amntrans AMNESTY HEARING 1998-07-30 PRETORIA 9 MR A D BAKER 5284/97 https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=52771&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/1998/98072031_pre_cosatu9.htm ON RESUMPTION A D BAKER (sworn states) MR BOOYENS Thank you. Mr Chairman, may I just enquire, has the Committee in its possession the introductory part of this witness' application, that is the form Annexure A, because I see the only thing that was bound in was schedule 4? CHAIRPERSON Volume? MR BOOYENS Volume 2, Mr Chairman, at page - he actually starts at page 258, but you would notice it only starts at schedule 4. CHAIRPERSON (Indistinct)? MR BOOYENS Baker, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON 251. MR BOOYENS CHAIRPERSON And then you've got a separate one handed in? MR BOOYENS That's correct, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON We'll number that 251A MR BOOYENS Yes, Mr Chairman, it runs to - do you just want to call it 251A, then I could just refer to the typewritten pages. CHAIRPERSON Ja. MR BOOYENS Thank you, Mr Chairman. While we are busy with that, Mr Chairman, my next applicant, Mr Bellinghan, there are also some pages left out in his instance, he is at 260 in volume 1, not actually at 260, he starts at 247, but there should be, there's four pages that's been left out there, which, seeing that we are dealing with the administration at this stage, at page 260 the Committee would notice that's page 14 and it then carries on at, typewritten 14 and it carries on at typewritten 18. I have handed pages 15, 16 and 17, as well as typewritten page 19 and I ask that that also be put into the record. CHAIRPERSON (Indistinct). MR BOOYENS You should have been given four loose pages, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON 15, 16, 17? MR BOOYENS Yes, and then there's a - and 19. CHAIRPERSON And 19? MR BOOYENS Yes. CHAIRPERSON These are the same to do with (indistinct)? MR BOOYENS CHAIRPERSON 19, 261A. MR BOOYENS Thank you, Mr Chairman. EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS Mr Baker, as set out at page 258, you apply for amnesty for the explosion damage to property at Cosatu House and all other dealings and crimes arising from the same set of facts, is that correct? That's correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS Have you got in front of you a document headed Annexure A, page 25, that has just been handed to the Committee, is that correct? That's correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS Do you confirm the contents of the first page thereof? I do, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS Page 2? I do, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS page 3? I do, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS 4? I do, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS 5? I do. MR BOOYENS 6? I do, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS 7? I do, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS 8, 9? I do, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS 10? I do, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS 11? I do, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS And onwards till page 16? I do, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS At page 258, Schedule 4, you set out the role that you played in your involvement at Cosatu House, is that correct? That's correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS And your application runs to page 267, is that correct? That's correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS Do you confirm the correctness thereof? I do, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS Just dealing very briefly with a few aspects arising herefrom, at page 9(a), paragraph 4, you tell us about the instructions you received. Indeed so, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS And there's, in the fifth line from the top, at Roman (iv) should that read "by the members of" "had been instructed by members of the executive command structure"? That's correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS You have heard the evidence of Colonel De Kock... (intervention). I have, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS ...about the instructions given to you? You also heard the evidence of the then Minister of Law and Order, the then chief of the Security Branch. Do you confirm that evidence? I do, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS You agree with it. Very well. Now, Colonel De Kock, you say, at page 259, gave you an overview at Vlakplaas of the reasons for the operation, is that correct? That's correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS First of all, the second sentence should read "The object of the operation...", is that correct:- "...was to damage the HQ of Cosatu House"? That's correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS Do you further confirm that he conveyed the intelligence that you set out here to you? I do, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS And then the purpose of the operation was twofold, was that conveyed to you by Colonel De Kock? That's correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS And did you have - you were an operative at that stage, is that correct? That's correct, That is correct. MR BOOYENS Did you have any independent way of checking the correctness of this information, as to the why Cosatu House was to be damaged, or did you have to rely on what Colonel De Kock told you? I had no independent way, Mr Chairman, I relied on what I was told by my commander. MR BOOYENS And you believed that Colonel De Kock was given the correct information? That's correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS And as far as that was concerned, were you satisfied that you had no objection in principle, in the circumstances, of getting involved in this operation? That is correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS Very well. At page 19, and we've heard the evidence already, do you confirm that Colonel De Kock stressed that loss of lives or injury was to be avoided? That is correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS You were armed and wore a balaclava, is that correct? That's correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS Why? I had my service pistol with me, I also had my identity card with me, my police identity card, that was my part of the operation, was to move on the perimeter and try and keep people out of the target area. I had my identity card with me to use in case I should see people and just inform them to get out of the area, and I had a balaclava with me, which was not worn over the face, it was just part of the operational kit that I had in my car. CHAIRPERSON You didn't wear a balaclava? Mr Chairman, I had it with me. I see I did make a mistake there. MR BOOYENS You state here that you wore the balaclava, is that incorrect? Yes. I just want to set the record straight, I had a balaclava with me in the vehicle. MR BOOYENS And did you, Mr Bosch and Mr Beeslaar patrol the area, as you set out? That is correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS Did you at any time enter the building or have anything to do with the placing of the charge or the setting of the explosion? No, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS Now, to all, if you'll go to page 261, for all practical purposes, from what you could observe outwardly, this was an authorised operation at the time, because Brigadier Schoon was there, is that correct? That is correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS Now, then I think you have stated it already, but in the second paragraph at page 261 you say you never considered it necessary to query any instructions regarding covert defensive or offensive operations given by Colonel De Kock, is that correct? That is correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS So, and you also make mention of the fact that you were subsequently visited and congratulated by the Minister, is that correct? That is correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS Now at page 262, Colonel De Kock's credibility, that once again deals with the aspect that you have already referred to, was that the general feeling of all members in the unit, that you never doubted his credibility? That's correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS You've already dealt with the fact, the last paragraph, that you were unable to verify this information that was conveyed to you by Mr De Kock, is that correct? That's correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS Now, at page 263, you received motivations before all operations, it was explained to you why the operations were necessary, is that correct? That is correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS And could you, if, or would you, if you had objections in principle against an operation, voice your concern about it and could you withdraw as Colonel De Kock has testified? That is correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS In this instance you didn't do it, because you were satisfied that this was necessary, is that correct? That is correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS Now, then at the last paragraph at page 263, you just deal with the need to know basis... (intervention). That's correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS ...that this type of operation was conducted in? Mr Baker, as far as you yourself was concerned, dealing with your own political objective, in your background you have already set out fully your beliefs and your history, is that correct? That is correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS And included in those beliefs was included, as set out at page 265, paragraph 10(a) and (b), the belief that Cosatu was in fact part of the struggle to overthrow the government of this country at the time, is that correct? That is correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS And did you regard it as justifiable in the circumstances to oppose these efforts? That is correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS And is that why you were involved in these operations? That is correct, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS And do you furthermore confirm your political motives, as set out on page 265 and 266? I do, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS Is there anything else you want to add? No, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS Do you ask for amnesty as set out in the application? I do, Mr Chairman. MR BOOYENS Thank you, Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS CHAIRPERSON No questions? MR VISSER Mr Chairman, I do have one, Visser on record. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER Mr Baker, at page 261, typed page 20, the last sentence of the first paragraph reads "Minister Vlok personally visited Vlakplaas, during which time he complimented the unit on the success of this operation." This operating referring to Cosatu House? Mr Chairman, actually on a number of operations. Why I referred to this operation is because it's the one that I was involved in. MR VISSER Which is Cosatu House? Which is Cosatu House. Now, you see because my instructions are that Minister Vlok, the then Minister Vlok, visited Vlakplaas at the end of 1988, which was approximately 18 months later, is that the visit that you're referring to here? That's correct, Mr Chairman, he came to the farm. Yes. And he didn't specifically refer to any incident (indistinct)? That is correct, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Could I just ask, why then do you associate your particular operation with Mr Vlok's visit? Sorry, I've lost you somewhere there? Mr Chairman, he congratulated the unit on its operational successes, if one could put it that way. Was this the first time he came to Vlakplaas after the Cosatu House bombing, 18 months later, as has been pointed out? That is correct, Mr Chairman, that's my recollection, that that was the first time he came to the farm. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON No other questions? I have one question, Chairperson. Mr Baker, could you tell us how long it was after the Khotso House bombing that Mr Vlok visited Vlakplaas, was it soon after? Mr Chairman, I'm not aware of the exact date that the Khotso House operation took place, I was not involved in it... (intervention). Yes, we know that. ...so I don't know what the... (intervention). August. ...time period was. Yes, it was in August '88, it was in August of 1988, do you recall when Minister Vlok came to visit Vlakplaas? I'm not sure of the month, Mr Chairman, it was afterwards. Would it have been in the first half of the year or the second half of the year? Mr Chairman, as far as I can remember, it was in the second half of the year. If I had to put a month to it, I'd say October/November, I'm not sure. Thank you, no further questions. How often did Mr Vlok visit you after the Cosatu House bombing? Mr Chairman, if I can recollect correctly, it was on approximately three occasions. And you are very sure that those started from about October/November 1988, not before? As I said, that's my recollection, Mr Chairman, that's how I recollect it. Up to what time? So he started, the first time you saw him October/November, then the second time, and when was the third time? Mr Chairman, I'd say the last time was at the end of 1989, if my memory serves me correctly. The last time? The last time, yes. So in between '88 and '89 he saw you some time again in between? Approximately three times in all, approximately three times. And at each one of these visits, these are just general congratulatory comments he made? Mr Chairman, I'm aware that he came to a year end function for the unit, whereupon he also congratulated the unit on their successes and work. The year end function was the one in 1988? I beg your pardon? The year end function was the one in 1988? Mr Chairman, if I'm correct, in 1988 he came twice, the end of the year function and also in end of '89 a year end function, but that this time was before the year end function, the first time. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. WITNESS EXCUSED