AWB? Yes, that's correct, since 1991, I often attended AWB camps and that's where I received most of my training by the instructors we had. What was the nature of the training you received? It entailed war techniques, the handling of fire weapons, self defence, etcetera. And did you also attend meetings of the AWB? Yes, Chairperson, that is correct. Did you attend any meetings where the leaders, for example Eugene Terreblanche, addressed these meetings? That is correct, Chairperson. And did he have an influence on you, the leader now, Mr Terreblanche? Yes, definitely, Chairperson. Can you explain that influence to us? He specifically warned us against the fact that the election was on hand, this is now the '94 election, and that we, as "boere" or white people, did not have any chance to win that election because we are the minority. He also told us from the stage that we have to make ourselves ready because a revolution was going to happen and there would not be a '94 election, it would not be held, and we will definitely offer resistance before a communist government would govern us. Did you have anything to do with matters concerning military instructions and that of APLA? Yes. Inkatha, I was involved with training of certain Inkatha members, sorry, not APLA, it was also the basic war techniques, fire and movement, the handling of firearms and we helped to train them and we've tried to install some discipline into them. And was this the instruction of the AWB? That is correct, Chairperson. Did you also provide defence and security for Viljoen and Terreblanche, Ferdi Hartzenberg, etcetera? Yes, Chairperson, that's correct, I was part of security at the meetings. Were these open or closed meetings? Closed meetings, where only the leaders got together. And at these meetings were anything conveyed to you, what happened at those meetings, which you can recall? Chairperson, Mr Kloppers told me of some of the things which happened and were discussed there, and as far as I know Oelofse told him this, and that's how I got to know about this, and Kloppers then told me this. And what did you understand from all of that? Chairperson, what I could understand from that was that the revolution was on hand and that it was going to take place in order to stop the elections, and I also heard that a great part of Constand Viljoen's supporters would help us, and that there's also a big part of the army and when there was enough chaos in the country, would also help us. Was it also conveyed to you that a Volkstaat would be created and that certain towns and places would belong to you alone then? Chairperson, not at that stage, at that stage, I understood that we had to stop the election. There were plans to, I think the Western Transvaal, to make that our own, but what I understood was that there was definitely a decision to start the revolution. Your parents, which political party did they belong to? They've always been Conservative, and they always believed in ruling ourselves, otherwise they wouldn't have been Conservative. And you supported that policy? Yes, definitely, Chairperson. And the policy, before the unbanning of the ANC, that of separate development, apartheid as it was known, did you support that policy? It was the only policy I knew when I was growing up. Mr Badenhorst, the 12th of December 1993, you received a call from someone? That is correct, Chairperson, it was from Deon Martin's wife, Louise. And what was the purpose of that call? She told me - if I may just ask, can I use the word "roadhouse", because then everybody would get confused between a roadhouse and a roadblock - I was told that Deon gave instruction, I must go to the roadhouse in my complete AWB uniform... (intervention). Just in a lighter, I understand Commandant Martin's wife also spoke of the roadhouse in good Afrikaans? No, that's actually English. I know I'm not very good with English, but... (intervention). You must go to the roadhouse then and you must be dressed in uniform? I must also take my fire weapon and I must wear my camouflage uniform, or I must take it with me. Which fire weapon did you have at that stage? Maverick "haelpomp". It's a shotgun, is it a shotgun that can shoot more than one round, more than one action? That's correct, it takes six rounds, if there's also bullets, usually I only had five bullets, so that the (indistinct). And you took this with you to the roadhouse, is that correct? That is correct. Now when you got to the roadhouse, what happened? When I arrived there, most of the people were already there. Commandant Phil Kloppers arrived the last of everyone, and when he arrived there, we were called to attention and we stood to attention, and Commandant Kloppers addressed us and said that he was coming from an order group where General Japie was, and that the revolution would start today, and that the time was ready, and that this is the real McCoy and the revolution would definitely start that night, the night of the 12th, and that bodies had to be shown for this. And General Japie, General Japie, who is this now, what's his surname? General Japie Oelofse. And what do you mean when you say "real McCoy", what is that? That this was the actual thing, that this was the real revolution that was going to take place. And after this was conveyed to you, where did you go then? Chairperson, all of us didn't have firearms, and Head Commandant Kloppers took two pipes from his car and gave one to Visser, Etienne Visser, and firstly Gert, originally Gert, Gert Diedericks that is, but I saw that Martin van der Schyff, at the same scene, also got the weapon in the place of Gert Diedericks. Do you know of any reason why Gert Diedericks would have handled the weapon? No, I do not know. That is correct. We had too many vehicles and we left some of the vehicles at my father's house. They were on holiday at that stage, and at the same time there the Mercedes and the Nissan's number plates were changed with tape. This was the Mercedes of Deon Martin and the Nissan of Van der Schyff, sorry, of Visser? That's correct, of Visser. And was there any alcohol at your house? No, not there, no. And from your house, where did you go? And yourself, did you drink? That is correct, I did drink a glass. A glass? Yes, that's correct. Is that clean whisky or was it mixed with something else? I think mine was mixed with water, I can't remember. And the whisky you drank, did it influence you in any sense? No, not at all. After you were at the house of Visser, where did you go from there? From Visser's house, we went to Commandant Deon Martin's, his smallholding, or his plot. And what happened at that plot? There Chief Commandant Kloppers told us that we're going to set up a roadblock and that we're going to look for illegitimate weapons, and there was also a blue light was given to Van der Schyff, Diedericks and Visser, because they would have been traffic officials. And after you were at Martin's house, where did you go? Yes, we left. Who did you drive with? And the Mercedes, was it in front or behind you? It was in front of us. And while you were driving, was there any incidents taking place on the way there? Yes, Chairperson, whilst we were driving through the smallholdings, two blacks came out of one of the plots and the Sentra stopped and some of the men jumped out and assaulted the black people. Did you partake in this? No. Me and Meiring remained in the vehicle. And afterwards you continued? Yes, after they got back to the car. And where did you go from there? From there we went to the scene, Chairperson, Dora Crossing. And at the Dora Crossing, what happened there? Chairperson, there Meiring received the instruction to put us in specific posts or positions, considering the fact that he had experience with regards to roadblocks. Me and Etienne, he placed us behind the chevron board. Martin van der Schyff, Diedericks and Van der Schyff would have been the traffic officials, Visser had to place the blue light on the Sentra and made sure it worked, and Chief Commandant Kloppers and Martins would then drive out towards the Ventersdorp Road with the Mercedes in order to indicate to us the vehicles that we had to pull off. While you were there, were vehicles stopped at that roadblock? Yes, that is correct, Mr Chairperson, various vehicles, three or four, were pulled off, the vehicles were searched, the people were asked to get out of the cars, they were asked what their political alliances were. One of the vehicles, a Ford, which was full of people, at one stage they did not want to leave and we got the instruction from Chief Commandant Klopper to push this Ford bakkie, and that we did. Was there something wrong with this bakkie? Yes, it did not want to start. Did you help push? Yes, I did. Can you tell the honourable committee regarding the Honda Ballade and the other vehicle that was stopped? I see that it is 11 o'clock, I do not want to, would you like to adjourn at this stage? Can I continue? CHAIRPERSON You may proceed, yes. Mr Badenhorst, evidence was already given that a Honda Ballade and another vehicle was stopped at the roadblock. Can you tell the committee what happened there? That is correct, Mr Chairperson. Commandant Martins and Chief Commandant Klopper had once again drove out with the Mercedes to Ventersburg. When they saw a suitable vehicle, in this case two vehicles, they turned around to come back and flashed the lights, or brightened the lights, so that we know that the vehicles behind them must be pulled off. Chief Commandant Klopper and Commandant Deon Martins joined us with the Mercedes, but the two vehicles was about 200 or 250 metres they pulled off the road and they just stopped there and stood there for a while, and at that stage Commandant Martin and Chief Commandant Kloppers were already with us and they warned us that it looked suspicious for these two vehicles now suddenly that they see a blue light to pull off the road, and they warned us to be careful and to be aware. And then? Afterwards they drove again, we were still at our different positions, they stopped, the people were asked to get out of the vehicles, they did it, the vehicles were searched. Did you take part in searching through the... (intervention). Etienne Visser and I stood for the whole time behind a chevron board which was next to the road. So who searched, or the vehicles were searched? And the occupants were, or sat next to the vehicles, was that an instruction? Yes. And how did they sit, did they sit in a row, or in a group? There was an embankment, and it was a type of an embankment where they sat, otherwise they would have been uncomfortable, so they sat on the embankment next to the Chevron board. Continue, what happened then? Mr Chairperson, certain questions were put to them, as with the previous vehicles, where they come from, where they're going, what political party they belonged to. Chief Commandant Klopper would tap someone over the head with a baton, because they clearly saw that we were from the AWB, we had our signs and clothes and uniforms on, and clearly they saw that the people were not very happy, and logically they were, or they had some resistance, they were resistant, and Mr Klopper just tapped them on the head to pacify them. Did you hear what they answered? Mr Chairperson, I did not hear to everyone, or listen to all the questions, but I did hear that it was said that some of them belonged to the ANC, but I did not hear what everybody said. And what happened then? Mr Chairperson, Meiring and Visser at one stage with the Mercedes drove back there where the vehicle stopped approximately 250 metres from where we were, to go and look if they maybe have dropped something off next to the road or if someone maybe, or someone is maybe hiding next to the road, but they came back and said that they only found a bag of ice or something. Did they take anybody with them? Yes, they took some of the black with them. If you say Visser, are you talking about Visser? Yes, they bring that person back. And after that occurred, what happened then? After they came back, Commandant Deon Martin and Etienne Visser called us from behind the chevron board and then we formed a group, where he put it clearly to us that these people were the enemy, they were ANC members, and that this is the target. He said that he will give the command shot, after which we must fire as well, we must shoot at the black people. And what did you do then? Mr Chairperson, we formed a line, Commandant shot, fired the first shot, and then we all fired our weapons. Did you see it as an instruction or as a request? Naturally it was an instruction or an order. Did you shoot at the people? Yes, I did. How many shots did you fire? I fired five shots. And after you fired at the people, what happened then? At the town hall, what did you do there? Mr Chairperson, then we waited for Chief Commandant Klopper, Commandant Deon Martins, Gert Diedericks and Visser, who remained behind at the scene, to meet us at the town hall, because it was said that we must meet them there. Where did you go from there? We waited there but they did not arrive, and from there we drove back to my father's house and we waited there. And did some of the other people arrive there? Yes, that is correct, after a while everybody arrived except Gert Diedericks. At your house what happened there when everybody was together? Each one was asked who shot. Everybody said that they did shoot, those who had firearms. And someone was asked to go and get a bag from the Mercedes. MR BRINK I'm sorry, Mr Prinsloo, everybody said they did shoot, those who had firearms. Who was there that did not have a firearm? Gert Diedericks. MR BRINK But he was not there? You said someone was sent to go and get a bag from the Mercedes? I do not know who was sent, but in any case, Chief Commandant Phil Klopper opened the bag and showed us the ear of a black man and he said to us that this ear will be taken to General Japie Oelofse. Did you then disperse? Yes, everybody went home. Afterwards, what did you do, did you openly walk around? Mr Chairperson, Commandant Kloppers said that we must lay low and that we mustn't be seen with each other or in the company of each other. Who said that you must have a low profile? Commandant Phil Kloppers on behalf of General Japie. It seems that if this instruction did come from Japie Oelofse. If you say Japie?, It's Japie Oelofse. Now on the 15th of December, sorry, the 16th of December, did you attend any festivities? Yes, I was at the Voortrekker Monument with the Day of the Covenant festivities, I was there in uniform. What happened there? Mr Chairperson, we were congratulated by General Oelofse and they asked us to also form a guard of honour for the leader and his generals in staff during the festivities there. On the 6th of January 1994 were you taken into custody? Yes, that is correct. Were you detained according to article 39 of the Act, were you detained separately or with the others? Separately. At that same day, on the 6th of January, did you make a statement to a police officer? That is correct, yes. I did not want to, but I was forced to. The statement, honourable Chairperson, begins on page 185 up till page 190. After you were exempted from the acts, is that correct? Yes, with the other applicants. General Oelofse, was he also detained? Yes, that is correct, it was regarding bombs that went off also during that period of the festivities. Did General Oelofse talk to you or spoke in general? While he was there with us, he, at various times, praised us and congratulated us with what we did. He said that it was part of the struggle. Was anything promised to you while you were there? Yes, he gave us medallions. General Japie Oelofse promised us. And during December of '95, did someone visit you at that stage? Yes, that is correct, the leader, Eugene Terreblanche and certain of his generals in staff came to visit us in Johannesburg Prison. What was said to you there? Mr Chairperson, Mr Eugene Terreblanche said that all the "boere" participated and if they did, we would not have been in jail. And at any stage did you receive any promotions? Yes, I did, I was now lieutenant. Lieutenant in which section of the AWB, are you a member of the "Ystergarde"? Yes. Originally not, but after that day I was promoted to lieutenant in the "Ystergarde". And this "Ystergarde", how are they seen in the AWB? They are seen as the elite of the AWB Special Task, especially to protect the leader and some of the generals. You've already heard evidence where posters were made with some of the leaders' faces on? And that they said that they also made a placard or a poster with my face on it. Was that for the release of you and the other group? CHAIRPERSON Gentlemen, can we adjourn now? I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman? CHAIRPERSON Can we adjourn, is it an appropriate place to adjourn? As it pleases the committee. Certainly. CHAIRPERSON Until half past eleven. Thank you. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS FREDERICK JACOBUS BADENHORST (still under affirmation) (cont) When you acted on the specific day, the 12th December 1993, did you do it for yourself or on behalf of someone else? Chairperson, I did it for the organisation, it was an instruction. Which organisation is that? It's the AWB. Did you gain any benefit from this? None, Chairperson. Did you do it out of malice? No, Chairperson, not at all. And the application which is in front of the committee, do you confirm the contents thereof? Yes I do. Thank you, Chairperson. NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MRS VAN DER WALT NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER Mr Badenhorst, except for the Honda and the Cressida, how many other vehicles, can you specifically remember, which were stopped by you? Chairperson, three or four vehicles, that's excluding the Cressida and the Toyota. For example you referred to the F100, can we accept that there were two or three more? That's correct. Could you hear what was discussed with the people occupying those vehicles by Martin and Kloppers? I could hear what the questions were that they asked the occupants. Could you hear if they were asked with regards to their political affiliations? Yes, that's correct, I could hear that. And what did the occupants of the F100 say? I couldn't recall exactly what the occupants of the F100 said, but all those who were driving were not of the ANC or ANC/SACP alliance. Did you accept that, because they were allowed to go on their way? Chairperson, yes, the instruction was ANC/SACP alliance. If I understand it correctly, you didn't really try to hear their answers on these questions? Could you please repeat the question? I assume that you did not specifically tried or made an effort to hear what the blacks who were stopped said? Chairperson, I didn't listen to each and every word that was said, but what I did hear as what I said before, what the questions were and the answers which Chief Commandant Kloppers and Martin received. With regards to the other vehicles, maybe they had nothing to do with the ANC/SACP alliance. But as you already indicated, you assumed, and in your, that you did not really hear the answers, but your assumption is made on the fact that Kloppers let them go? I know that, that there were Inkathas who were stopped, but I cannot tell you exactly which vehicle that was. The point I'm trying to make, Mr Badenhorst, is that I find it quite strange that it was so important to find a target that you didn't pay specific attention? Chairperson, the questions were asked by Chief Commandant Martins, as well as Kloppers. I left it up to them to find the appropriate target, considering they were the people who were asking the questions. But now, according to your version, you are going to commit a crime, you are going to kill somebody, but yet you do not make sure that the individuals you are going to kill do in fact belong to that specific political affiliation? Chairperson, I was a soldier, I respected the ranks of my higher officials, and I did not doubt them. The ridiculousness of your answer is that you did not doubt them, but all you had to do was to listen there at the scene, all you had to do was listen, and the point is your answers indicate that you did not listen with attention? I wouldn't say all the time, but I did listen. You see, Mr Badenhorst, the result of your evidence, and this coincides with that of my client, Mr Van der Schyff, it is that there was no question about you looking for a specific target of ANC/SACP affiliation people would then be shot, it was not part of the planning? That is not correct, Chairperson, why did we let some of the vehicles go? He would say that it was because they did not find illegal weapons with them, and that was your task, and that's how you testified in front of the committee before we had the tea adjournment, that on Martin's smallholding, Kloppers said that you're going to have a roadblock and that you're going to look for illegitimate weapons - please do not interrupt me - that was your task? Are you finished? Yes, I'm finished. Chairperson, I said that the revolution, and it was put to us clearly at the roadblock that the revolution was going to begin and we were "boere" and our enemies were the SACP/ANC alliance. But in your evidence you did not say that at Martin's smallholding a roadblock would be held, we are going to look for illegitimate weapons and we're also going to find appropriate targets which would consist of SACP/ANC alliance people and that we are going to kill them, it was never said. It was supposed to be have said at the roadhouse. What are you saying now? Are you now saying to the committee that at the roadhouse it was said that, "Tonight we are going to kill SACP/ANC alliance people"? If I left it out, it's my mistake, but it was said to us at the roadhouse that the target would be the ANC/SACP alliance. If you now put it so pertinently, you're the first person who said that because no-one else did. Well sir, that's how I understood it, because it's logical that the enemy of the "boer" were the ANC/SACP alliance, because it's them who threatened us. It's another problem that I have with your evidence, you said that at the roadhouse you were told the revolution starts, the time is ready, it's the real McCoy and the general wants to see bodies, but you never said that the general wanted to see bodies that same evening, that's not part of your evidence? As far as I can remember, my evidence was that the time was ready for the revolution to start. It would seem to me that those statements are very general statements which were made, it was never said that specifically tonight people had to be killed? That was not our instruction. In any case, you already know that my client would deny that those things were said. He'd also deny that it was said that the revolution would start, it was the real McCoy and the general would want to see bodies, it was not said. That is your client's evidence. It would seem as if the idea to kill people was one that was formed once you've already started the roadblock and now suddenly it was decided to kill people? No, sir, I don't agree with you. At the roadhouse it was said that the revolution is going to begin, and what is a revolution other than to kill people? This is not coinciding with the evidence of Klopper himself, who said to the committee that according to his command structure, or that he would not always say what would be the task right until the last moment, and the task was held back up until Martin's smallholding and then that you would have a roadblock and that you would want weapons, and that's all? No, I do not agree with that. And my client will also say that the other groups of people who were stopped were not asked what their political affiliations were? I do not agree, sir. But you can also not explain to the committee why you cannot remember what the answers were? The fact that we let some of them go, I think is a good enough explanation, it's because they were not ANC/SACP alliance people. In all respect, he said that some of them were from Inkatha? Sorry, I did not hear the objection? MR PRINSLOO The evidence of the applicant is that he said that some of the people answered and said that they were belonging to Inkatha. That's true, but he couldn't hear all of them, Chairperson. MR PRINSLOO With all respect, Chairperson, you have to take into regard that he stood at the chevron, you must take his position into consideration and maybe my learned friend is leaving that out, he's not stating what this applicant's position was. Mr Badenhorst, I want you to understand this very well. Some of the previous witnesses are saying to you, the same as pain is a subjective experience, if you come and tell me you've got a back pain, there's no instrument that I could use to determine whether you really have a back pain and I have to accept your word for that, is that correct, and in the same sense I cannot look into your heart to see what your political or religious convictions are, is that correct? I accept what you are telling me and therefore I have no reason not to believe that you are telling the truth if you say that in 1993, as a 20 year old man you were under the conviction that the communistic system was a threat to your people, I have no problem with that, I cannot deny that. I can also not deny that you were influenced by speeches of the AWB leaders and other right organisations. It was accepted that Terreblanche is a very charismatic speaker and that he could incite people. Now I return to what you've said concerning that night. You said that night at the scene you said that the adrenaline was flowing, is that correct, at the road block itself? Yes, no, that's true. So you felt whipped up? Yes, and we were quite tense. Ja, that's what I wanted to say, because it goes further, in your application, also in the application of the previous witness, it was said that after these two vehicles stopped and then pulled away, everybody was very militant and they were ready, and they were also very tense? That's correct, yes. So there's more attention put to what might happen? It looked very suspicious, and we were warned against that, that we had to be careful. And if I look at your application, it would seem already the fact that you did not only draw a line between politics and communism, but also with regards to religion, in paragraph 4? The religion I then practised and which I still practise today is not the same. Well what I want to say is that you referred that at that stage it also came down to your religion as well as the politics, you really saw communism as a threat? Yes, definitely, Chairperson. And at that stage you were 20 years old and you saw a person who submitted to you and he is the Chief Commandant of that area, you considered yourself a soldier and also saw yourself as under the command of this person? That is correct. And you say at the end of your evidence during cross-questioning by Mr Knoetze, you said that you respected the ranks of him and Martin and you had no reason to doubt their word? That is correct. And when Mr Kloppers told you, "I received the following instructions from General Oelofse", you also respected Oelofse as a very important man within the right-wing organisation? Chairperson, yes, definitely. But you never received such a direct instruction from Oelofse? No, not directly from Oelofse, but through the channels and the way we worked. And my question is simple, you did comply to those instructions because you believed those were the instructions given? That's correct. But for any other reason, if you thought that there was no such instruction, would you have continued on your own, on your own initiative? No, Chairperson. And if Mr Kloppers, for whatever reason, was under the same conviction as you, if he did not convey these instructions correctly or if you misunderstood the instructions, what would your comment then be? Chairperson, if that was the case, we would not have known, because we only received instructions from Kloppers and we followed them. Mr Knoetze asked you, and he made a statement and said that it seems as if these instructions were more general statements during that time which were said at meetings and it was said in general that something had to be done, we cannot allow that an election is held, because it's going to be disadvantageous to our people, is that correct? That is correct, Chairperson. And I'll return to two other things you've said. You said afterwards you were praised by Oelofse and I don't want to do this with every witness because I do not want to waste time, I just want to make sure, when you were at the festivities you said that you were called in order to stand an honour of guard, guard of honour? That's correct, we were asked to stand guard of honour. Isn't it more correct that there was a call-up, that AWB members who were completely dressed in their uniform, because everybody was not dressed in AWB uniforms, that these members must stand a guard of honour? That can't be, because there were thousands of them in uniform. But what I would like to know is, is it your version that you specifically were singled out to do the guard of honour? That's how I felt. And was it only the people who were part of your group who formed the guard of honour, or were there other people as well in uniform who formed the guard of honour? There would always by "Ystergard" members in their black uniforms who were responsible for security. So you weren't the only ones who formed the guard of honour? Yes, but we were singled out from thousands of others to form the guard of honour. But my statement is, you were not the only ones who formed the guard of honour? Chairperson, yes, basically we were, because the "Ystergard" men were there for security. I put it to you that it is not the case, and I'll leave it for argument, as far as it would be necessary. Just one other statement, you also said that later, while you were in detention, certain promises were made regarding medallions, etcetera. At the end of the statement you were asked where they came from and your recommendation and you said that you thought it came from Oelofse, is that correct? No, I said it came from him. But then I heard you incorrectly, because your voice trailed off. If I can just return. In conclusion, in different stages or phases during your application, etcetera, certain amendments were made and through evidence that was given certain corrections were made, where and when and what the order was, through the different people that testified. According to me, Mr Chairperson, according to my knowledge, this is exactly how it happened and where the orders came from at the roadhouse. Let us make it applicable only to you. You are the second witness, your application was amended with specifically with the allegation that you only heard later that these instructions came from General Oelofse, so you are the second person today. That is correct. That is what I mean, we would probably never know precisely what order was given where, because enough has been said about that in cross-examination, but I would like to take you back to your statement that you made on page 187, specifically the beginning of it, page 186, that is now after the initial printed statement. The following said to this statement "Captain Van Vuuren said to me that, `Your father said that..." or it looks like:- "...that you will not make a statement'." What is your answer regarding that? I want to make a statement and speak the truth. It does not help if I hide things. I feel sorry for what I did." Is that correct? Yes. I can give a reason. Okay, what was the reason? I was attacked by the police, and my father in the presence of that time Captain Van Vuuren, said that I must not make a statement before I've got a lawyer present, and I was attacked by the police to provide them with certain information. At that stage they already knew almost everything that was said in my statement, because I was the last person who was picked up by the police, and at that stage they knew more or less what everything was about. I accept what you said, because I do not carry any other knowledge regarding this to deny it, but you would surely not, in the beginning, make such a decision lightly, because it's clear that your father didn't want you to make a statement at that stage, but you did decide to make one? I did not have much of a choice. I do accept that, but all that I'd like to know is that we have heard your version today about where and when this instruction was received, and I understand why you said why you executed this order. On page 187 of the same statement, at the end of the last paragraph, there they talk about the roadhouse "We planned to pull off a taxi." My copy is not very clear:- "We had to search for weapons. We made this decision at the roadhouse. In other words the shooting as well." All that I'd like to know is that you say "we made that decision there". Now if you say "we made that decision", to who do you refer to, who's this "we"? Mr Chairperson, at the time when I made the statements, really I thought today I was a bit scared giving evidence here, but under that extreme pressure that was placed upon you in the police station, there's so many things that you say that doesn't make sense, which is not logic, and that is also the case here. I'm not, I still remain what I said to you, I'm asking, must I understand it that when you say "we decided", is that "we" as "we the soldiers", or "we" according to the instructions that you've got from your commander? Mr Chairperson, there it should have said that we as a group, through Chief Commandant Kloppers, received an instruction or order that on behalf of General Japie Oelofse, but I just in short spoke here to finish. I understand you, if you say "we decided" and "we planned", then you would not have planned it or decided, because you did not have the rank. The person who gave the orders was Kloppers. Furthermore in the statement it says, this is now at Martin's smallholding, "after we discussed this plan in detail", is that correct? Yes, that is where the plan regarding the roadblock was mentioned. And once again you accepted that this is now the execution of order that was given by Oelofse? Yes. Now I asked Mr Kloppers this question and he said that he knows Oelofse and he knows Oelofse's background and he's got respect for him as a military person and he's not someone who would do something in a random way. All that I would like to know is, why would it have been necessary for him, I'm not talking about you, he is the commander, why would it have been necessary for him to work out a detailed plan as a person with a military background like Oelofse have already given the instruction, then there would have already been a planning stage, why is it necessary to plan further? I cannot answer that, that is something that General Oelofse will have to say. Is there any reason why, that you can give, why it is not possible that this whole plan of a roadblock and that must happen there was not a creation, or that was created in the mind of Kloppers and that there was never an instruction, is there any reason that you can give that there isn't... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON I think maybe the question should be rephrased... (intervention). I'll do so. CHAIRPERSON ...and put to him in the more conventional way. I mean ask him, would you dispute the fact that Oelofse never gave such an order to Kloppers, or would you not? Mr Chairperson, as I said, I trusted my commander and everybody who had a higher rank than I, I never doubted their word, and I don't think there's any soldier who would do that. They must trust their higher rank. CHAIRPERSON Look, it is actually being put to you that Oelofse denies that he gave such an order to Klopper, but on the other hand, Kloppers told you that Oelofse did give him such an order. What is your comment there? Mr Chairperson, I was not in that order session, so I don't know what was said there, I only executed my orders that was given to me by Chief Commandant Kloppers, I was not in the orders group. CHAIRPERSON I didn't want to put in the final word into your mouth, but I thought you would tidy up your answer. So you would neither agree nor disagree with any one of them, because you were not there when the order was given, the supposed order was given to Kloppers, you were not there? You can't say Klopper is lying or Oelofse is lying? I don't know. That is a question that must be put to Kloppers. I don't believe that he... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON Sorry? I do not believe that he lied. CHAIRPERSON Who? Chief Commandant Klopper. CHAIRPERSON So Oelofse would lie to us if he says that he never gave the order? Mr Chairperson, I wasn't there in the order group, how can I say that he lied or not? CHAIRPERSON I am not, I cannot say if it occurred or not, because I wasn't there. Thank you, Mr Chairperson, just a last question. I understand you're not in a position to deny it or not because you were not there and this matter has been cleared up, this whole thing that occurred, you were under the impression that, through Kloppers, that a national revolution will begin on the 13th of December or the 12th of December, and when it was the 16th of December and you were at the festivities and you heard there that nothing came from or happened regarding this alleged national revolution, did you not then started to doubt if such an order was given? Can I qualify it, did you not then doubt that such an order really did come from Oelofse, because nothing else happened? Mr Chairperson, at that time various bombings occurred in that same period of time, and I believed that it was still continuing. I am also not sure if it happened on that specific day, but I remember that in that period, it did occur... (intervention). That is what I would like to know... (intervention). ...and the atmosphere was still definitely that of a revolution. But you, at least at the 16th, on the evening of the 12th or the morning of the 13th, that there was not a full-scale revolution in the country? Yes, I realised that it has not started as we thought it would. But the fact of the matter is that Phil Kloppers said to you on that evening of the 12th that the time is right, that the revolution is going to start, and not when, but tonight, and we're going to start tonight, is that correct? Yes. And all that I'm asking here, by the 16th you saw that it has not realised, did you not then started to doubt that at one you may have been misled or misinformed? Mr Chairperson, not really, because like I said, the whole atmosphere of revolution was still prevailing throughout the country during that period, and during that period various bomb attacks did occur. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Badenhorst... (intervention). MR PRINSLOO Can I just help him with his - because he said he cannot hear? Is what I'm saying being translated for you into Afrikaans? All right. That is correct, yes. Now, do you agree with me that at that time it was common knowledge countrywide that the AWB regarded the ANC with extreme antipathy, in other words hated the ANC and the ideals for which the ANC stood? Mr Chairperson, definitely yes, because they were a threat to us, and as I said in the committee, there was no chance, if all the whites stood together for that election, that there would be any chance to win the election. No, but the point of the question is whether you agree that that knowledge was countrywide, I mean everyone knew what the AWB's attitude was towards the ANC? I mean it's on television, on radio, in the newspapers, speeches of Terreblanche, the country knew what your attitude was and what you stood for? What I understood was that it would occur countrywide. It would have happened countrywide, but that the population at large knew that the AWB regarded the ANC with antipathy? Ja, I would say that it is apparent that it was the fact. And that the AWB regarded the IFP, at that stage, as an ally against the ANC? Definitely, yes. And you had told us that on that evening at the roadblock, vehicles were let through because the occupants in those vehicles had said they were IFP, or belonging to some other organisation which was not ANC? That is correct, yes. And we know that on that night you were all wearing your AWB uniforms? That is correct, yes. And on the AWB uniforms, on the shirtsleeves, was that large, what Eugene Terreblanche calls a triple seven, but a type of swastika, black on white and red, very prominent? Whatever it is, you know what I mean, a very prominent, well-known sign or emblem? Yes, the triple seven was on our uniform as well as the then commando's sign. And it was a well-known symbol or an emblem? You were very prominent? That is correct, yes. And I want to suggest to you that, having regard to the fact that the ANC would have been frightened of the AWB, because of the AWB's public utterances in regard to the ANC, it would have been extremely unlikely for any occupant of any motor car to have admitted to you that they were supporters or members of the ANC on that night, extremely unlikely? Well, I do not believe that it could be the matter... (intervention). Come, Mr Badenhorst! We know from your evidence that there was this well-known antipathy on the part of your organisation against the ANC, it was well publicised, and are you telling this committee that there'd be no problem for people to admit to you, dressed in your AWB uniforms, that they were members of the ANC? They would have expected trouble from you, isn't that correct? Well, Mr Chairperson, it could be that they expected trouble from us. But do you think it likely that these people would have admitted to having been members of the ANC, knowing that you were AWB people there? I cannot answer on behalf of them, they must give their own evidence. Well they will say no questions were asked of them and no admissions were made, that they were callously and brutally shot. What's your comment on that? That is not true. Just tell me once again, how much did you have to drink that night? Are you aware of the fact that theft was committed at the scene of this roadblock, money, watches, if I recollect correctly shoes, a tape set, or tape player? Are you aware of the fact that theft took place that night? Mr Chairperson, I only realised at the town hall that some of the items was stolen, and that is the first time I saw it. Yes. Bear with me, Mr Chairman? There were children amongst the people who were shot, do you agree? Mr Chairperson, I did see young people, or the one you could say was a young man, then I also saw a younger one. What was the point of shooting these youngsters? Couldn't you have showed some mercy towards them? Mr Chairperson, the instruction to us was to shoot. Mr Chairperson, that amount of alcohol that I drank, I did not, or I was not drunk. And the answer to the second part of my question? It was just a senseless, murdering spree, nothing to do with politics, pure racism because these people happened to have black skins, that was the only reason you did this? No, Mr Chairperson, that is not true. Thank you. In the statement you made to the police, which you did willingly and voluntarily, and which was against the advice of your father... TAPE TURNED OVER - WORDS LOST ...you made the statement? Chairperson, you said what I did voluntarily, I did not do it voluntarily. I was assaulted and I was forced to make a statement. But it's said to you by Captain Van Vuuren that your father said you should not make a statement. What's your answer to that? That's correct, Chairperson, my father told me in the presence of the police. And you also tell us that the reason why you did it, one is because of the assaults, but also because the police already knew everything, because they spoke to the others? That's correct. So you had nothing to conceal? Chairperson, at that stage they already knew everything at that stage, after they interviewed and interrogated the other men, and also because they had made statements. So at that stage it was an honest version of what you thought happened that night? No, I wouldn't say it was honest, I wouldn't say this is the truth, because I left a lot out. No, with regards to what you said, there's nothing you said here that you lied about, with regards to what you can remember? Chairperson, as I've said, there could be mistakes in this statement. Can you remember any mistakes? With regard to this specific one, the one where I said at the roadblock, let me just make sure where exactly this is written - sorry, Chairperson - I can't see what I was thinking about now where there might have been a mistake, but I did make mistakes in this statement, Chairperson. But please tell us which mistakes? Chairperson, the fact that it was said at the roadblock that we're going to pull off taxis, that was not the truth. What it comes down to here is that firstly we would go to General Martin's smallholding and there planned to have a roadblock. And if you say that's not the truth, why did you say it then? Is there a reason why you did not tell the truth? Chairperson, at that stage, really, you were scared there, and the people are assaulting you while they're questioning you, and then they show you how Kloppers looked after he was shocked and he was tubed. No, I'm talking about when you were writing, you weren't assaulted while you were taking down a statement? No. And to speak in specific details, you start and you talk about the party that you had during the weekend and the fact that one of the people stayed over at your place, and then the Sunday afternoon you were tired and you went to bed? That is correct, Chairperson, but that's got nothing to do with the case. It was unnecessary to even say that. My question is this, does it have nothing to do with the case or not, because you said Kloppers and his wife and their children, Visser, Martin and others, you can't remember all of them, all of them had a party at your house, "Visser stayed over at my house", and the question I would like to ask is, did you drink during that party? Chairperson, to be honest, I cannot tell you if that party was the night before, or it might have been at a more previous occasion. I cannot really tell you if it happened the night before or if it happened before. It is quite obvious then that your memory then must have been better, because this was taken down a few weeks after the incident? No, I wouldn't say my memory was better then, I was very confused and I was scared when I made this statement. But your memory isn't any better now either? Chairperson... (intervention). It's a deliberate remark. You said that at the roadhouse, you said "At the roadhouse we planned to pull off a kaffir taxi and to search the people for weapons and then to shoot them." And later you talk about something and say that the plan was once again discussed in detail. Why would you make the distinction? As I've already said to you, Chairperson, at the roadblock, sorry, no I'm getting confused, at the roadhouse we were told that the revolution was about to begin that night and that it was the real McCoy and that there should be bodies, and at that stage nothing was said to us concerning how we'd go about it, that was all we were told, and the question with regards to the roadblock was only discussed at Deon Martin's smallholding in detail, and about how we'd go about it. Yes, I've heard that, I just want to know why it doesn't coincide with the statement? Now - I explained it to you now. Can I take you back to two other things? Firstly, when you shot at the crossing, firstly you testified with regards to the training and also the training you've given, the handling of weapons, firing and moving, and you also said you stood in a line? That is correct, Chairperson. And you fired? Yes. Did you decide who was going to shoot at who? No, Chairperson, every person, no-one was told who to shoot, we just shot. But you stand in a line, and I assume behind the people or in front of the people, where were you, before or... (intervention). We were standing in front of them. And you stand in a line and they're sitting in a line, and the amount of people are ten victims, or there are ten people sitting there and nine people shooting, is that correct? Yes. We did not assume that you would stand across from a specific person? You said they sat next to each other? Yes, it could be the case, Chairperson, but I cannot say who the others shot, it was a very confused shooting and I do not know how to describe it. When the first shot went, everybody started firing. And according to your testimony the distance you stood from them was about two metres. Wouldn't then one make the assumption or can you not remember that you must have been standing opposite a specific individual? Yes, it is so, we stood in front of them. And you obviously would have shot at the person sitting in front of you? If you think about it logically, yes it had to be like that, but I cannot tell you if that was in fact the case. If you stood in a line, because this is another question, you would remember that the evidence at the trial was that the shooting just simply started after the first shot was fired, it wasn't a line, it was unexpected, there was evidence to that effect? No, we stood in front of the people. Also in your evidence you used, and you said that Kloppers rapped the people on their heads and you said some of them were tough? Yes, Chairperson. And you even smiled when you tried to answer that, because you were looking for understanding, you said that they helped them along? Yes, Chairperson, they were tough. They didn't co-operate? No, they didn't co-operate, Chairperson. But how does he rap them? Did he not assault them? Chairperson, I don't know how to describe it. In the prison I see much worse things than that. He walked behind them and say, for example, they gave him a sarcastic answer, he hit them with the baton on the head. He hit them with the baton on the head? Yes, rapped, or hit. And then just one last question with regards, you made a statement to the police? That is correct, Chairperson. Because you were scared you were going to be assaulted again? That's correct. But they don't tell you what to say? Chairperson, just before I made the statement, they took me to a little office where Chief Commandant Kloppers and Martin van der Schyff were already sitting together with the detectives, and at that stage I still said I know of nothing, and only after Kloppers and Van der Schyff were asked, "Was this man, Jaco Badenhorst involved, was he present?", and then I realised, and they said yes, and then I knew that they already spoke to the police, and that's why I made this statement. The point I'm trying to make is, in this statement, you did not refer to the role of Oelofse, you did not refer to his name and it was also not done at the trial. Why not? In order to protect certain people and also to protect the plans of the organisation as I understood it, and to keep it under cover, and to protect those plans, so it doesn't come to be known. So you deliberately protected Oelofse when you made this statement to the police, is that what you are saying? Yes, Chairperson. Mr Badenhorst, this expression "the real McCoy" is not a typically Afrikaans expression? No, it's not. It's the true McCoy, But there are many Afrikaans people who would not know this expression, "the real McCoy"? That could be the case, Chairperson. I find it quite strange that all of you knew what the real McCoy meant? Was it a general word used within the group? No, Chairperson, it is a general word, you hear it on the TV a lot. Where did you learn this expression? It's a general expression, Chairperson. Your parents were on holiday at that stage, is that correct? That's correct. Where were they? In the Cape, Chairperson. Were you worried about them when this revolution was at the point of breaking out? Chairperson, I was worried. Did you contact them and tell them that the revolution is going to break out, that either they must go home or they must make sure they're safe? No, Chairperson, I did not say anything of that kind to them. But you really believed that this country was going to be engulfed in a complete revolution? Yes, I really believed that. You also said that the religion you practised then is not the same as you practise now? That's correct, Chairperson. At that stage, how can I say, I was not really involved in a specific church. May I ask to which church you now belong? Chairperson, I'm an Israeli, the Israel Truth. Has it had any effect on your political sentiment, with regards now the political connections, the religious connections you have? So can you say that you've remained unchanged? I'd say that my ideology and that, what I reach for, cannot be changed, because I can see what's happening to our nation. Are you still a member of the AWB? As far as I know, if Mr Terreblanche did not chase me away, as far as I know I am a member of the AWB. With regards to the guard of honour, did I understand you correctly that "Ystergarde" was automatically part of this guard of honour? Chairperson, they performed a specific function for the AWB, and they gave a show, and behind the stage where the leader, Terreblanche, and the general staff was sitting in a semi-circle, there were members of the "Ystergarde" and we were not part of that semi-circle, we stood at the back of the general staff at a wagon. Were you called to join this semi-circle? No, Chairperson, we were never part of the semi-circle. But was this then a compliment to ask you to stand guard of honour? Yes, for me it was a compliment, otherwise I would just have sat on the steps. And are you saying correctly that Oelofse specifically asked you to form a part of this guard of honour? I'm not quite sure. Who asked you to form a part of this guard of honour? Chairperson, we still received all our instructions from Kloppers. Yes, he told us to stand a guard of honour and he said that was organised by General Japie. But when you were there at the Voortrekker Monument, did you automatically go and stand at the guard of honour, or did somebody specifically call you to come and stand there? Chairperson, no, when we got there, we found Japie Oelofse there, because he stayed at the same caravan as us. But that's what I mean, what was Oelofse's specific participation as far as this guard of honour is concerned? As far as my knowledge is concerned, it was suggested by General Oelofse to Kloppers. I think we're missing each other, Mr Badenhorst, you said that you found Oelofse there at the Voortrekker Monument? Yes. And it was on my - referring to my question as what was your participation with the guard of honour, why you had to stand there, etcetera, because if I remember correctly, Kloppers was not there? No, he was there. So let's start over. You're there at the monument. Before the time Kloppers told you that Oelofse indicated that you must go and stand a guard of honour. Now is there a specific moment when somebody comes to you and says, "Look, we're going to have the guard of honour there and you must go and stand there", who gave you those instructions? I received all my instructions from Chief Commandant Kloppers and Martin, Chairperson. ADV SIGODI I just want to clarify one aspect with you. When you made the statement to the police when you were arrested, did the police tell you what to write, or did you write what you knew? Mr Chairperson, they said to me, or they guided me in what I must say, if I could put it like that, like what my, or as my lawyer said, they also guided me in what I must say. ADV SIGODI How could they have guided you, what did they - in respect of which aspects did they guide you? Chairperson, almost everything that occurred or happened from the roadhouse, they basically said to me that the other people have already said that, or told them about it, and I just repeated it and they just wrote it down. ADV SIGODI Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON Mr Prinsloo? MR PRINSLOO Thank you, Mr Chairman. MR DREYER CHAIRPERSON As long as you are not going back to asking... (intervention). MR DREYER No. CHAIRPERSON Well, why, if you, how can you still be thinking of protecting Oelofse if you knew that you were already arrested, the revolution did not take place, why was it still necessary at that stage, because you spent a lot of time on that thing with regard to the main witness? If you are going to go back to that aspect, I could say to you that I think that has been reasonably covered. MR DREYER Mr Chairman, all I... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON You wanted to go to that point which I suspect you're going to? MR DREYER No, I would like to ask a question in relation to a question that was put by the committee member, Mr Malan, as to the way in which the statement was structured at the police station and the involvement of the police there and then in relation to the possibility of Oelofse being protected or not. That is the purpose of the question that I intend, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON MR DREYER Yes, Mr Chairman, I don't... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON We want to be careful about the statement. We don't want to find ourselves committing unnecessary irregularities about this, unless somebody's going to call the police to say that he's lying if he says he was assaulted or pushed into making this statement. MR DREYER Mr Chairman, obviously I can't put into dispute that there was any kind of undue influence on him, that's his statement, that's not relevant to my question. All I wanted to know was whether there was a reason for him to omit something in a statement? CHAIRPERSON Well let's see what you're saying, but you have heard my concern. MR DREYER As the Court pleases, Mr Chairman. FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DREYER Mr Badenhorst, all that I'd like to know is, if I understand correctly that you went into the small office and there were two people there, Kloppers was there and Van der Schyff was there, together with the detectives? Yes. MR DREYER And if I understand you correctly, your viewpoint at that stage was that, "I'm not going to say anything", but then you saw and you make the conclusion that they have already spoken or told them the story? Yes, that is true. MR DREYER No, Mr Chairperson, but we did, before they arrested us, we already had a cover story in case we would be arrested... (intervention). MR DREYER I understand what I want I want to say and - I've got no further questions, Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DREYER MR MALAN Mr Badenhorst, when you went to the Voortrekker Monument for the festivities, how did you get there, did you go with Chief Commandant Kloppers? Mr Chairperson, Chief Commandant Klopper and Commandant Martin was there already a day before the festivities at the Voortrekker Monument. MR MALAN Thank you. RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO Mr Badenhorst, at the Voortrekker Monument, the "Ystergarde", were they in their uniform, the black uniforms, the "Ystergarde", and you were in the ordinary AWB uniform, so you were easily distinguished? Yes. MR PRINSLOO When you were detained, was it before that you were detained according to section 29 when your father said that you must not make a statement? Mr Chairperson, they arrested me in Bothaville, or picked me up, and from there took me to the Protea Police Station in Soweto. My father drove with the detectives and went with me into the police station, into the same office where Captain Van Vuuren and other detectives were present, and he said to them, or he said to me that I must not make a statement, that he first wants to get a lawyer. MR PRINSLOO And after that we were detained according to the Act of Internal Security and you did not have access to any person? That is correct, Chair. MR PRINSLOO And when you were detained according to section 29, did you have a choice to speak or not? Repeat the question please? MR PRINSLOO When you were detained according to section 29, as it was explained to you, did you have a choice to refuse to give information? No, I did not have much of a choice. MR PRINSLOO And you say you saw Chief Commandant Klopper there. Did he have a normal appearance? No, he was definitely not normal. His face was swollen, he could not walk, you could immediately see that his muscles were contracted because of the shocks, his whole face was swollen, it was blood red, and you could see that they did something to his face. MR PRINSLOO At that stage when you were arrested, you said you were the last person, did you know or did you not know that General Oelofse was also detained regarding this matter? No, Mr Chairperson, he was not detained or arrested regarding our matter, but he was arrested concerning bombs that went off just before or... (intervention). MR PRINSLOO Did you know Oelofse was not detained because of your case? Yes, I knew that. MR PRINSLOO Did you at any stage take an oath? Yes, that is correct. MR PRINSLOO What did that entail, that oath? Loyalty, that everything that you do, you do it for the "volk". MR PRINSLOO That oath of faith, could you then implicate other people, for example a commander or other people? No. MR PRINSLOO And during the interrogation of the police, as you were the last person, could you then gather from the interrogation what was said by the others, or what was alleged by the police? I could gather from what was said by the others. MR PRINSLOO I would like to refer to Exhibit C, the charge document, as well as the name of Oelofse that appears in this document, according to this charge docket there was an explosion, on page 9 of that charge docket, it is charge 2, there was an explosion on the 15th of December at the Voortrekker Monument, do you know about it, did you hear about it? Mr Chairperson, like I said, I did not know exactly when the bombs exploded, but it was during that period. MR PRINSLOO Just a moment please. At the guard of honour that was formed at the Voortrekker Monument, where the leader attended, what was the function of General Oelofse? He was part of the generals in staff, and he was, or during the leader's speech he was with the leader on stage. MR PRINSLOO Thank you. CHAIRPERSON Mr Dreyer, Mr Prinsloo saw it fit to ask the witness a question about whether, in terms of an oath, he was free to incriminate other members of the AWB, and why he chose to ask this question only now at this stage is beyond me, but it may very well be that it could entitle you to put questions to this witness around that point. Yes, Mr Chairman, I have noticed that that is (indistinct). CHAIRPERSON It may very well be that he has in fact incriminated other members of the AWB to the police, and that would entitle you possibly, if you so wish, to put questions to this witness around that point. As the Court pleases, Mr Chairman. Mr Badenhorst, I understand what you said and it's clear that you do not know the oath word by word, but you know that this oath entails that you do everything for "volk" and "vaderland", and you do it to further the goals of the movement? Yes, that is what it's about. But you made a conclusion from that that it's also expected from you that you will not incriminate other members of the AWB, and especially commanders. That is correct. At that stage they have already been arrested, they have already made their own statements, so I did not incriminate them, they have already incriminated themselves. But you did not see their statements, so you do not know to what extent they incriminated themselves? No, Mr Chairperson, the detectives beforehand said that I was the last person, all your friends have said or spoken. I did not believe them until Chief Commandant Kloppers and Van der Schyff told me that they know everything, that I can talk. But if they said to you that they know everything, why didn't you not, at that stage, because you know it wouldn't have helped, why didn't you make use of that opportunity to, and then say that Phil Kloppers said that he received the order from Oelofse? Mr Chairperson, I can understand it, like I said beforehand we knew what we are going to say if we were arrested by the police. Thank you, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Did you think that, because these other people were arrested, you should no longer abide with the oath that you had taken, and then incriminate them? Mr Chairperson, I took the oath, or I did not violate the oath, because I did not incriminate anybody else or made known a name, and all the other people have already incriminated themselves in this case and I knew that they've already made a statement, because the police told me that. CHAIRPERSON Well it is one thing to mention the name of somebody, it's quite another thing to incriminate him. If you're incriminating him, you go on to telling the police or the Court what he actually did and so on and so forth? Mr Chairperson, at that stage I could not remember what each one did at the scene of the crime, it was finer details that I could not remember under the interrogation. MR DREYER Mr Badenhorst, for the second time you referred it and the first time I did not follow it up, you said that you made these statements beforehand and you all agreed on what you're going to say, you talked about a cover story that you all agreed on. What was this about, did you plan to lie and what was the plan to lie about? Mr Chairperson, according to me it was to protect certain people and not to make known the plan of the revolution. MR DREYER Are you saying that the cover story at a previous discussion that you were free to say everything except to name Oelofse, because everything was said except Oelofse's name was mentioned? No, Mr Chairperson, everything was not mentioned in this statement of mine. What was not made is regarding the revolution that would have started and the resistance that the "boere" would have given, or... (intervention). So that is the part that you would not mention, the part about the revolution? Yes, that's the part that I did not say. CHAIRPERSON You are not having any further questions, are you... No, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON ...via me? Mr Badenhorst, thank you, you are excused, you can stand down. You can stand down. Thank you. WITNESS EXCUSED Mr Chairman, I see it's almost one o'clock at this stage. CHAIRPERSON Yes, well we have... (intervention). I don't whether you're going to have the lunch adjournment? CHAIRPERSON Well let's go on until - let's see how far we can go. I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman? CHAIRPERSON Let us proceed and see how far we can go. We are getting worried that we will not be able to finish this matter unless we accelerate our pace. (confirms to speak truth) CHAIRPERSON Is this (indistinct)? "The real McCoy is..." and it must be put in there that:- "...we will start to work, `ons moet begin werk'", and later at Martin's house an order was given to set up a roadblock." Then page 61, paragraph 6, the word "ons" must be deleted and "Van der Schyff and I", or "ek en Van der Schyff" must be put in there, that is page 61, paragraph 6, "ons" must be replaced with "ek en Van der Schyff", "ek en Van der Schyff" must be inserted. CHAIRPERSON (Indistinct)? I beg your pardon? CHAIRPERSON (Indistinct)? Are you referring to page 61, Mr Chairman? CHAIRPERSON Yes. Just the word "ons" must be deleted. CHAIRPERSON Ja. And then it's substituted by words "ek en Van der Schyff het na Jaco Badenhorst se huis vertrek", it remains the same, just the word "ons" to be deleted. Mr Visser, is it correct that with regards to this specific case you were arrested by the police and prosecuted in the High Court, together with your fellow applicants, and you were found guilty to several charges of murder, as we can see in the speech of Judge Marais and you got the death sentence? Is it also correct that later the case was taken back to the Appeal Court and you were given another sentence? What was that sentence? Lifelong sentence. And now you're applying for amnesty with regards to all those charges? That's correct. Mr Visser, did you join the AWB? That's correct. And with regards to the date when this act was committed, when did you join the AWB? About a week, almost two weeks before that incident took place. And at that stage you did not yet have a uniform? No. Commandant Kloppers, do you know him? Yes, we worked together for 18 years at the gold mines, so we knew each other well. Who recruited you to join the AWB? Kloppers himself recruited me. Did he convince you to join the AWB, or how did you join? Yes, he convinced me it was the right thing to do and that there's problems within the country and that it would be a good thing to join the AWB. At that stage, were you known, did you know what the principles were of the AWB and what they stood for? Yes, he taught me and he told me what the AWB stands for and what their ideology was. And did you agree with all of that? Yes, I did, completely. And for whatever reason then, you joined the AWB. Was there another reason why you joined the AWB? The election was coming, the country did not experience a good climate, it was a difficult climate, and I decided to join the AWB. Did you have certain fears? Yes, I feared that the Communist Party would come into power and that then, that it would be very difficult then, once they've taken over the country. So did you want this take-over to take place? No, no I didn't. Were you in the army, did you receive military training? Yes, in 1971. And did you fight at the border or was it internal? No, it was internal. And what you experienced in the army and what was conveyed to you by the then government, did you support the policy of the then government? Yes, I was always NP, up until the early 90's, and then I became a CP member. Why? Because already then the NP was busy giving our country away, therefore I joined the CP. Mr Visser, I would like to take you to the 12th of December 1993. Did somebody come and see you at your house? Yes, this Sunday evening I was at home. I woke the morning, so I was on standby, and then Klopper came to me around seven in the evening and he told me that he came from an order group, and he'd meet me at the roadhouse at nine o'clock and then we were called up. Were you told to bring anything with you? I didn't have a uniform. He told me the clothes that I was wearing at that time was good enough, I could come in that, and he told me I should bring my weapon. I had a 765 Bredalli (?) pistol. At nine o'clock I arrived at O'Harry's. And here at the roadhouse, who were there? At that stage me and Kloppers arrived there the same time, there was also Commandant Deon Martins, "veldkornet" Meiring, Commandant Van der Schyff, Commandant Visser, all of them were there. Mr Visser, at that stage, in the capacity of Kloppers, did you regard him as a friend or did you see him in the capacity of a higher official? At work we were friends, but when it came to the AWB affairs he put it to me clearly that he was Chief Commandant and that I'm a Warrant Officer, and that it's the same as it is in the Defence Force. So you respected him as an officer? Completely. And at this roadhouse were any instructions given to you which you can remember? Yes. Chief Commandant Phil Klopper arrived, as well as Martin, and they brought us to attention and they saluted. At that stage I didn't know how to salute, but they saluted and then Klopper spoke to us and said that he came from an order group and that he received instructions and that specific evening we would go out to work and that General Oelofse gave instructions that we had to start working, the revolution was about to begin, and that we had to work. Were you told at the roadhouse what was expected of you, what kind of work were you to do? They said hard options, they did not mention then that we would set up a roadblock, but they talked about hard options and that there are going to be bodies. Were all of you armed, all of you who were at the roadhouse? No, everybody was not armed, and pipe shotguns were distributed. Do you know who received this? Van der Schyff received a pipe shotgun, he was with me in the car and I saw that he had a pipe shotgun, and Visser, but at that stage I did not know the guys and I could not identify them. You said you saw a pipe shotgun in the car when Van der Schyff was sitting with you in the vehicle. Did you see when he physically received this weapon? No. You did not? No. But you saw a pipe shotgun in the car? Yes, he had it with him then. And Van der Schyff, the other applicant, was he with you in the car? We, together with the other vehicles, went to the residence of Badenhorst. Did you have... TAPE ENDS - WORDS LOST ...what happened to this belt with the bullets in it? Van der Schyff took it. And what did he do with it? He put it around his body. And then you went to Badenhorst's residence? Yes. And what Mr Badenhorst's house, what happened there? We changed the registration plates or the numbers, mine, and Kloppers asked me if he could use my vehicle. I said that's fine and we changed the registration plates with masking tape and then he asked me if I had liquor in my flat and I said I had a bottle and he asked if we can drink it and I said that's fine, we can. And then you went to your residence? Yes, we went to mine. And did you use alcohol there? Yes. The bottle was no longer sealed, but I poured all of those who wanted a drink. What kind of alcohol was it? It was First Watch whisky. And after you drank the whisky at the flat? Then my alcohol was finished. So you drank the whole bottle? Yes. Maybe I should have put it differently. Afterwards, where did you go then? Then we drove to Commandant Deon Martin's smallholding. And were you told anything at the plot? Yes, we were told that we are going to set up a roadblock and we had yellow jackets and a blue light, all the equipment you'd need for a roadblock, also torchlights, etcetera, all of this was distributed to the people. And at Mr Martin's plot, did you drink anything? I do not drink brandy, there was brandy, I did not drink it. Did the others drink? Yes. I cannot say exactly who drank brandy. Just with regards to this, at that stage some of the people were unknown to you? Most of them were unknown to me, the only one I knew was Martin Van der Schyff and Chief Commandant Phil Klopper and Commandant Deon Martin, I only knew him for a few days, that's all, all the others were unknown to me. And from there you went to another place? That's correct. We drove, we followed the Mercedes. Did you drive? Yes, I was driving my own vehicle. Did anything happen on the way there? Yes. Two black men, it could have been three, who were walking in the road, they had bags, I cannot say exactly what, and somebody told me to stop. I stopped. Some of the people got out of the cars. One of the pedestrians ran away. I ran and I followed him, I chased him. And what happened now with regards to the people who were running away? The one ran away, jumped over the fence, ran into a maize field, and I went back to the Sentra. So my Sentra was busy leaving without me. I took out my weapon and I shot two shots into the dirt road and they stopped and they waited for me. Why did you shoot two shots into the dirt road? I was scared they will leave me there. So you made sure they'll stop? That's correct. They were too far away to shout. I went to my car then, and the person who was behind the wheel got out and I drove on myself. He sat at another place then. And then you went to the Dora Crossing? Yes, we followed the Mercedes Benz to the Dora Crossing. And what happened there? There we were warned, me personally, by Commandant Martin, Commandant Deon Martin, they must have reported to him that I fired two shots, and he said to me that in the future I must only act according to his instructions, and he placed me under the command of Meiring, and I would be involved with the handling of the blue light. This is at the roadblock? Yes, this is at the roadblock. So a roadblock was set up? Yes, it was set up. And you manned the blue light? Yes, I did, I switched it on and off when I was told to do so. What happened at the roadblock, just in broad terms? Well they decided that the Mercedes would go, would drive to see which cars we'll pull off, so that we don't pull off just any car, in other words when he comes back, he'll give us a sign with his lights, and then I would be given an instruction to turn on the blue light, and that's how we did it. And were cars pulled off? Yes, vehicles were pulled off. I cannot tell you how many, it could have been three, four, I cannot remember exactly how many were pulled off, but after the blue light they were pulled off, as they passed, they were pulled off, as they passed they were pulled off. Are you aware of the fact that the vehicles stopped? Yes, a van, a pick-up with a canopy, I'm not sure whether it was a Chev or a Ford or what it was, but, and they helped him to - the car broke down and they helped him to be on his way again. There was evidence of a Honda Ballade and another car which was stopped at the roadblock, can you just tell the committee how it happened? The Honda and the Cressida, at that stage we didn't know what vehicles they were, but first the Mercedes came and then he stopped suddenly, and Kloppers said that the next two cars, we had to pull them off, then I switched on the blue light, and as I switched the blue light on, they were a while away from us, and they both pulled off, both vehicles, for a few seconds, not for a very long time, they once again moved into the road and came closer and stopped again, and where they were pulled off. And then what happened? I was still at the blue light, I assumed that they were asked questions. The people got out of the car and they sat on the embankment next to the vehicle. Was there an instruction given to you to switch off the light? Yes, the instruction was given to Meiring. We went to Kloppers and Martin and we received instruction to see why the two cars pulled off before, to see if maybe they've dropped something off, these were one of the occupants of the car, I'm not sure if it was one of the Cressida or the Honda, I cannot say with certainty. You said this was you and Meiring? Yes. We took the person, put him in the Mercedes, went back to where they stopped the first time and all we could find was a little bag with ice inside, which was busy melting, next to the road. Did you do anything to that person? Yes, I asked him, he didn't want to answer and I assaulted him. How did you assault him? When we got there, we got out, then you're a bit scared, because the maize is really high, anything could happen. I took my weapon out and I was ready in case there was danger. When we saw there wasn't danger, there was ice lying there, I asked the man questions, he didn't want to answer me, and I hit him with the weapon, with the flat side of the weapon I hit him. And afterwards, did you take the man back? We took him back. I made him sit down again at the edge, as they were sitting on the embankment, right at the beginning, on the edge, and Meiring then told Klopper, or reported to Klopper, concerning what we found, which was only a bag of ice. And then you took, you returned to your position? Yes. Meiring was already on his way to the Sentra and I saw he was on his way to his Sentra and my last instruction was to stay with him, so I went back to the Sentra. Did you see that those vehicles were searched? There were people at the vehicles, the boots were opened, I cannot say who searched the cars or who did what. And after you'd taken up your position, what happened? I was almost, just before I reached the Sentra, I heard shots and the people were shot at. Did you form part of the group who were shooting, or were you not part of that? No, I was not part of that, I was on my way back to the Sentra. Did you shoot at anyone? No. Did I shoot at someone? No, not at all, no. And after people were shot at, what happened then? And just before you left the scene, amongst the group of people that were sitting on the embankment, did you see children? Yes, I did. How many? I think I saw two, I'm certain I saw two children, I saw them when I went to get the man to take him back to where they stopped before. And then you went to the town hall? That's correct. And what happened at the town hall? Do you know who handled the leather jacket? What did they do with it? Kallie said that "veldkornet" Meiring said that he's going to take the tools and take it through the channels. I took the tapes, the cassettes. Why? To listen to it, to find if there's something about it. Meaning what? To listen to it, if it was music or maybe messages. That was the instruction that I got. Afterwards, where did you go then? I then took the people back to Jaco Badenhorst's house, because the Mercedes did not come. We waited for approximately five minutes. The car did not arrive. I was worried and I took them back to Jaco Badenhorst's house. I then went back to the town hall. I must have missed the Mercedes, because I waited there for a while longer and then I went back to Jaco Badenhorst's house and there the Mercedes was with the rest of them. What happened there? Chief Commandant Kloppers was angry because we left the scene. They did not have ammunition to shoot more, I don't know what, he wasn't, he was angry, he wanted to know how many shots each person fired. No-one argued with him and said it would have been a wrong thing to do, then I would have been a victim as well today, no-one argued and then someone went to the vehicle, I don't know who, he brought the ear and he showed the ear to us and said that is the trophy. You did not shoot at the scene of the crime? No, I did not. Is there anything - or did anything else happen at Badenhorst's house? Yes, we then dispersed. During that time, afterwards did you go to the Voortrekker Monument? I was called upon to go to the Voortrekker Monument. Did you have a uniform then? No, I did not have one. I bought a uniform there to form a guard of honour for the leader of the AWB. With your co-applicants, did you stand in this guard of honour at this parade? Yes. Who inspected this parade? The people who I saw there? Who looked at the people in the parade? I was under Commandant Martin and Chief Commandant Kloppers, although I saw General Oelofse there, but I wasn't part of the discussion and of rank, so I couldn't take part in the discussions. And the leader, Eugene Terreblanche, was he there as well? Yes he was. After this parade that was held at the Voortrekker Monument, on the 6th of January you were arrested by the police? Yes, that's correct. After you were arrested regarding the Act of Internal Security, and after you, and then you appeared in court, were you detained then in the Johannesburg Prison? That is correct, yes. While you were detained there in the prison, was General Oelofse also there? Yes. Did you have any discussion with him? Yes, in a group, I mean if we're not in court, we do talk about how things are going, how the case went, etcetera, and he said there for us, where I was present, that we should receive medals for this. Medals for what? For what we did. He referred to the roadblock incident. Did you then receive medals? No. Did you get a promotion? Yes, I was promoted to - it can be that you can become a "veldkornet". Chief Commander Kloppers also received a promotion to a higher colonel and then a brigadier later on. He promoted me, I then became a commandant, and General Oelofse approved it and he signed it. Did you receive an appointment certificate and you said it was signed by General Oelofse, do you still have the certificate? No, unfortunately not, when I resigned from the AWB, I destroyed all documents regarding the AWB. The other people who were promoted, did they also receive certificates? Yes. Was there, during December of '95, was there a visit by certain officers of the AWB? The leader, Eugene Terreblanche, with Mr Oelofse and there were some other people of the generals in staff, as they were called, they came to visit us. Were you addressed by Terreblanche? Yes. He said to us if everybody did what we did that night, then this country would not have been in trouble. This action of you that evening of the 12th December 1993, did you do it for yourself, did you do it on behalf of someone? I did it on behalf of the AWB and for what they believe, I did it as a soldier. And when did you resign from this movement? On the 5th of December 1996. While you were in the Johannesburg Prison, did anyone praised you or congratulated you? During what period, because I've been in Johannesburg/Pretoria? While you were detained in Johannesburg. When we were waiting for the case, General Oelofse said to us that we are going to receive medals, we did the right thing. The leader at one stage visited us, or at various times he did come and visited, he never asked us, "What did you do wrong?", he always created the impression that what we did was something that he approved of. At that specific evening of the 12th of December, when Chief Commandant Klopper gave you the order, did you at any stage question his order? No. No, I know him from work, he was the main, or the chief trainer of the production worker and before he came to me and he presented certain facts and I did not question anything he said. Thank you, Mr Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON We'll adjourn until two o'clock. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS: (still confirms to speak truth) NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT (First part of question not interpreted) ...and then you continued... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON You may have to start all over again. You may have to start all over again, because there was a technical problem. I'll do so, Mr Chairman. Mr Visser, you testified, and I wrote your words down as you spoke, and you said that at the roadhouse Kloppers said to you that General Oelofse said, "We have to begin to work"? That is correct. And the way I understand Afrikaans, that means it's something that's got to happen immediately? Yes, we would have started that evening. But then you continued and you said that the revolution was going to begin. Did you testify to that extent? Yes. And the way I understand Afrikaans, it means that it's something that's in the future. You did not testify in front of the committee that Kloppers said to you that Oelofse said that the revolution starts tonight, that's not what you said, but that's how I remember it. I'm not going to argue with you that that were the exact words, I cannot remember the exact words, but that's how far my memory allows me... (intervention). Or your conscience allows you? No, my conscience is clean, that's what I can remember, that's what happened that evening and I'm trying to remember it as closely as possible as how I saw it that evening. By this time you already know that my client, Mr Van der Schyff, would say that he did not hear that it was said that evening that "the revolution starts today"? That is possible. Further, you also refer to the hard option, and he will say that he did not hear that either. That's possible. And then he also said, which is quite interesting, "there are going to be bodies". You did not say that Kloppers said that Oelofse said that he wanted to see bodies? No. Kloppers said "there are going to be bodies"? That's how I said it, yes. Maybe you understood that there are going to be bodies when the revolution starts, whenever that might be? Maybe I could not distinguish what Oelofse said, because I wasn't present when Oelofse gave these instructions, I accepted that all the instructions came from General Oelofse. I think you're missing the point. The point I'm trying to make is, your statement that "there are going to be bodies", can you link that with the revolution which was still going to take place? Aren't we talking about something that's going to happen in the future? No, I was aware of the fact that the revolution would start that evening. And as you know, Van der Schyff will also say that he did not hear that Oelofse said that he wanted to see bodies that specific night? That is possible. Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start at the same point where my friend started with Mr Van der Schyff, it is from a different angle. You already confirmed that you said that what you heard from Mr Kloppers at the roadhouse was that the general said that "we had to start working", but at that same point you did not elaborate precisely about what the general then said to him, what this work would entail? No, he didn't say anything else. He said the revolution was going to begin? I was under the impression, and he placed me under that impression, and it's still my impression, that it was an instruction which he received at the order group. It's just important to me, as it was to my predecessor who asked the questions, I wanted us to take it in a chronological order, when you were asked at the roadhouse, said at the roadhouse that the general said that you had to start work, you were not then also told what the general said this work would entail, not at that stage. It was in that same discussion at the roadhouse, yes, but I might be wrong as far as the chronological order is concerned and how I remember it. You see, that's exactly where I'm heading at. Just because maybe there was a misunderstanding as far as you were concerned with regards to what formed part of the general's instruction and what formed part of the instruction Kloppers gave you, and so maybe there also could have been a misunderstanding with Kloppers with regard to the actual instructions of Oelofse? I did not received instructions from Oelofse, I got it from Chief Commandant Kloppers, and those instructions which I got from Kloppers, where he said, and he said that he came from the general and I accepted it like that. Let's say differently, let's put it differently. I'm probably going to say the same to you as I said to the previous applicant who testified, I accept that you executed what you believed to be an instruction, but if there wasn't an instruction, then you did not follow an instruction of Oelofse but only that of Kloppers? Yes, personally, yes. Let's look at it from another angle, you are saying that he said that the general said, "We must begin to work". Now you testified that you did not do service or whatever, but you had army training in 1971, is that correct? That is correct. And in the time when you received military training, surely at one point or another, except for the fact that you had to run around a lot during that time during the army, surely you must have been exposed to the principle that there was a rank order and structure, and that you do not act unless you receive instructions? That is correct. In your time when you were exposed to the military milieu, were you ever placed in a situation where somebody gives a very vague instruction, or in your military time were you used to the fact that if the corporal who was then head of the battalion you were part of, if he wanted something to be done, he'd say that you go there and you do this, and then you'd do that and then you return, is that correct? That's correct. Yes, then you do not question a higher rank's instruction. All I want to know is, do you agree with me, Kloppers did not tell you "Oelofse said begin to work", and if I say "begin to work", it means go and do that and that thing, it wasn't conveyed to you in that manner? No. He said he came from a group, order group, and you must remember I did not know Oelofse, but Oelofse said the following, I cannot tell you exactly what he said, maybe my words differ from the others, but that's how I remember it. No, I don't want to be unfair towards you, not for one second do I expect of you or any other person to tell me exactly what somebody told you in 1993, let's forget the precise words, let's accept your version and your memory concerning these words might differ from the other applicants, but what I would like to know is, do you agree with me that you did not receive a definite and complete instruction which then would have come from Oelofse? No. The second thing I would like to learn from you in opposition to the other applicants, and once again it's your choice of words, but you said that Kloppers told you there are going to be bodies? Yes, he said that. The other applicants, or the other witnesses, or the evidence of other witnesses is completely different and more according to the line of Oelofse said that he wanted to see bodies. Do you agree with me it's not quite the same? Yes, I agree. But do you stick to the fact that what you heard from Kloppers was that there's going to be bodies? I might be wrong. But do you stick to your version? Yes, that's how I remember it and how I convey it. Now, and to also, with regards to the questions already asked you, if it's said to you that there's going to be a revolution, did you link that to possible death? Yes, because revolution means to rebel. At any stage did anyone tell you, whether it be at the roadhouse or at Martin's house or wherever, maybe on the way to the scene where you would have had the roadblock, the purpose of the roadblock would be to look for firearms? Yes. Let's turn the question around then, I'm going to leave it in your hands, you tell me as you remember it, what was the instruction that you got from Kloppers with regards to what the instruction of Oelofse would have been with regard to the purpose of the roadblock? This happened at the plot. We were told that we're going to set up a roadblock and the purpose of that roadblock would be to find weapons, that as well, to find weapons and he gave us the blue light and we received the instruction that we are going to set up a roadblock. I was aware of the fact that people might be killed in the process, otherwise we wouldn't have had weapons on us. Okay, let me ask you in this fashion, the fact that a security official who works at the bank and who makes sure that there are no illegitimate things happening, the fact that he goes to the bank with a weapon, because that's his job, we know that a burglary or a robbery might take place, then he must do his job and then we can accept the fact that because of the fact that he's got a weapon, he might accept that there are definitely going to be a robbery, people are going to be killed? No. Then I'd like to apply that to this situation. The fact that you were told that there are going to be bodies, that evening when you left the roadhouse in the back of your mind did you believe, "It doesn't matter what happen tonight, but tonight there are going to be bodies", is that what you thought, is this what you're saying to us? I cannot tell you what I thought at that stage. As I said in court, I should have provided for the fact that this could have happened. I did provide that this could happen, I foresaw that, and that the general wanted bodies and that people might be shot. I do not expect of you to make your own inferences, or inferences as far as the jury is concerned, I want to know what you subjectively thought, and again I'm asking you, when you left there as part of this group, when you left the roadhouse, did you believe that when you got home tonight, there would have been people killed? No. So you agree with Mr Van der Schyff as far as that's concerned? If I understand you correctly. You didn't see it as a definite instruction, you are going from here in order to kill people? No, not to go and kill people. Do you have any proof or any reason to believe, according to your own knowledge, not from what you heard or with regards to the credibility to Kloppers, but subjectively, did you carry any knowledge that such an instruction would have been given by Oelofse, except for the words of Kloppers? No. You said that you saw Oelofse at the Voortrekker Monument? That's correct. Did you ever see him pertinently that he was there holding discussions or giving instructions to Kloppers? There was a camp fire at the Voortrekker Monument, the guys with the ranks were standing around this fire, together with Oelofse, and they were very friendly... (intervention). And I'm asking you, did you see, or did you hear, that, if any specific instructions were given from Oelofse to Kloppers or Martin or anybody else? Not at the monument, no. Let's get to the last two facets according to which you testified. You said that while you were in detention, there was a group discussion and then Oelofse told you that you ought to receive medals, and you said at a later stage in your evidence that he also said that it was the correct thing to do? Yes. Let's accept for the moment, and I'll return to this, let's accept for the moment that this is exactly what Oelofse said, we accept he said this, now I would like to know from you, you must watch the news or you read the paper or whatever, we all know, it's quite actual news, especially in the Cape, there's an organisation which wants to fight against drugs and gangs, PAGAD, we all know that. Now when I watch news in the evening, and I have young children, and I do not want them to use drugs, then I probably in sentiment agree with what PAGAD does. Do you agree with that? Yes. But does that mean that because I have the same sentiment, that I would do it myself, or that I would give them the instruction to do that? No. Now again I'm telling you, I put it to you, even if Oelofse said this, which I deny he said, but even if he had said that, I am telling you that he did not give the instruction that there should be such behaviour, and as far as you believed there was such an instruction, you only got that instruction from Kloppers? I received my instruction from Kloppers, that's correct. Thank you, Mr Chairman. NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK I just also want to talk with regard to the rank structures and the execution of instructions. You said that you did not expect that there would be bodies, but in the court they told you that you should have foreseen the possibility? That's correct. But you did not expect it? No. But you went to work, you expected that it's an operation in para-military fashion, but you testify that you stopped to chase black people and that some of your colleagues got behind the car and drove away with your vehicle? That is correct, they started driving away. How does that rhyme with, "Tonight, we have to work, tonight the revolution starts"? You are saying that, in other evidence was that Mr Kloppers reprimanded you, or addressed you? That is correct. He said I must only follow instructions. But I want to connect this with regards to your expectations, did you think you were really going to work, or would you think it's a game? I mean you jump out the car and chase somebody and other people drive away? No, it wasn't a game. So why did they drive away from you, have you ever asked them why they drove away? Ja, I went back to the vehicle and they asked me, "What did you shoot?", and I said I shot a black person. Why? That was because I didn't have a rank and I didn't want to be reprimanded. There was an assistant Commandant in the car, there were two "veldkornets" in the car, I was a bit scared to create conflict with them, I didn't know them. Didn't you ask them, "Why do you drive away without my permission?" I did. They only laughed. Did you think they were making a joke with you, when they were driving away from you? I don't know, I cannot say what exactly they were thinking or what this person was thinking when he wanted to drive my car, it just happened like that. And you didn't think that this is quite serious, people are called up to go and work, the revolution starts tonight, you're already someone who's only been a member for a bit more than a week and it's such an important task, you jump out, you chase a black person, and the other people, who have the same important instructions, they drive away with your car and you didn't ask any questions? No, I didn't ask them why they drove away. Have you asked them since then? Yes, afterwards I did, but at that stage I did not ask them anything. What did they tell you when you asked them afterwards? That was when we were in jail already, and they said if I did not come, they would have left me there. In which jail are you being held at the moment? Diepkloof Maximum. And how long have you been there? I've been transferred from Leeukop to Diepkloof in February this year. February this year. And your other co-applicants, in which jail are they? Mr Van der Schyff is also in Diepkloof, the rest of the people is in Leeukop. And after you were sentenced, after your criminal trial, were you in Leeukop? No, they sent us to Diepkloof for a few months, and after that, we went to Pretoria Maximum, on death penalty, on death row, and after the death penalty was demolished, we were transferred back to Diepkloof, back to Pretoria Maximum again, and for the - from February last year to February this year, I was held in Leeukop. And at all times you've all been together as applicants, I mean you've been in the same prison with the other applicants? Sorry, can you repeat the question please? What I want to find out is, have you always been transferred together... (intervention). Yes. ...together with the other applicants? Yes, except the last time... (intervention). This last time now in February? Yes, February, I was transferred all by myself to Diepkloof. So at the time that you made the application, you were all together in the same prison? Yes, we were in Leeukop the last application, that's right. Okay, thanks very much. Mr Chairman, may I just, in view of the last question and the last answer? Mr Visser, when you've just answered that when you submitted these applications you were all together, are you meaning all the applicants except my two clients? That is correct, yes. Mr Kloppers was not there either, he was in the hospital at that stage? I think so, but the majority of us were together, that is correct. So Mr Van der Schyff was not there? No, he wasn't. CHAIRPERSON To a question put by Mr Dreyer, you said the purpose of, or perhaps just to make sure that that is in fact your evidence, I shouldn't tell you what you said, you haven't forgotten what you said a few minutes ago, but I want it to come from you, what was the purpose of the roadblock? According to me, it was the start of the revolution, to see if we can get firearms and... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON To kill people? To kill people at the roadblock? That's what happened. CHAIRPERSON No, it's not what I'm asking. I'm talking about the purpose of the roadblock. You said it was to look for arms... (intervention). For arms. CHAIRPERSON And you said to kill people. Now I want to know from you whether you are now saying that the purpose of the roadblock was to look for arms and to kill people. No, the people were killed. To look for firearms... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON You can answer in Afrikaans, by the way. Okay, dankie. The roadblock that we held was, well why did we search the vehicles, that is how I saw it from the position where I was, the vehicles were searched, they looked for weapons or firearms, and that was definitely the case, that was the purpose of the roadblock. The people were questioned and people were killed at the scene. CHAIRPERSON But let me put my question again this way, I put it... TAPE TURNED OVER - WORDS LOST I'm trying to tell you from a political viewpoint. At that stage I was politically involved and so forth. What happened there was politically justified. CHAIRPERSON Yes, that's how you see it. You see, at some point Mr Knoetze put it to you, and something you agreed with, he put it to you that, just like his client, just as in the case of his client, Mr Van der Schyff, the purpose of going there was not to go and kill, and you said yes? Yes, I didn't receive an order, an instruction, to kill on the scene. I was on my way back to my car when the shooting took place. CHAIRPERSON So when you... (intervention). I got... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON ...when you, Mr Visser, when you went to go and put up the roadblock, you did not expect that people were going to be killed? No, but I foreseen the fact that people can be killed in a process like that. CHAIRPERSON Yes. Mr Prinsloo? That people will die. Thank you, Mr Chairperson, no further questions. CHAIRPERSON Thank you, Mr Visser. Thank you, you can stand down. Thank you. WITNESS EXCUSED The following applicant, Mr Diedericks. GERHARDUS JOHANNES DIEDERICKS (confirms to speak truth) On page 127 up till page 143, I would like to make an amendment on page 131, seven lines from the bottom of the paragraph, where it reads "At the moment we got the instruction to set up a roadblock and we got this from Martin's house", just after "ons het" must be put in "Deon Martin's house". Page 131, it's paragraph 3, almost the seventh line from the bottom, just after "real McCoy", it reads "ons het", it must be inserted there, "we got this instruction at Deon Martin's house", "ons het die opdrag by Martin se huis ontvang". May I continue, Mr Chairperson? Thank you. Mr Diedericks, is it correct that, together with the other applicants, you were arrested, that you were charged with murder and other charges, and that you appeared before the judge in court, is that correct that you were, had a prison sentence, that is for ten years, that was later changed? That is correct, yes. Mr Diedericks, you joined the AWB in the middle of '93? That is correct. Why did you join this movement? I joined because I believed in the ideology and that they wanted a homeland for the "boerevolk", like what the blacks had at that stage, and that they were able to realise that. Were you, did you agree with that the ANC could take over the country? No, definitely not. Did you believe that, by means of the AWB, you would be able to resist it? Yes, definitely. Did you attend any meetings of the AWB? Yes, I did attend a few. That is correct. Who called you? Deon Martin's wife phoned me, and because I was alone, I drove to Deon's house, where she would look at the children, or look after the children. So you left your children there are Deon Martin's house? Yes. That's correct, yes. At the roadhouse, we already heard the evidence that you were brought together and you were addressed by Commandant Kloppers? That is correct. Me and Commandant Martins got there, there were already a few others. We stood around and waited, then Commandant Kloppers arrived. He brought us to attention. We saluted him, then Commandant Kloppers said he just came back from an order group which he had on the smallholding of General Japie Oelofse, and that General Japie Oelofse gave the instruction that the revolution will begin tonight, "It is war now", he said and the time for games is over and that there must be corpses, he wants to see corpses, and that is now General Oelofse, this is the real thing, it was very definite. Were you armed when you arrived there and stood there? No, I did not have a weapon then. Were weapons given to you or to anybody else? Yes, Commandant Kloppers said to me that I must come with him to his vehicle. He opened the boot of the Escort and took out two shotgun pipes, it was behind the seat, he took that out, he gave one to Etienne Visser and the other one to me, after which he asked me do I know how to work it and I said, "No, I do not know, I've never shot with one before", then Mr Van der Schyff came to me and he said to me, "Give it to me, I will show you how to shoot kaffirs". Did Mr Kloppers call Mr Van der Schyff? He said to him, "Come here", and that is when Mr Van der Schyff said to me, "You do not know how to work it, I will show you how to shoot kaffirs with it". Did you then give the weapon to him? On the instruction of Commandant Kloppers who said, "Give that thing to Mr Van der Schyff", and I executed that order and gave the weapon. Yes. And at Mr Badenhorst's house, what did you do there? Commandant Deon Martin gave me an instruction to change the number plates, because I was a mechanical officer. I changed the number plates, in order for the numbers not to be distinguishable if we were followed by the traffic cops. And what registration numbers of what vehicles? It was a Mercedes and the Nissan Sentra. And from there you went to Mr Visser's house? That is correct, yes. At the house of Mr Visser, did you drink any strong alcohol? No, I didn't, I don't know about the others, I don't drink. Was there any equipment given to anyone? And the blue light? The blue light was put in the Sentra, where I got the instruction to, when we reached the roadblock, I must connect it. And after you then left Deon Martin's small-holding, who did you go with then? I drove with Kloppers and Martins and the other were in the Mercedes. So you were not with the group where they mentioned the black people who were chased? There were assaults along the road. We drove and Phil Kloppers saw the Sentra had stopped. He said to Deon to reverse to see what was going on, and then they sent me to go and call the guys, where I was part of the attack on the black people and where Mr Van der Schyff was also injured at that stage. Did you yourself assault anyone? Yes I did. I had a baton, and I attacked them with that. You're talking about someone who was injured? Mr Van der Schyff, I by mistake hit him on the ankle with the baton. And after the incident, did you then leave there to the Radora Crossing? Yes, that is correct. And at the Radora Crossing was there a roadblock as far as the evidence goes? And what was your instruction there? I was given a torch and a baton, where I was told to pull off the cars, that if they show or flash their lights, that we must pull them off and that was the purpose, or my duty. Why was the torch and baton given to you? The baton was given to me because I did not have a gun, and the torch was used to pull off the cars. Were vehicles pulled off the road at that roadblock? Yes, as far as I can remember, four vehicles were pulled off, a Honda Ballade and a Cressida. Let us go directly to the Honda Ballade and Cressida. With this incident, what happened there? The vehicles approached us. Deon and them flashed their lights and said, "These are the people, pull them off". We waited. The vehicles stopped and they came closer. I pulled them off, where Commandant Phil Kloppers and Commandant Martin walked to the vehicles and asked the people to get out. One of the persons did not want to react, whereas Commandant Kloppers took the baton from me and broke the windscreen on the side where the occupant then reacted and got out. The people that got out of this vehicle, or this specific vehicle, what did they have to do then? They were asked to - they were physically searched, not by myself, I cannot remember who did it. I was told to search the inside of the car. They had to sit next to the road on an embankment. And where were you positioned at that stage when the people went to go and sit on the embankment? When the people went to go and sit on the embankment it was told to me, after the cars were searched, that I must go and stand directly opposite the road in the direction of Radora and look for vehicles. How far were you then from the scene where the people sat? Approximately 15 to 20 feet. Did you then focus your attention on coming vehicles? Yes, that is correct. At any stage did you receive the instruction at Radora to shoot at people or... (intervention). No, not as far as I know. Let me put it this way, you did not have a weapon so you had nothing to do with the shooting? No. Were shots fired at the people? And after the shots were fired, did you remain at the scene? Yes I did, where Commandant Martin called me and he asked me for the torch. I gave it to him and he gave me the instruction to go and help. And the other people, did they leave? Yes, they did. Some of the people jumped into the Sentra and they drove off, whereas Commandant Kloppers shouted at them, "We will meet you at the town hall". Did you see that anyone cut someone's ear off at the scene? No, I didn't. And after the shells were picked up at the scene, what happened then, except for picking up the shells? The vehicles were set alight, and afterwards Commandant Martin got into the vehicle, where we then left and I asked them to drop me off at Commandant Martin's house, because my children were there and I were worried about them. Were you part of the setting alight of the vehicles? No. Did you at any stage saw an ear in the vehicle? If I remember correctly, the ear was mentioned. A plastic bag was shown, I could not say if it was an ear inside or not. And then, were you then dropped off at Deon Martin's smallholding? Yes, and that's where I left. Were you at the Voortrekker Monument? No. On the 6th of January, were you arrested with the others? Yes. Since you were arrested, were you with the others in detention, the other applicants? No, we were separate, according to section 29, where in two days I was in Soweto, the rest of the time I was in hospital, and when I got out of hospital, I went to Diepkloof, and that was almost three weeks later. While you were in detention, were you injured? Yes, I was attacked by the - assaulted by the police, after which I landed in the hospital two days after the arrest. I was not charged with the others, I was only seven days later charged. Because of the injuries you sustained? Yes, and while I was, and because I was in hospital. Why were you assaulted by the police? They said that, I do not know if I can use the words, they said that I was stubborn and I did not want to talk. At what stage were you detained with the others? While we were waiting for the court case, I was there then separated from them for a week or two for operations on my shoulder, and after the court case, I was then completely separated from them. So you were not in the Johannesburg Prison when the leader, Mr Terreblanche, came to visit? I was there, yes, at that stage. Mr Diedericks, did you act upon your own, or did you act individually that evening? No, I acted as a soldier, I saw myself as a soldier. A soldier of whom? I was an officer in the AWB movement and I followed orders from my direct head or Chief Commander Kloppers, which was our area commander. I did it for God, my "volk" and "vaderland". At that stage, General Oelofse was your district commander? Commandant Kloppers was basically the section commander. Were you promoted while you were detained? Yes, that is correct, I was promoted from "veldkornet" to a full commandant. And when you submitted the application, were you then in prison? You were not with the others? No, I wasn't. Thank you, Mr Chairperson. NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT Mr Diedericks, firstly can I refer you to page 12 from the bundle of applications, and it's that of Kloppers, the one I already referred to this morning, I want to read to you paragraph 17 "I arrived at the roadhouse at nine o'clock and Deon Martin brought them into attention. I told them that the waiting is over and that the revolution would start that specific day and all over the country. I also conveyed to them the instruction of General Oelofse. They were told that General Oelofse wanted to see bodies, and I also handed out the two pipe shotguns to Visser and Martin van der Schyff. I also told them we'd set up a roadblock where people will be questioned and that we should confiscate weapons and ammunition." You would agree with me that if you look at this section of his affidavit or his application, that he did not give a weapon to you initially? No, I agree, it's not written there, but on his instruction the weapon was given to Martin van der Schyff. Yes, this new turn in events also came about after I put it this morning on behalf of my client that the two pipe shotguns were actually not given to Van der Schyff and Visser at the roadhouse, but to Van der Schyff and yourself. So necessarily you must also be closer to the truth, but you still have not actually spoken the truth. Every person can say what he wants, I know what the truth is. Your client will speak the truth he wants, but I know what I am saying, I cannot speak for him. What is strange for me and the committee is that the truth, according to what Klopper made an oath to in his application, and all the applicants made an oath to this extent, I'm not going to repeat this, they all swore that the truth is that the two pipes were given to Visser and Van der Schyff, and now suddenly the truth has changed. I know what happened there. MR PRINSLOO With all respect, does Knoetze put it that Visser never had a weapon at the roadblock? CHAIRPERSON That is not what I understand. MR PRINSLOO Mr Chairman, my learned friend missed something earlier today. I put it on behalf of my client and I will repeat it now, that at the roadhouse the weapon was given to Van der Schyff and the other weapon was given to you, and later, at the smallholding, your weapon, your pipe was given to Etienne Visser? I have stated, and I repeat it, I think that statement is incorrect. You see, just to confirm this point, in his evidence in this case, in other words a long time after his application and if he then made a mistake he could have corrected the mistake here when Kloppers testified here, and I read it on page 249 "I asked who had weapons and it was said three of them did not have weapons, Martin and Van der Schyff, Etienne Visser. I gave two pipe shotguns to them." I do not have contact with them, so what they say, they say, and what I say, I say. But you see at least your evidence is closer to the truth in the sense that you got it initially? That's correct. But I put it to you that you kept this weapon until you got to the smallholding, and only there was your weapon given to Etienne Visser? No, I'm still saying that statement is false. And also, as you've heard, my client denied that he said, "Give me the weapon, I'll show you how to shoot kaffirs", he says he never said it. That's what he says. And also he'll deny, which is also known to you, the fact that the revolution starts tonight, the hard options and the general wants to see bodies, and that they want to make a target out of the ANC/SACP alliance, he'd say that those things were not said? Again I put it to you, sir, he could have heard what he heard and he can say what he wants to say, what I heard, I said, and he's going to say what he heard. Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Mr Diedericks, at the end of your evidence you said that what you did, you did for God, "volk" and "vaderland", is that correct? That's correct. MR PRINSLOO That's not what he said, Chairperson, that will be misleading if he said he did it on behalf of the AWB. Mr Chairman, I was only of opinion to ask a question on that particular portion, but if my learned friend want me to repeat that second part, I've got no problem with that, but my question does not pertain to that. Maybe you should just allow me to ask my question and then, if need be, he can object. CHAIRPERSON (Indistinct). As the Court pleases, Mr Chairman. At the end of your evidence, you said you did it for God, "volk" and "vaderland" and also to support the ideology of the AWB in which you believed? That is correct. And I'm saying this to you, as I also said it to the other applicants, I have no reason to believe or to say that you did not believe in it, but the question I want to ask you is, if you look at the phrasing of God, "volk" and "vaderland", then it would seem to me that the conviction you had with regards to the undesirability of communism was not only because of your political conviction but also because of your religious conviction, if you say you did it for God, "volk" and "vaderland", is that correct? Let me put it this way, do you know what God, "volk" and "vaderland" stands for? If you do something, you do it with God's assistance, and you do it for your country and in order to obtain a country. I accept that. All I'm asking you is, and the question is this, if you do not agree with me, then you can disagree with me, I'm only asking you, did you only see communism as a threat for your political convictions, or did you also see communism as a threat to your religious conviction? I saw it as a threat to everything. But that's the statement I make, and then we agree. Let's continue. I want to know in the evidence of Mr Badenhorst it became apparent that what had happened before this meeting at the roadhouse there was a party where a whole group of people were together. Were you there? No. When you completed this application form for amnesty, which is here in front of the committee today, surely you must have realised the serious implications it's going to have? Yes. At an earlier time I also put it to Kloppers that when you were involved in the criminal procedures, you ran the potential risk to be found guilty and be convicted, is that correct? That's correct. So then it was important to you to put the case in a specific light, as good as you could? Yes. But now that phase is completed, you were found guilty and you received a specific punishment for that, is that correct? Yes. Would you say that it's more important to you now or less important to tell the committee the whole truth so that once again you have a chance here to, despite the fact that you were already convicted, that you might receive amnesty and walk out of here as a free man, would you say it's more or less important? It's not important for myself, but it's important for my other colleagues to be a free person as I am. Now what I'd like to know then is, it was important for you at the stage when you made this application? That is true, yes. Now if this is such an important issue, can you think of any reason why this morning and up until now, with regards to each of these applicants, they deemed it necessary to amend the version, to add things to that and to bring about the change to the extent of when an instruction was received, can you think of a reason? No. Because, you see, what is strange to me is that you come and testify today that you went with Kloppers to the vehicle and two pipe shotguns were taken out of the vehicle, is that correct? Then you told the committee that you were asked, "How does this thing work?", and you said, "No, I don't know how it works", is that correct? That's correct. Is the only time that you've seen these pipe shotguns? Yes. Did you ever see a pipe shotgun before that time? No. Did you know how it was made? No. You do not know how it works? No. But sir, how can you, together with all the other applicants verbatim, in each of these applications, say in specific paragraphs, even though the number differs, but it appears on all the applications, that those two pipe shotguns were gotten from Japie Oelofse, how can you say that at an amnesty application if you do not know that? There was a lot of talk about pipe shotguns, I never physically saw one before, but there was also talk about the fabrication of these things. Sir, I put it to you that you're evading my question. It's a really simple question, if you do not understand it, please tell me, and then I'll repeat it. So everything you hear, is that necessarily the truth? Let me put it this way... (intervention). Sir, it's a simple question, is everything you hear the truth? MR PRINSLOO Would he be given a chance to answer? Not everything. Now sir, I'm asking you again, this is a very important issue, you are here to come and ask for amnesty, but in the course thereof you made certain allegations which incriminate other people and now I'm asking you once again, say you did not testify to this at all, the fact that you have said that these two pipe shotguns came from Oelofse and, against the background that at the criminal procedures it was testified that it came from Nick Fourie, now you come, you and other applicants, and you include a statement and you say that these two pipe shotguns come from Japie Oelofse. If you were with Japie Oelofse in that prison and he told you what to say in criminal procedures, you would have done it as well, because you were under instruction. That's what happened to us. As far as I understand your cross-questioning, you, I ask the questions. No, I put it to you, we were with him in prison, he told us, "Say this in the criminal procedures", we must protect him, he's the general, he has to be outside, not on the inside, and that's exactly what happened. But I do not understand what you are saying to me, when were these criminal procedures and when were you in prison, and why is it the first time I heard about this? Japie was with us when we waited for the trial. You're the first applicant who came and said that Japie told you what to do. CHAIRPERSON That is not correct. I will retract that statement, Mr Chairman. If you say that, let's get the chronological order correct here, when did Japie Oelofse told you what you should say during the trial? While we were waiting for the trial to start. Now why would he tell you on one side, now let's make this fair towards you, because otherwise maybe it's said that I'm not making a correct statement towards you, I do not want to mislead you, are you telling me that Japie Oelofse told you what to say during the criminal procedures which was not true? CHAIRPERSON You know, he'll sit here the whole afternoon telling us what that person said. You've got to be specific... (intervention). I take note, Mr Chairman, I will rephrase it. CHAIRPERSON ...because that question knows of no limits. I take note, Mr Chairman, I'll limit that. Let's put it - and this question was also asked to the other applicants, specifically to Kloppers, because Kloppers gave the same reasoning, he said that he tried to protect Oelofse, and it was pointed out to him that in his evidence during the criminal procedures, in any ways he involved Oelofse and other people, so if Oelofse told you to go and say certain things in order to protect him, then it would seem that it did not happen, because eventually he was incriminated during the proceedings, and I do not understand what you are saying to me? Our case was separate from theirs, I did not give evidence, so I could not incriminate him. No, it was, someone said that it comes from him. But it does not say that in your statement or application. Let me ask you another question, you gave evidence, and you heard about the ear, or you saw that there was an ear that was cut off, what do you know about the ear, what do you know about the discussion concerning the ear? Were you not present when it was said that the ear will be given to Oelofse the next day? I believe that if you were in my position, after what happened, you will also not hear every single thing that happened. I accept that you cannot remember it, and I understand it and I realise it was a traumatic experience, all that I'd like to know is, when the ear, or the topic around the ear came up in the car, and it was held in a plastic bag, what was said there then that you can remember concerning the ear? I cannot remember. You do not know who cut the ear off? I heard at one stage it was Deon Martins. You heard it, you do not know? That is correct, yes. And when it was done and you heard about it, did you not know why it was done? That's correct, yes. Let me come back to my original question that I asked to all the other applicants under evidence they gave, you reacted on a command which you believed came from the general's staff, and that was conveyed to you by Kloppers? Yes, I believed that that was an instruction that come from the generals in staff via Commandant Kloppers. And you believed, as a supporter of the AWB, and in the rank order of the organisation, and it was within your conviction, that you will execute that order? That is correct, yes. But now that if it seems that there was no such an order, what then? In other words, if there were no other order higher up in the ranks, what now, what then? Then Commandant Kloppers will have to answer that question. Well we have dealt with that. Let me ask you questions about the festivities around the Voortrekker Monument. Were you there? No. Were you in the area or where you lived, although you did not attend the proceedings... (intervention). That is correct, yes. ...did you also in that evening understood that tonight, the 12th or 13th of December, that evening or morning, the revolution will start, did you understand it that way? Yes, I did. You go out with this group, there's a specific incident, did you think that it was an isolated incident, or did you think that this is part of a full-scale, country-wide, revolution? I thought that it was a full-scale revolution. When you, it was the 16th or the 20th of December, realised, I'm not talking about explosions, I'm talking about the evening when this incident occurred, when a week later you realised that that evening there was seemingly only this one incident, as far as I understand this is what happened, did you not start to doubt how it is possible that this is the only incident that occurred on a national level, didn't it bother you? Yes it did. Now sir, in your own words you said it did, may I ask you why did it bother you? Didn't you start to doubt if there was such an order? No, for us it was, or we were told afterwards the people did not work and that was that. Okay, let us get to that statement, because that was mentioned earlier on. Evidence was given that Eugene Terreblanche at one stage in a visit said to you while you were detained that if everybody did what was expected of them that evening, the revolution would have succeeded, is that correct? Yes. Now I'd like to ask you, at one stage amounts or numbers were mentioned of how many then commando members, or active members, there were in the AWB at that stage? I had no input in the logistics, I cannot remember the amounts, but I know there were a lot. I think Mr Kloppers gave evidence regarding this Now I come back to my question, did you believe that the AWB, as an organisation, existed countrywide? In certain areas it was stronger, yes. I come back again to my question, did it truly not bother you that you were the only person, or only group of nine people out of the total number of AWB members, who were obedient to the top structure of the AWB in that "today the revolution starts", didn't it bother you, how is it possible within a rank order in an organisation like the AWB? You've asked that question and I said yes, it did bother me. You thus say that notwithstanding that you did not doubt that in the higher ranks such an order existed? I received my instructions from Commandant Kloppers and where he got his instructions, he will have to say, I'm not going to say what he - I have to report back to him. Well that brings me to the conclusion, I say again to you I have got no knowledge where I can say, you allege it, and I do take note of it, you say that you received your orders from him? That is correct. I cannot take responsibility for that, but you said you did not acted regarding those instructions, I'm just asking you, sir, when, after this incident, you saw that nothing else happened out of the total structure of the AWB, you certainly did not believe that the rest of the AWB members, the military members, ignored all other instructions and did not continue, it could not have happened? I don't know what the question is? I'll ask again, are you saying that after this incident you believed that, although there was a military order or command from the top structure, that all other area commanders and the people who were a rank below them, ignored this command or order and did not execute it, when it was decided by the top structure that "tonight, the 12th, revolution starts"? I believed, or I wondered why the others did not execute the order. Now I'll put it to you, sir, the reason for this is, it's very obvious, it's simple, there was no order from a rank above the rank of your commander, Mr Klopper, he may have conveyed it to you, but I put it to you there was no such an order and that is why, in other areas, nothing happened? CHAIRPERSON Do you want to comment on that? TAPE TURNED OVER - WORDS LOST CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK When you were at the roadblock and these two cars were stopped and the occupants were taken out, did you hear any of your colleagues asking questions of the occupants, or not? No, I was too far away. Praat in Afrikaans. No, I was too far away, I could not hear anything. Goed, dankie. The last question that the chairperson asked you if you had any comment, you said no, it was Mr Dreyer's opinion. He said are you worried about that, that only your unit acted on that evening. Mr Dreyer tried to present you with an answer in his opinion and the reason was that there was no such order. Have you got any other possibility or any other explanation why that happened? No, Mr Chairperson, I believe everyone tries to find a reason why it did not happen. So at this stage you've got no reason. Is the reason that Mr Dreyer put to you, is that a possibility in your eyes? No. So you still think that there was, there still was such an order and the others just did not execute it? Are you honest if you say that, or do you say that or any other reason? No, I'm honest. You still believe that there was such a national order and everybody ignored it except Chief Commander Kloppers? I do not believe everyone ignored it, because there were certain explosions. No, I'm talking about that specific night. I'm not trying to confuse you, I just want to know if you honestly believe that, for some reason nobody else did it, but the order was there, that it did exist? My impression of the revolution was that it begins in small groups and only certain selected groups begins with instigating chaos and revolt, and certain groups takes over in this chaos situation to take it further. It's like a small group that started, there must be a beginning point, and I believed that we were that group. So it would not have bothered you if no-one else did it, because your group was that evening the starting point? Why did it bother you then? Because it was only one small starting group. You expected there to be more other small groups? I would just like to ask you another thing, in cross-examination you said that General Oelofse said to you what you must do in the criminal procedures and what evidence you must give, he's an officer, you are on his instruction and you executed it? Yes. I'm paraphrasing you, it was not your words, but that is how I understood you. Certain things were asked or told to us not to say during the proceedings. And because he was an officer, you listened to him? Yes. And if Chief Commandant Kloppers would have directed the same request, would you have handled it in the same way? That is correct. If he requested you to do this regarding the amnesty application, would you have done it in the same way? Yes, as a soldier and he gave me the order, and if I still was, or if I was a soldier under his command, I would have done it, yes. Since when have you not... (intervention). I haven't been a soldier under him since 1995. Were you at any stage part of any planning when they talked about what we would say at certain stages, were you part of that? No. And then at any stage, or at no stage, did you correspond or discuss with the others what you would say in your amnesty application? No, I was separated from them from the beginning of my (indistinct), or charge, I was alone. Who submitted your application? In consultation with my lawyers. Did they also act on behalf of the others during that period? I do not know on behalf of whom they acted. Thank you very much. That is correct, that is how it appeared. Don't you find it strange that while you're on the way to such a serious operation, that you'd stop along the way and have some fun? That is Commandant Kloppers and Martins was very angry and sent me to go and fetch these people and tell them to stop it and come along, there's no time for such things. Can you give any reason why the people was in a mood to have fun, because it bothers me, I do not understand it? No, I cannot say. Is it not possible that the alcohol consumption played a role, that maybe earlier in the day they drank? I won't be able to say. Do you know people, or do you know when someone is under the influence of alcohol? Definitely, yes. Would you say that they were under the influence of alcohol, because you went to go and talk to them? I knew some of them and they were definitely not under the influence of alcohol. Thank you. MR MALAN Mr Chairperson, may I just ask a follow-up question, maybe Mr Prinsloo must help me if I'm wrong, but I thought I heard you say that when you got out, you also assaulted the black people? Yes, that is correct. MR MALAN You are sent to go and stop them and go and fetch them, but you also take part in the assault, did I hear you correctly? Yes, the black person, while they hit him, he swore at us, and that is when that I would also hit him, because I don't like when people swear at me. So your instruction from Kloppers to go and get the others, get away from the assault and you also took part then in the assault, is that what you're saying to us? Yes, I did not follow his instructions to a certain extent. CHAIRPERSON Why did you injure or beat Van der Schyff with the baton? I wanted to, also to hit, but because I, or by mistake, I wanted to hit the person that was being assaulted and then by mistake I hit Van der Schyff, he was busy to struggle with the person on the ground and then I hit him. CHAIRPERSON It was not because you were under the influence of liquor and you could not distinguish the wood for the tree? No, that was not the case. MR DREYER Mr Chairman, may I just ask a question in connection with the fact that he was ignoring a specific order, if I may, in respect of the question put by the committee (indistinct). CHAIRPERSON Yes, that is so, Mr Chairman... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON A specific order to go and remove these people from the assault. It has nothing to do with Oelofse's original order. Yes, that is so, but I just wanted to try and get some relation between a minor order and obviously a very major order of starting a revolution, but if the Court feels that it's unnecessary, I won't press it. CHAIRPERSON I don't think - I think it's too tenuous, I don't think we should allow you to ask questions on that. As you please, Mr Chair. NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO CHAIRPERSON You can stand down, sir. WITNESS EXCUSED CHAIRPERSON Mr Knoetze? I call Mr Van der Schyff, Mr Chairman. MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF (sworn states) Mr Van der Schyff, you submitted an amended return application, which is Exhibit 5? That's correct. To request the committee to amend your written application in this fashion? That's correct. Where did you grow up? Randfontein, Chairperson. Can you tell us about your family? I had a brother and a sister, a mother and a father. What occupation was your father? He was a plumber. And what was his political views? Nothing, none. And your mother's political views? None. And where did you go to primary school? In Randfontein. And your secondary education Randfontein. And the white community, what kind of people did they consist of? It was a very conservative community. And what were that community's political views, mainly, the people you had contact with? Their view was negative towards the blacks, let's say they didn't accept them at all, specifically the ANC/SACP alliance. Were you already aware of the security situation within the country? That's correct. And that there was a state of emergency? That's correct. And that had to do with the battle between the whites and the non-whites? That's correct. Did you do military service? That's correct. Where? 1 South African Infantry Battalion in Bloemfontein and later I was transferred to 61 Battalion Group in South West Africa. And what service did you complete there? Border service. Was that service in the war against Swapo? That's correct. And what was your personal opinion of the army's activities at that stage? They played an important role for the country, for South Africa, in order to keep the enemy outside of the country and not allow the enemy to come into the country to commit acts of terror. Can you just speak a little bit slower, they're interpreting. Did you agree with these views in this war? Yes, I agreed with it. After your military service, did you attend military camps? That's correct, I did. And did you do it voluntarily, or was it difficult for you to join in those activities? It was my duty to attend South African Defence Force camps. Is it also correct that you also were a police reservist? That's correct. Could you just explain to them when? Since 1985 up until 1989. Does this mean that you did this while you were still a scholar? That's correct. And did you receive any tertiary education? Yes, I worked at Transnet, I received training there. And did you qualify there, did you graduate there? Yes, I did graduate there. Who did you work for? Transnet. What was your political views with regards to the security situation in the early 90's? I became more and more involved with the right politics, because I believed the right-wing people were the only people to stop the ANC/SACP alliance, which was to take place in the 1994 elections. Did you join any political parties? I did. Who did you join? I joined the AWB. How did it come about that you joined them? I became interested in all their objectives and the ones they submitted. Which of their policy principles attracted you? The fact that we could govern ourselves and also the piece of ground, your own country, a place where you can have your own schools, own education. And what was your view with regards to the policy principles of the ANC/SACP then? Their principle was to take over the country within all their power, and as a member of the AWB it was unacceptable to me. And what was your view with regards to the policy of the PAC? The PAC's policy was more or less the same and it was also unacceptable to me as a member of the AWB. Which position did you have once you joined the AWB? Assistant Area Commandant. How did it come about that you became an assistant area commandant? Chief Commandant Klopper and Deon Martin graduated me. Is this after you wrote an exam? That is correct, Chairperson. And this examination, did you have to write it after you've had to study the book as it was submitted here, which is known as "Phase 1"? That's correct, Chairperson. And did you also agree with the AWB's policy which is contained within that book? That's correct. Did you receive any training when you were a member of AWB? What was it? It was normal militarily uptraining, Did you do any service while you were a member of the AWB? I did. What was that? I was a driver of Mr Kloppers, as well as his bodyguard, and I also did security work for General Oelofse, as well as his wife, Stefanie Oelofse. Did you partake in any demonstrations or marches of the AWB? Yes, I partook in them. When? In Vereeniging. And what did it entail? It was a march the AWB had, together with Inkatha, and I went there in order for guidance as well as for the protection of Oelofse and his wife. These things, did you do them while you were in the complete uniform of the AWB? That's correct. Now, except for the other members of the AWB, of this group who was also aware of the fact that you were a member of the AWB? The whole Wesrand vicinity, Chairperson. How can you say that? I was a well-known person, not only in Randfontein, but on the whole Wesrand. Can the committee make an inference then that you were proud of the fact that you were a member of the AWB? Yes, I was very proud of the fact. Did you also attend some of their political meetings? Yes, I did attend them. Can you mention a few of those to the committee members? One in Johannesburg where the leader, Eugene Terreblanche, spoke to me personally. And these political meetings, what kind of uniform did you wear? I did it in civvy clothes, as well as in AWB uniform. So what did you want to achieve by being a member of the AWB? In order to obtain the so-called "volkstaat" and to make use of it. How did it become that during the evening of 12th of March 1993, in uniform, sorry, not March, but December, sorry, Chairperson, December 1993, in your AWB uniform, how did you arrive at the roadhouse between quarter past seven... (intervention). I found, I received a call from Deon Martin's wife, that's Louise Martins, and she told me that Chief Commandant Klopper gave an instruction that we were going to work that evening, and she also mentioned to me that it has to take place in complete AWB uniform. Maybe you must just speak a little bit slower. Then you went to the roadhouse, that's a well-known fact, what happened there? We waited there for Kloppers, as well as for Visser, and a little while later Visser arrived, and then Klopper arrived, and then Martin brought us all to attention. He saluted Kloppers and then Kloppers said that that night we are going to work. What else was said? He asked who did not have weapons and three persons reacted and said, me myself, Gert Diedericks, as well as Visser. Did he do something with regards to that situation? Yes, he gave two pipe shotguns to myself and to Mr Diedericks. You heard the accusations of what you then apparently had said with regards to the obtaining of the weapons and you said that you wanted it so you could show how you're going to shoot kaffirs that evening? I heard the accusations, yes. What's your comment? That's a blatant lie. While we're at this point, eventually we know, the committee knows, that Diedericks did not have the weapon when this shooting took place. No, he did not have a pipe shotgun when the shooting took place. How did that come about? To make it short, the pipe shotgun, was it then taken at a later stage, taken from Diedericks and given to Visser? That's correct. Where did this happen? This happened at Deon Martin's smallholding. If we can just come back to the roadhouse, you heard what the other applicants said with regards to what Kloppers then would have said that evening? I heard that, Chairperson. What's your comment on that? It was not the evening he said these things. Did he say that the revolution would start that evening? No, under no circumstances. Did he say that Japie Oelofse wanted to see bodies? Under no circumstances. Did he talk about the real McCoy? No, he did not. Hard options? Under no circumstances. So you left there, you left the roadhouse, and where did you go then? And what happened there? When we got there, we only used two vehicles, the Mercedes Benz and the Sentra, and the registration numbers of both vehicles were changed by using masking tape. And from there, where did you go when you left there? From Mr Badenhorst's house we went to Visser's flat. What happened there? When we got there, a bottle of whisky was produced. It wasn't completely full, and it was already open. Me personally did not drink any of the whisky, but there were some of the members who did drink the whisky. Okay. And where did you go after you've left that flat? From there we went to Deon Martin's smallholding. What happened there? There Kloppers brought a bottle of brandy as well as two litres of Coke, the bottle of brandy was half full and he divided this between the two vehicles, discussions were also held, and we said that we'd set up a roadblock and the necessary equipment was handed over to us there. Did you receive any of the equipment? What did you receive? I got the jacket, the shining jacket. What happened when you left there? After we received everything, we left there. We were a few metres away from Martin's smallholding when we saw two blacks walking in the road. The Sentra stopped. Some of the members, myself included, jumped out. The blacks who walked there, we followed them and we assaulted them. Maybe you must just quickly go back to the instruction that a roadblock should be held. What was the purpose of the roadblock? The purpose was to look for illegitimate weapons and ammunition which was entering our towns and which was used to kill or harm old people and innocent people. After this assault on these black people, did you then go to the Radora Crossing where you would then have the roadblock? That's correct. What happened there? Okay, what happened then? It was decided that the Sentra would be the emergency vehicle, with the blue light on top of it, and Kloppers and Martins would then drive in the Mercedes Benz towards Ventersdorp and as soon as they will flash their headlights to us, we'd know that this is the necessary target to pull off, and the target we would have had to pull off would only have black occupants. And did you do that? Yes, we pulled off vehicles. Before we get to the Honda and the Cressida, can you tell us about the other vehicles? There were several vehicles pulled off. At one stage a vehicle was pulled off with a black person in it, and this black person resisted us, because he didn't want us to search his vehicle, and Klopper hit the man on the head with a baton and I stood watching this. Let's interrupt ourselves, in the criminal proceedings later you were found guilty of that assault as well? Yes, I was found guilty thereof. In the sense that you should have foreseen it and you were an accomplice? That's correct. And you also ask for amnesty with regards to that assault? That's correct. Can you remember anything else with regards to the other vehicles before you pulled the Honda and the Sentra off? At a later stage there was another vehicle, it was a big pick-up, Ford pick-up truck. The car wouldn't start and we were told to push the car so that it could start, and we did that, and the vehicle drove off. These vehicles, were they searched? All the vehicles were searched, Chairperson. With what purpose? The purpose was to try and find illegitimate weapons and ammunition. And can the committee make the reference that no such weapons were found? No weapons were found, illegal weapons, that is. Evidence was given in front of the committee with regards to questions that was asked to the occupants of the vehicles. What's your comment on that? No questions were asked while the vehicles were searched. I refer you specifically to questions with regards to political affiliations? Nothing, Chairperson. So then the Honda and the Cressida came onto the scene, and the committee know that they were stopped, or they stopped first and they both arrived there simultaneously. Would you please take it from there? Once they were both at the roadblock, the vehicles approached us, the Ballade was in the front and behind it the Cressida. The Honda was pulled off. Inside the Honda there were three people, three men. I walked towards the vehicle. I commanded the driver to get out, and I told him to go and sit on the ground. The two passengers who were with him also got out and they also sat down on the ground. The vehicle was searched where the people sat themselves as well as the boot. The people in the Toyota Cressida did not want to get out of the car under any circumstances and then Klopper walked closer on the driver's side, he shattered the windscreen with his baton and all the passengers in that car then got out. Maybe, while we're there, maybe we must just stop. Is it also so that you put together a sketch plan of the scene? That's correct, Chairperson. Mr Chairman, may I beg leave to hand up copies of this to the committee, which I think may be of some assistance? It would be EXHIBIT 7. SKETCH PLAN HANDED UP AS EXHIBIT 7 Is it correct that you also submitted an explanation for this sketch? That is correct. Mr Chairman, what I did with mine is to write in precisely what everything is, so that one doesn't have to refer back every time. Let us begin with A, what is A? Point A is the so-called Radora Crossing. And B? Point B is the Ventersdorp Road. In other words traffic that moves from left to right on that part that you've indicated there, will move towards Ventersdorp? That's right, yes. And C is on the other side of the road? That is correct, Mr Chairperson, that's from Ventersdorp to Krugersdorp. CHAIRPERSON I don't, I haven't really studied this, but I wonder, have you discussed this with the other people? I beg your pardon? CHAIRPERSON No, I have not, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON I sincerely hope that it's not going to cause so much dispute, because we don't contemplate being drawn to a point where we'll have to go for an inspection in loco as a result of some disputes arising from around this point. Well so do I, Mr Chairman, but I don't foresee such disputes. CHAIRPERSON Is it possible to deal with other aspects of the matter for the time being, to leave this aside for a while? CHAIRPERSON Mr Prinsloo... (intervention). MR PRINSLOO Mr Chairman? CHAIRPERSON What is your attitude towards this? MR PRINSLOO Mr Chairman, could I take instructions on this, we don't know, so... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON All right... (intervention). MR PRINSLOO (Inaudible). CHAIRPERSON I dread even looking into it, I won't like to do that. Let's deal with other aspects of the matter if we can, and maybe tomorrow, by tomorrow Mr Prinsloo would have had a look at it, and then we can talk about it. As you please, Mr Chairman. Let us come back to this roadblock, what you've already said is that the Honda was searched, the people got out? That is correct, yes. The Cressida was searched and the people got out? That is correct. After the side windscreen was shattered? That is correct, Mr Chairperson. You then, as part of that search, did something personal, of which you were found guilty later on? Yes, I did, I stole a leather jacket. Can you tell the committee why did you do it, or what happened? Was that part of the planning, part of the instruction that you received, that you must do such a thing? No, Mr Chairperson. Can you explain how it happened that you committed this crime? I did it in a moment of madness. Are you sorry about it? Yes, yes I am sorry that I stole that jacket. The occupants of the Honda and Cressida were commanded or told to go and sit. Can you explain on what they sat and where in relation to the vehicles? There was a type of embankment on which they sat. This embankment, was that further away from the tar road as where the cars were? That is correct, yes. In other words, it would have been to the left of the vehicles? That is correct. Where did you stand at that stage? At that stage I stood just behind the Honda Ballade, Mr Chairperson, on the side of the tar road. In other words, the Honda was at that stage between you and the black people? No, I stood on the side of the road of the Honda Ballade. If you stand in front of the vehicle, on the right-hand side. That is why I ask you, and where were the black people then? The black people were on my left-hand side, they sat on the embankment. And what happened then? Certain questions were put to them, or Mr Martins asked them certain questions regarding what political party they belonged to. He repeated his question, I don't remember how many times. Mr Kloppers stood behind the people and would tap them over the head with this baton. Did you hear the answers of these people? No, I heard no answers. What happened then? A while later, Mr Etienne Visser came to me and said to me that I must prepare myself we're going to shoot and take that thing out. Where did he come from? I cannot precisely say where he came from. Who do you thought this instruction came from? I thought that it could only have been from the seniors, namely Chief Commander Martins, Chief Commander Kloppers and Commandant Martins. What happened then? As Visser told it to you, Mr Visser and I moved around at the same time, we took our positions in and Mr Martins then shot the first shot. Before you continue, where did you station yourself? It was in front of the Honda Ballade. And how can you say that it was Deon Martins who shot the first shot? I saw when the first shot rang. And what happened afterwards? After that shot was fired, everybody started shooting. What did you do? My pipe shotgun was loaded, I fired one round in the direction of the people, I turned it around, I put another round in it, and also fired off the other round in the direction of the people. Why did you fire? I only executed an order that was given to me. How much ammunition did you have with you? I had a belt full. How many rounds are in there? I think it was 27 rounds. What happened then? After the shooting someone shouted there's a vehicle on the way, certain people jumped into the Sentra, it was on its way, I shouted "Stop", I wanted to get in as well, I ran across the road and Chief Commandant Klopper then shouted that "We will meet you at the town hall". And you then got into the Sentra and drove to the town hall? That's correct, yes. And eventually where did you disperse that evening? From the town hall, we went to Jaco Badenhorst's parents' house. And then? There we waited for Chief Commander Kloppers, and later, a while later, Kloppers and Martins and Etienne Visser arrived. Kloppers said to me that I have to go and look in front of the Mercedes on the passenger's seat, there's a bag, I must go and fetch it. I did it. I handed over the bag and out of the bag he took the ear of a black man. Was there comments made? Was comments made regarding the ear? Mr Kloppers showed us the ear and said that the next morning he will hand the ear over to General Oelofse. From there on we went home. I went with Kloppers and Visser also went with us. We first dropped Visser off at his house and then Kloppers dropped me off at my house, where I handed him the pipe shotgun that he gave me that evening. Mr Chairman, I note that it is four o'clock. I don't know until what time you mean to sit, but if you want to adjourn now, it is a convenient stage? CHAIRPERSON I think it's a convenient time to adjourn until tomorrow at half past nine. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS