amntrans AMNESTY HEARINGS 1999-12-09 PRETORIA 14 FRANS HENDRIK SMALBERGER LABUSCHAGNE https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=53928&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/1999/9911151210_pre_991209pt.htm MR SIBANYONI Mr Labuschagne, will you rise to take the oath please. Your full names please? MR LABUSCHAGNE Frans Hendrik Smalberger Labuschagne. FRANS HENDRIK SMALBERGER LABUSCHAGNE (sworn states) MR SIBANYONI ; Thank you, you may be seated. He has been sworn in Chairperson. MR DU PLESSIS Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, may I just place on record that we did not expect Mr Labuschagne to testify today and that is why he is not dressed for the occasion, so we apologise for that. CHAIRPERSON He is probably more sensibly dressed for the occasion, than the rest of us. EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS That is so Mr Chairman. The reason why we have agreed for Mr Labuschagne to testify now is because Mrs van der Walt requested me to do so, because Mr Lubbe is only available today, and that is why I agreed to do that. Mr Labuschagne, your application commences on page 179 of the first bundle? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. MR DU PLESSIS And you are applying for amnesty for murder, conspiracy? CHAIRPERSON It commences at 132, dealing with this ... MR DU PLESSIS I am sorry, I am sorry, the information pertaining to the incident starts at 179. CHAIRPERSON That is 179, yes. MR DU PLESSIS Very well, and you are applying for murder, conspiracy and everything else which is set out there? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR DU PLESSIS And what would be added to that would be accessory? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. MR DU PLESSIS Now Mr Labuschagne, as the honourable Judge Wilson has indicated, your application or the complete section of your application, commences on page 132 and the background facts and information we can find from page 132 to 178? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR DU PLESSIS And then will you turn to page 184 please. The information on page 184 to 195, do you confirm this as correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. MR DU PLESSIS That is where you set out the political objectives. Now Mr Labuschagne, let us return to page 179 over to 180. Mr Chairman, I am going to present the evidence on the basis that I am going to deal with the problems in the statement and then I will come back to the background evidence pertaining to how that came about. Mr Labuschagne, I will just take you paragraph for paragraph. The first paragraph on page 180, do you confirm this as correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR DU PLESSIS The second paragraph on page 180, in the final sentence it appears it was agreed with the informer that he would stop at a determined point on the Amsterdam/Nersden Road with trained MK members and that an arrest would ensue? Now, according to you, during the planning phase, was there ever any mention of an arrest or what was the order that you received? MR LABUSCHAGNE The order which was received from Col de Kock was for every person to be shot dead. MR DU PLESSIS Very well, Mr Labuschagne, and then the rest of that paragraph, do you confirm it as correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, I confirm this as correct. MR DU PLESSIS Then on page 181, the second sentence it states "... one group would wait at the T-junction in an attempt to apprehend the persons who would accompany the infiltrators across the border before they return to Swaziland", is that entirely correct? Would they have been arrested or was the order any different? MR LABUSCHAGNE As far as I know, the order was also for these persons to be killed. MR DU PLESSIS You were not a part of that group which had to eliminate the persons accompanying the MK members across the border? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I was not. MR DU PLESSIS Do you confirm the further information as correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR DU PLESSIS And up to the bottom of that page, 181, do you confirm all of this as correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, it is correct. MR DU PLESSIS There was evidence given by Mr de Kock that at the place where the shooting took place, the shooting of the passengers of the bakkie, persons had taken up position at both sides of the road and the other applicants testified that position was only taken up on the one side of the road, what is your recollection? MR LABUSCHAGNE I recall that we took up position only on the one side of the road. MR DU PLESSIS Is your evidence in concurrence with the evidence of Messrs Deetlefts and Pienaar? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR DU PLESSIS And who was with you there on that side of the road, who took up position with you there, who can you recall? MR LABUSCHAGNE It was Col de Kock himself, Chris Deetlefts, Freek Pienaar, Gene Fourie and later as I tried to orient myself further, I recalled Greyling and Botha also being present. With regard to Mr Bosch, I cannot recall whether he was also present. MR DU PLESSIS Very well. Mr Labuschagne, and if we could just pause there for a moment, who was the senior officer that was present there? MR LABUSCHAGNE It was the then Capt de Kock and Capt Deetlefts. MR DU PLESSIS What was your rank? MR LABUSCHAGNE I was a Sergeant at that stage. MR DU PLESSIS Who was the most junior member there? MR LABUSCHAGNE As far as I can recall, it was me and Fourie and Bosch and Botha. MR DU PLESSIS Very well, now Mr Labuschagne, in some of the other applications mention is made of, or at least allegations are made that you received an order to shoot the informer or the driver of the bakkie, can you recall anything like that? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. My order was issued by Mr de Kock and Chris Deetlefts that I had to shoot the relevant informer. MR DU PLESSIS Very well. You have heard the evidence given by Mr de Kock and by Mr Deetlefts as well as Mr Pienaar pertaining to the informer and the reasons why he had to be shot, do you associate yourself with this? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, I would agree with it. MR DU PLESSIS Very well. Mr Labuschagne, what were you armed with? MR LABUSCHAGNE I was armed with a hand carbine. MR DU PLESSIS Very well, can we go over to page 182, the first paragraph. Do you confirm this as correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, I confirm this as correct. MR DU PLESSIS With the exception that you have said who the other persons were? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR DU PLESSIS Then the second paragraph on page 182, I do not want you to look at the paragraph as such, I would just like you to tell the Committee in your own words precisely what you can recall what took place during the incident when the bakkie stopped and I would like for you to tell it as you recall it. MR LABUSCHAGNE What happened precisely on that evening is that we formed a line on the shoulder of the Amsterdam/Nersden Road, I cannot recall the precise time because it was already dark. MR DU PLESSIS Do not go too quickly, take it easy. MR LABUSCHAGNE It was already dark. A Datsun bakkie with a canopy stopped at the point where we were positioned. In the prior planning we had already been informed what sort of vehicle it would be. My position in the line that we had formed was on the extreme right, in other words on the side of the Nersden border post if I might put it as such. MR DU PLESSIS Let me ask you, as the bakkie stopped, would you have been closer to the front or the rear? MR LABUSCHAGNE To the rear. Furthermore the bakkie came to a standstill, it stopped a distance passed me, in other words I could see passed the rear end of the bakkie. The driver of the vehicle jumped out immediately and moved to the rear of the bakkie, and at that stage fire was opened from our line. When he came around the rear of the bakkie, perhaps not around, but when he moved passed the rear of the bakkie, I shot him. MR DU PLESSIS Please pause there. The driver disembarked on the side of the bakkie which was away from you, the furthest away from you? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR DU PLESSIS And where precisely did you shoot him, not on his body but was he on the ground? Can you explain to the Committee precisely where he was situated in relation to the bakkie and the road? MR LABUSCHAGNE At that stage, I shot him once he had emerged from behind the bakkie, that is when I shot him. I did not fire through the bakkie or anything like that. MR DU PLESSIS Very well, Mr Labuschagne, and where did he collapse? CHAIRPERSON Sorry, did he keep going or did he turn to try to open the back of the bakkie? MR LABUSCHAGNE No Mr Chairperson, when he came within my field of vision, I shot him. He fell there where I shot him. MR LAX The point was though, did he try to open the bakkie? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, never. MR LAX Just in relation to Exhibit B, more or less where was he in relation to the bakkie when you shot him? MR LABUSCHAGNE He moved passed the back of the bakkie. MR LAX Yes, if you look at where for example, I don't know if it is indicated on your ... MR LABUSCHAGNE He did not lay where the initial sketch is, he was not behind the bakkie. He was at the back, passed ... MR DU PLESSIS There are eight circles that indicate where the people were laying and then you can see the bakkie and on the opposite side of where the people were laying, if you could see, there is a cross. As I understand your evidence, you say that he was not laying there. MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes. MR DU PLESSIS Can you give us an indication then, if you look at the right hand side of the sketch to the eight circles, more or less next to which circle on the right hand side? MR LABUSCHAGNE It would be the third last circle then. MR LAX So just for the record, that is approximately in line with the back right hand corner of the vehicle? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is so. CHAIRPERSON I have what I think is the original of this, perhaps he could mark on this Exhibit B with ... MR DU PLESSIS Mr Chairman, he has marked it on mine, maybe ... CHAIRPERSON If you will let me have both of them then. MR DU PLESSIS It is Mr Rossouw's, Mr Chairman, it wasn't my client who marked it, but it is the same position. MR LAX Perhaps Mr Rossouw's could just be circulated around that way, so that the other parties could just check on that. MR DU PLESSIS Thank you Mr Chairman, may I proceed? CHAIRPERSON Yes. MR LAMEY Mr Chairman, may I just clarify from my learned friend, Mr du Plessis, my photocopy has got six round circles. CHAIRPERSON So has mine. MR LAMEY So there must have been two drawn in. MR DU PLESSIS Mr Rossouw put it another two here, Mr Chairman, or somebody else then. MR LAX Somebody was doodling were they, a bit board with the questioning. MR DU PLESSIS But I think it is clear from the position, where it was, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON And while we are looking at this, you've got it in front of you, you were somewhere, you were, where were you in the line on the extreme right? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes. CHAIRPERSON So you would be the first person to see him coming from the back? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct, yes. CHAIRPERSON And you would be shooting at an angle? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. CHAIRPERSON Towards the rear of the bakkie? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. MR DU PLESSIS Very well, Mr Labuschagne, can you explain to the Committee that after you shot the informer, what did you do then? MR LABUSCHAGNE I moved to the back of the bakkie. At the back door of the bakkie, I then shot at those sitting inside, it was approximately hip height. I then shot until the weapon was empty. MR LAX When you say the back door, you are talking about the sort of opening of the canopy? MR LABUSCHAGNE The canopy door, that is right. MR DU PLESSIS Will you look at Exhibit E please, the photograph of the bakkie. Can you see that there are bullet wounds at the back of the bakkie? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR DU PLESSIS The back window is also out? Very well Mr Labuschagne, on page 182, the second paragraph, the second sentence the statement says "... the driver jumped out immediately, then ran behind the bakkie when a passenger jumped out with a pistol in his hand." MR LABUSCHAGNE No, that is not correct. MR DU PLESSIS Very well. Can you remember if you saw anybody jumping out on the left hand side of the bakkie? MR LABUSCHAGNE No Mr Chairperson. MR DU PLESSIS Very well, there was evidence and you heard it from Mr Deetlefts, he was not quite sure about this aspect and then at one stage said that as far as he could recall the door was open slightly and that the door was not open wide, but only slightly ajar. What is your comment concerning this? Is it possible? MR LABUSCHAGNE It could be possible, but the fact is that when that bakkie stopped and the driver jumped out, we immediately started to fire. And as I have said, nobody could get out of that vehicle from the left hand side. MR DU PLESSIS Very well, is that how you remember it? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is how I remember it. MR DU PLESSIS In the third paragraph it says "... Eugene de Kock immediately started to fire and the other members followed him." Can you remember who started to fire first or can you not remember? MR LABUSCHAGNE If I remember correctly, it was also during the planning that we decided that Col de Kock would start to fire at that stage and that is why I also put that in my statement. MR DU PLESSIS Well the next two sentences, or the next sentence, the members were armed with R1s and Uzzis? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. As I have already said, we had R1s and hand carbines, and there was also R1 rifles. MR DU PLESSIS Very well. It says also that three of the occupants of the car died, it was the two who were inside the vehicle and the driver who was outside? Was there anybody in the canopy of the vehicle? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, except for weaponry and explosives. MR DU PLESSIS Very well, and the weapons that were submitted as evidence, Exhibit C, you saw the photographs, was that the weapons that you saw or found at the back of the bakkie? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, I cannot specifically say if it was all that was found in the back of the bakkie, but I remember the rucksacks, there was an AK47, yes I would say that would be the weapons that we found. MR DU PLESSIS Very well. And you also heard evidence that Mr de Kock allegedly placed an AK47 on top of a person, is that true? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MR DU PLESSIS Okay, and the last paragraph on page 182, what is your comment concerning that, is that correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is. MR DU PLESSIS Mr Labuschagne, did you know Bernard and Tollman before? MR LABUSCHAGNE We did know about them as trained MK soldiers. At that stage they were in Swaziland. MR DU PLESSIS Where were you stationed when this incident occurred? MR LABUSCHAGNE I was at Ermelo at the Security Branch. MR DU PLESSIS And where did you operate? MR LABUSCHAGNE My operational area was Swaziland. MR DU PLESSIS And the information concerning Bernard and Tollman, can you just give us more information concerning that, what information did you have? MR LABUSCHAGNE If I can recall, the information was that not long before this specific incident, they would have arrived in Swaziland and the information was very vague at that stage, we could not really identify them positively on the information that we had, but just the fact that Bernard and Tollman were in Swaziland. MR DU PLESSIS Very well, Mr Labuschagne, did you know anything about Sandani? MR LABUSCHAGNE No. No, I had no information concerning him. MR DU PLESSIS And Zandile? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, no information. I also did not know of him. MR DU PLESSIS Very well. Mr Labuschagne, broadly speaking, the MK members who operated in Swaziland and people who supported the freedom fighters in Swaziland, did you have any knowledge during that time of MK members who operated from Swaziland into the Republic? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct, yes. MR DU PLESSIS And generally speaking, the people who operated from Swaziland, were they South African citizens or were they Swazi citizens? MR LABUSCHAGNE Mainly they were South African citizens. To use the English word, they were in exile and they were trained or received military training and in certain cases, there were Swazi's who helped them, which was a big problem because not only helping them across the border, they also provided housing. They provided them with vehicles, that is the trained MK members, they also hid weapons for them. MR DU PLESSIS Very well. Mr Labuschagne, this statement of yours is more or less word for word the same as the statements of Mr Greyling, Pienaar and Deetlefts. Your application was submitted for amnesty internally and that is for this incident, is that correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes. MR DU PLESSIS Various other applications were submitted for external operations, is that correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes. MR DU PLESSIS And for the purpose of today's evidence, we do not have to go into the background of the submitting of the applications for the external operations or the operations abroad. Mr Chairman, I would prefer to refrain from any evidence pertaining to that, as I will have to present that in an application to the Committee, and I would rather not deal with it here. Mr Labuschagne, before Mr Strydom Britz became your Attorney in June 1989, who was your Attorney? MR LABUSCHAGNE It was Mr Prinsloo who is here today and Mrs van der Walt. MR DU PLESSIS Very well, and did they represent you when this statement was used in support of your application for amnesty? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct, yes. MR DU PLESSIS Can you remember more or less when you saw them for the first time, or when you went to go and see them for the first time? MR LABUSCHAGNE The original statement was signed in December, this was December 1996, it was approximately in that time. MR DU PLESSIS And that was just before the first cut-off date? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct, yes. MR DU PLESSIS Very well, Mr Labuschagne, you will see that this statement of yours on page 197 is dated 9 June 1998, was that when you signed this statement on 197, you have already met them? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes. MR DU PLESSIS And was anything changed in the contents of your statement, and that is the previous statement that you made in 1996? MR LABUSCHAGNE No Mr Chairperson. MR DU PLESSIS Mr Chairman, maybe I must just place this on record, Ms Lockhat has the original application that was signed in 1996 and this one was then signed in 1998 and what happened was, the applications for the operations in Swaziland were included in a more detailed amnesty application we have lodged in July 1998. Mr Labuschagne, when you met Mr Britz, did you consult him concerning the external operations, abroad? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR DU PLESSIS And your application for amnesty was then extended to include these operations abroad? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. MR DU PLESSIS Did you in any way consult with Mr Britz concerning this incident? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I did not consult him concerning this, it was mainly about the incidents abroad. MR DU PLESSIS And this statement was dictated word for word? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. MR DU PLESSIS Very well. Mr Labuschagne, let us just go back to December 1996, can you remember or can you explain to the Committee how it happened that you applied for amnesty and who you consulted with? MR LABUSCHAGNE The consultation occurred with Mrs van der Walt and the amnesty applications were as a result of the fact that it was, we were told ... MR DU PLESSIS Let me stop you there. Who was present when you consulted with Mrs van der Walt? MR LABUSCHAGNE The other members who were there that specific day and maybe not during our consultation, it was Chris Deetlefts, Paul van Dyk, Freek Pienaar, Johan Botha and Dan Greyling I already mentioned, Mr Verwey who was not specifically part of this group. I cannot remember who else was there. I think there were also applicants for other specific applications. MR DU PLESSIS Where did this take place? MR LABUSCHAGNE That was Argent, on the farm of Mrs van der Walt. She has an office there. MR DU PLESSIS What did you do that day, except for the consultation? MR LABUSCHAGNE After the consultation, there was also a function there on that specific day. MR DU PLESSIS If you talk about a function, did you have a braai? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR DU PLESSIS Very well, Mr Labuschagne, did you prepare a document with information also concerning this incident and other incidents that you were involved in? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct, yes. MR DU PLESSIS And what did you do with that document on that day? MR LABUSCHAGNE That specific document I handed over to Mrs van der Walt. MR DU PLESSIS Very well. Mr Labuschagne, that document contains information concerning, or with regard to the incidents that you are applying now for amnesty? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR DU PLESSIS Including the incidents abroad? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. MR DU PLESSIS The document contains certain information inter alia pertaining to informants, the names of informants and information such as that. It also contains information pertaining to the other amnesty applications which I don't, my client does not want to waive his privilege pertaining to that. I am going to only ask him a question about what was contained in the document pertaining to this incident. You saw the document a while ago, Mrs van der Walt made it available to you. Can you just then tell the Committee concerning this document, in the first instance, it was numbered, item 5, what did you write there? MR LABUSCHAGNE Chris Deetlefts describes in full. MR DU PLESSIS Is that what you wrote? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is. MR DU PLESSIS Chris Deetlefts describes in full, you didn't write anything else? MR LABUSCHAGNE No. MR DU PLESSIS Mr Labuschagne, can you remember if this specific incident and that is with the other applicants and also Mr Deetlefts among others, was discussed before you had the consultation with Mrs van der Walt? MR LABUSCHAGNE I am not quite sure, but I think we did talk about the incident and afterwards I also wrote Chris Deetlefts discussed it in full. MR DU PLESSIS Very well. Can you remember if this incident as you have just testified about it, was discussed in detail with Mrs van der Walt? MR LABUSCHAGNE No. MR DU PLESSIS Can you not remember or didn't you? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I cannot remember. I do not believe that I discussed it in such detail with her. MR DU PLESSIS Very well. Now, Mr Labuschagne, this evidence that you have provided us with now, concerning or with regards to the instructions that you got concerning the elimination, as well as the evidence concerning the person who allegedly jumped out on the left hand side of the vehicle with a pistol in his hand, can you recall why it was included in your first amnesty application, that was a written statement? MR LABUSCHAGNE If I can remember correctly, there was talk that we had to all give the same story or that we have to give the same statement. MR DU PLESSIS If you are now talking about this talk, as it amongst the applicants? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is true. MR DU PLESSIS You do not include Mrs van der Walt in that? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I do not. MR DU PLESSIS Very well, and what is your attitude then today concerning the truth and what happened at that incident? MR LABUSCHAGNE My attitude is that there are two parts, that is not hundred percent correct in the statement and I feel that the truth must be revealed concerning these two specific sections in the statement. MR DU PLESSIS Very well. And the mistakes, in the consultation to mentioned them to me? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR DU PLESSIS Very well. Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me for a moment. Mr Labuschagne, can you recall if in the original statement, I think Ms Lockhat has it, Mr Chairman, 12 or 13 December 1996, I am not hundred percent sure, that statement that you then signed, can you remember if it was on the same day that you consulted with Mrs van der Walt, or can you not remember? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I cannot remember. MR DU PLESSIS Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions. I am very sorry Mr Labuschagne, but at the end of your application, page 196 of this Bundle, there is a section that you added on, could you just read to that us please. Can you read it especially to the families of the victims? MR LABUSCHAGNE I will begin to say, I believed that what I did was in the interest of the Republic of South Africa, the people, my religion and my christian beliefs. I am not sure today where I am standing now, and I do not know how I find myself in this position. I feel unhappy and I feel sorry for the victims of those and also those who lost their lives. I hope that this will also be, this will also lead in me finding reconciliation and understanding with all the people of South Africa, it is however not me to decide who is right or wrong, but as a full member of the Republic of South Africa, it must also be the same for all the other former fighters for freedom. MR DU PLESSIS Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH Mr Labuschagne, did you know what information Mr Sithole provided or gave, that led to this operation? MR LABUSCHAGNE I just heard this from Mr Pienaar, I did not know specifically from Sithole. MR HATTINGH Did you know of Mr Sithole independent of what you heard from Mr Pienaar? MR LABUSCHAGNE No. MR HATTINGH Your instruction was to kill Mr Sithole, is that correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes. MR HATTINGH If I may ask you a hypothetical question, or maybe I should just ask this question first, after the shooting, did you go closer to see if he was dead, this is now Mr Sithole? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I did not go to him specifically. MR HATTINGH Let us presume that you did go to him and he was still alive, what would you have done? MR LABUSCHAGNE I would have shot him again. MR HATTINGH Because that was your instruction? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes. MR HATTINGH And that was your decision before that you would kill all the occupants of the vehicle? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. MR HATTINGH The weaponry that was in the back of the bakkie, did you look at it while it was still in the bakkie? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, I did look at it. MR HATTINGH This launch tube that is on the second photograph, Exhibit A, that is a relatively large object? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MR HATTINGH If I look at it, it does not seem as if it will fit in one of those carrier bags, was it laying open as it is in the photograph? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, if I can recall correctly. MR HATTINGH Can you recall if any of the other weapons that we can see in the bottom photograph, was also open in comparison with those that were closed in the bags? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I do not know but I do remember the launching tube. MR HATTINGH You say that you used a hand carbine, what was the fabrication of it? MR LABUSCHAGNE It was an HMK. MR HATTINGH What calibre did it use? MR LABUSCHAGNE It was a 9mm. MR HATTINGH Very well. And how many rounds did you have in the magazine? MR LABUSCHAGNE I cannot remember, I remember that it was full, I do not know if it was 20 or 30 rounds. MR HATTINGH Did you use any light tracing rounds? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, there were tracers in it. MR HATTINGH Do you know the principle of the tracer round? MR LABUSCHAGNE If I understand you correctly ... MR HATTINGH The result is then that this bullet will glow in the dark? MR LABUSCHAGNE As far as I know it is phosphor or some element. MR HATTINGH That makes it glow in the dark? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR HATTINGH Is it correct that the projectile itself, the round, the back part of it has a hollow bit in? MR LABUSCHAGNE I cannot remember specifically. It is marked, but you can see that it is a tracer, I think it is red or green. MR HATTINGH But I am now talking about the shell, I am talking about the bullet head, did you see that? MR LABUSCHAGNE No. MR HATTINGH This element or substance that burns, do you know where that is located in this round? The bullet itself is partly hollow at the back and that the phosphor would be in that section of the bullet, the projectile would then be like a fire works display in that it glows? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I do not know the specific knowledge of it. MR HATTINGH Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH MR ROSSOUW Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no questions. NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Labuschagne, I have singular questions that I have for you, just points for clarification. On page 180 the final sentence where you stated that it was agreed with the informer that he would have to drop off the trained MK members at a determined point along the Nersden/Amsterdam Road, upon which an arrest would follow. You say that this is not correct and true? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. As I can recall, all of them had to be shot dead pertaining to this particular incident. MR LAMEY Yes, but as I read the sentence, it indicates that there were some form of an agreement with the informer, I understand what you have said. MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, I also read it as such. MR LAMEY You were not present during the discussion where the informer had to identify the place alongside the Amsterdam/Nersden Road and so forth? MR LABUSCHAGNE No. MR LAMEY We can accept then that the informer would not have known that he would be shot during the ambush? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, I accept that. MR LAMEY It is logical? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, it is a logical conclusion. MR LAMEY Very well, can you recall precisely and independently at precisely what moment the first shots were fired at the scene where the bakkie stopped, can you recall the precise moment and the position of the driver or the informer when the first shots were fired? MR LABUSCHAGNE If I can recall correctly, he had not reached a point where I could shoot him yet, when the first shots were fired. MR LAMEY At which stage did you receive the specific order that you had to shoot him? MR LABUSCHAGNE It was on the afternoon, before we moved out to our relevant points, I was instructed to shoot the informer. MR LAMEY Who told you this? MR LABUSCHAGNE It was Col de Kock. MR LAMEY In a personal discussion? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, it was not a personal discussion, there were also others who were present. MR LAMEY When you say that there were others, can you recall whether Mr Fourie was present or not? MR LABUSCHAGNE At that stage when it was said to me, all participants in the operation were together on a smallholding. MR LAMEY Can you recall specifically and independently whether Mr Fourie was present at that stage? MR LABUSCHAGNE It is possible, I wouldn't be able to say, but as far as I know, everyone who was involved with the operation, was present at that stage, and all of these persons are the persons who are present here today. MR LAMEY Is it your assumption that everyone was present there, because ultimately everyone was at the scene, everyone who is here today at least? MR LABUSCHAGNE I would say that everybody had to have been there, because at that stage, everybody had been instructed what they had to do, who they had to move with, that sort of thing. MR LAMEY But it remains an assumption of yours, you don't have an independent recollection of seeing Mr Fourie there at that particular point where you were informed that the driver would be shot? MR LABUSCHAGNE Very well, I would concede that he may have been absent, but as far as I can recall, when an operation was being planned, people wouldn't walk around, everybody would be there if they were part of an operation. MR LAX Mr Labuschagne, he might have gone to the toilet, he might have gone outside, anything is possible? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is why I have stated I will concede that he may not have been present. MR LAMEY Very well. You say the shots were fired when, just after the driver had disembarked, he had not yet reached the point where you could shoot him? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, as I have stated, it was not possible yet for me to shoot him, otherwise I would have had to fire through the bakkie as the other shots were being fired. MR LAMEY Can you recall whether during planning, after you had received the order to shoot him, whether any modus operandi was calculated in terms of time calculations as to when you were supposed to shoot him, because if you took up position behind the bakkie and you were the person who had to shoot him, how would that have operated? MR LABUSCHAGNE I cannot recall whether there was any calculation of time as such, whether such a modus operandi was actually calculated. MR LAMEY Well let us assume whether it was in the planning, or let me put it like this, was it part of the plan for the shooting to commence immediately after the bakkie had come to a standstill, in other words ... MR LABUSCHAGNE I cannot recall such fine detail. MR LAMEY In other words before the driver had disembarked or just after he had disembarked or was the plan for you to wait a few moments until he had come into the position that you could shoot him and ... MR LABUSCHAGNE If I can reconstruct my recollection, if I can recall correctly, I was told that the informer would run away from the bakkie, to the rear of the bakkie. I cannot recall whether there were any precise calculations of time as such. CHAIRPERSON As I understand your evidence, what had been decided was that de Kock would fire first and then the rest of you would fire? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. CHAIRPERSON So it was a matter of de Kock's discretion? MR LAMEY You see the reason why I have asked you this is because the driver did not know that he was a target, and if the shooting were to commence too quickly, my inference tells me that he could have decided to change direction completely in order to escape the line of fire, which could then have defeated the objective that you had of shooting him? MR LABUSCHAGNE It is possible, but as I recall, I have told you now, I couldn't shoot the man when the shots were fired next to me. MR LAMEY But what I want to ask you is whether or not it is possible that fire was opened once he had reached the rear of the bakkie? MR LABUSCHAGNE No. MR LAMEY Are you certain of that? MR LABUSCHAGNE I am certain of that. MR LAMEY Wouldn't you allow any room for this possibility, perhaps a number of seconds? If you consider something that took place 13 years ago, this could have taken place? MR LABUSCHAGNE I recall that I could not shoot him when the fire was opened next to me. MR LAMEY Very well. You see ... (tape ends) ... other than what it may be necessary, I would just like to tell you that Mr Fourie's recollection is and I just want to find the appropriate point or extract from the documents ... CHAIRPERSON Does it really matter when they opened fire, this man was killed at the rear of the bakkie we have heard? MR LAMEY It is just the recollection of Mr Fourie which is just slightly different in this regard, Chairperson, I don't want to split hairs, really, and this is the basis on which I approach it. As it pleases you Chairperson. Very well. Mr Fourie's recollection is that the driver was at the rear of the bakkie when the shots were fired, that is what I put to you, you recall it differently. He could not see it precisely, but he moved to that side when the shots were fired. MR LABUSCHAGNE To the rear of the bakkie? MR LAMEY Yes. MR LABUSCHAGNE Could you rephrase that question please? MR LAX Sorry Mr Lamey, did I hear you say that Fourie couldn't see this clearly? MR LAMEY Let me just make sure about this, just a moment Chairperson. MR LAX Yes. MR LAMEY Sorry, I've got it, thank you Chairperson, what Mr Fourie says in his affidavit is that he disembarked and walked to the back of the bakkie, the driver, we are now referring to the driver. Then Mr Fourie states that when he wanted to open the canopy, the shots were fired, and he states further, this is quite important, he couldn't see that he was opening the canopy, he wasn't in a position according to my instructions, to view this, due to his position. Mr Fourie was at the front, near the front of the bakkie, but it is based upon inference here because somebody related subsequently that somebody had tried to open the canopy? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, there is no way that he could have been close to the canopy. MR LAMEY Very well, the position where he was shot, how far away from the canopy was this? MR LABUSCHAGNE Are you referring to the door of the canopy at the rear, or the canopy itself? MR LAMEY No, I am assuming that he wasn't in front of the canopy where one could open the canopy. MR LABUSCHAGNE I would say about two paces then. MR LAMEY Very well. CHAIRPERSON Fourie also said there was someone else in the back of the bakkie? MR LAMEY Yes, which in retrospect we will testify and concede. CHAIRPERSON It shows how inaccurate his recollection is. MR LAMEY Sure Chairperson. MR LAX Should we be dwelling on this at all, in the light of that? MR LAMEY As it pleases you Chairperson. May I just ask you, I just want to mention this, this is merely something which Mr Fourie can recall, is that somebody said that he tried to open the canopy. You don't know anything of such a statement, is that what you are trying to say? MR LABUSCHAGNE No. MR LAMEY And then can you recall whether you told Fourie at the scene that you were going to shoot Sithole? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, as far as I know, when we arrived at the scene, every person knew what he was supposed to do, the planning had already been completed at the smallholding. MR LAMEY Is it possible that you may have told him and that you cannot recall this, because he has a very clear recollection of this? MR LABUSCHAGNE I wouldn't deny that I told him this. MR LAMEY Very well, you would not deny it? I've got no further questions, thank you Chairperson. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY MR RAMAWELE I've got no questions, thank you. NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAMAWELE CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Labuschagne, these events took place 13 years ago and I assume that these events also took place rather quickly? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR PRINSLOO Mr Labuschagne, this particular order that you received, I just want some clarity about that, the order that you received from Col de Kock to shoot the informer? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. MR PRINSLOO So you did not receive it from Col Deetlefts, but Col de Kock, he was the person issuing the commands? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR PRINSLOO And Mr Labuschagne, your attention was focused on the order to shoot the informer? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. MR PRINSLOO So you kept him in view at all times, and I am not trying to trick you, but with these events which took place so quickly, isn't it possible that it was necessary for you to check what was happening with the passenger doors? You merely assume what took place there? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I am not assuming, the bakkie drove passed me and my point of perspective of the bakkie was from a corner or an angle as such. MR PRINSLOO Mr Labuschagne, when the bakkie came to a standstill was your attention fixed on the side of the driver, because you knew that the driver was the informer, isn't that correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. MR PRINSLOO So you were watching his movements to the rear of the vehicle? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR PRINSLOO So you had no reason to observe the passenger door as such? MR LABUSCHAGNE If I might just explain properly, this was a very small bakkie and from my position, from where I had to shoot, I couldn't really lay flat in order to shoot, because the magazine would be pressing against the ground. I was almost on my knees so that I could observe the driver and from my point of view, I could observe just about the whole bakkie. MR PRINSLOO But Mr Labuschagne what I am asking you is, you were looking at the bakkie and you were looking at the driver who disembarked and after he disembark, fire was opened on the bakkie? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. MR PRINSLOO And then you had to observe the driver in order to shoot him? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR PRINSLOO So in the dark, you had to aim specifically to shoot dead a man in front of you, how then could you observe the passenger door while your attention was supposed to be fixed on the driver? MR LABUSCHAGNE If I recall correctly, it wasn't really that dark on that evening. One could observe the bakkie very clearly along with the passengers, one could clearly observe the passenger or at least the driver jumping out on the left hand side. MR PRINSLOO You have heard Pienaar and Mr Deetlefts' evidence regarding this aspect of the door? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. MR PRINSLOO And Mr Labuschagne, you state in your evidence that in your written instructions to Mrs van der Walt, you stated that Mr Deetlefts gave a thorough description of what took place there, is that correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE No. MR PRINSLOO Well, this is what you have read, this is what I understand from the document, Deetlefts gives a thorough description? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR PRINSLOO And I assume that at that stage, when the document was compiled as such, you didn't really have a problem with what Deetlefts stated there? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MR PRINSLOO Very well. Mr Labuschagne, just another point, because it appears that there may be some interpretation on your behalf, my colleague Mr Lamey has already examined you about this, and I just want to be certain of this, on page 180 you state that it was agreed with the informer that he would stop at a determined point along the Amsterdam/Nersden Road with these MK persons after which an arrest would ensue? This is what Deetlefts and Pienaar state, there was an agreement with the informer, not that they would conduct the arrest? Do you agree with that? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, I agree with that. CHAIRPERSON Was it an agreement in that strict sense of the word or was that what the informer was told? MR PRINSLOO It would be better put Mr Chairman, with respect, as what the informer was told, in respect of using the choice of words in stead of saying there was an agreement. Thank you Mr Chairman. I've got no further questions, thank you Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO MS VAN DER WALT Mr Chairman, Mr Lubbe will do the cross-examination. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LUBBE Mr Labuschagne, I am representing Mr Deetlefts in connection with the cross-examination. There are just certain aspects, Mr Prinsloo has already referred to most of the aspects that I wished to refer to. The first of mine is in response to a question which was put by Adv du Plessis pertaining to the version of Mr Deetlefts surrounding the events regarding the passenger on the left side. Would you concede that Mr Deetlefts' evidence could possibly be correct in this regard, is that correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE In regard that the door may have been opened somewhat, but not that the person jumped out, wielding a pistol. MR LUBBE Yes, you will recall that during the cross-examination of Mr Deetlefts by Mr du Plessis, much was made of this aspect to the extent that Mr Deetlefts conceded that his perception of the events, was as he ultimately testified, that being that he was under the impression that someone opened the door, of that the person was in the process of disembarking, is that correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes. MR LUBBE Therefore you do not dispute Mr du Plessis' version in this regard, if I understand your evidence correctly? Therefore what you mean is that you are not disputing Mr Deetlefts' version? MR LABUSCHAGNE Well, if that was his perception, then that was his perception, but what I am disputing is the fact that I say that no one jumped out, wielding a pistol. That the door may have been somewhat ajar, is a possibility. MR LUBBE Yes, and he conceded that Mr de Kock's version in this regard is much more probable and should rather be accepted over his own version, you will recall this? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, I think I recall this. MR LUBBE And I think that it is justified, this statement that Mr Prinsloo put to you, that you were more focused on the driver because it was your ultimate order to take out the driver of the vehicle? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, I would agree that that was my focal point, but as I have stated, it wasn't a very large vehicle and from my point of view, I could observe the entire vehicle. MR LUBBE Very well. CHAIRPERSON Yes, but what you would have been interested in observing surely, is and I presume you were looking through the glass doors, the driver moving down towards the rear of the vehicle where you expected to be able to shoot him? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct Chairperson. MR LUBBE Mr Labuschagne, there are just certain statements that I wish to put to you and I think that with respect to the Committee, it might not be of such relevance, but I would just like clarity with regard to the taking of the statements. I understand from Adv van der Walt, that the first discussion with you took place as far back as the 25th of November 1996, in Middelburg, at the home of Dan King, can you recall this discussion? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I cannot recall this. MR LUBBE Can you recall a subsequent discussion on the 28th of November at a restaurant by the name of Burger Hut, Middelburg, that afternoon at 16H00? MR LABUSCHAGNE If I recall correctly, at a certain stage we were there, yes. MR LUBBE Can you recall subsequently that you were in the office of Brig Visser on the 5th of December, I beg your pardon in the office of Mr Deetlefts on the 5th of December, and that is where you consulted with Adv van der Walt? MR LABUSCHAGNE no. MR LUBBE Upon this occasion the following persons were present, Brig Visser, Mr Deetlefts, Mr Loggerenberg, yourself and one other person? MR LABUSCHAGNE I can recall the Burger Hut event. MR LUBBE Can you recall further that the cut-off date for these amnesty applications was the 14th of December 1996 and that for two preceding days, the 12th and the 13th of December, you were at the home of Adv van der Walt, where you were consulting in order to finalise these applications? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, I was there on one Friday afternoon, if I recall correctly, it was a Friday afternoon, but not two days. MR LUBBE But nonetheless, this statement which is not part of the evidence which is in the possession of the Evidence Leader, was signed by you as an affidavit? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. MR LUBBE If you would grant me a moment's indulgence. Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Labuschagne, with regard to Mr Botha, my instructions are that he recalls that both you and he moved around the rear of the bakkie, and that it was from behind that Botha fired into the bakkie, can you recall this? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I cannot recall this. I recall specifically myself, that I fired into the bakkie. MR LUBBE Thank you Chairperson. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LUBBE MR LAX Mr Lubbe, can you just clarify because it may be relevant later, does Botha say, when he says they moved around the back of the bakkie, what does he mean, does he mean they moved from the left hand side of the bakkie, somewhere not at the back of it, around to the back of it, is that what he is saying? MR LUBBE Mr Chairman, as I've got it, they were positioned as described by the witness and they got up and moved to the back of the vehicle, in other words, they didn't move passed the vehicle, but they were then positioned at the back of the vehicle and then Mr Botha started firing into the vehicle, in other words ... CHAIRPERSON This was after the shooting? MR LAX Where is that different from ... CHAIRPERSON Of the driver? MR LUBBE After the shooting initially ensued, yes. MR LAX How is that different from what he has testified already? CHAIRPERSON He says he shot, Botha says he shot. MR LUBBE Yes. MR LAX He said he was laying at a point in line with the third of those circles, no, he was laying as the last of those circles and he started shooting at the driver and then while he was shooting, once he hit the driver, he then carried on moving towards the back of the vehicle. MR LUBBE And he would then be accompanied by Mr Botha. MR LAX So the only thing in issue is that he was accompanied by Mr Botha at that point? MR LUBBE That is so. I did not recall him testifying that he was accompanied by Botha when he proceeded. MR LAX Yes, no that is fine, it is not how they moved, etc, that was more the focus of my confusion. MR LUBBE As it pleases you. MR LAX Sorry, Mr Labuschagne, just to clarify it for myself, do you recall whether you may have been accompanied by Mr Botha or not? MR LABUSCHAGNE I cannot recall this. CHAIRPERSON Quarter to two? COMMITTEE ADJOURNS MS LOCKHAT Chairperson, just during the break, I furnished every, all the legal representatives with a copy of Mr Labuschagne's initial, just during the lunch break, I furnished all the legal representatives with a copy of Labuschagne's initial application and I have copies for the Committee, if you would like another set, if it is necessary. I don't know if you want another set? MR LAX So we will make this H, will we? MS LOCKHAT That is correct, Exhibit H. MR LAX Does anyone know where Mr du Plessis and his witness is? Pardon? MR LAMEY Mr Chairman, I didn't see his car outside, I know that they left for lunch just a few minutes ago. MR LAX Maybe we should adjourn. MR DU PLESSIS Mr Chairman, may I profusely apologise, we, it is usually very quick with this place where we go to, and today of all days, they weren't as quick as they usually are, so I apologise. CHAIRPERSON I don't know if it is you or Mr Rossouw, who is perhaps kicking things around? MR DU PLESSIS That is mine, Mr Chairman, and Mr Rossouw asks me to specifically place on record, that we didn't watch the cricket and we don't know the score, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON 97/4. MR DU PLESSIS Thank you. CHAIRPERSON While we are talking, before we get back onto the thing, I don't want to anticipate things at this stage, but I may it seems, have been a little optimistic about our ability to complete the hearing, I think we will go on this afternoon until four o'clock and see what the position is like now. If it becomes clear that we will not, my proposal would then be gentlemen if we have to adjourn part-heard, that we adjourn fairly early tomorrow, for those who have reservations to go elsewhere or other such things. I gather that others may already have arrived at similar conclusions and that there may be tentative adjourned dates available? MS LOCKHAT That is correct Chairperson, the 7th of January 2000. CHAIRPERSON January? MS LOCKHAT February? CHAIRPERSON I was told February. MS LOCKHAT My apology, February, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON All right, shall we continue? FRANS HENDRIK SMALBERGER LABUSCHAGNE (s.u.o.) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NTHAI Mr Labuschagne, you say you were armed with a hand carbine, is that correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. MR NTHAI And that is a 9mm is that correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. MR NTHAI If you look at the post-mortem of Mzwandile, sorry of Sithole ... MS LOCKHAT It is page 56 Chairperson, page 56. MR LAX Sorry once again, your 56, our 58 I think. MR NTHAI I cannot get it myself here. MR LAX This is post-mortem 105 of it say 1996, but it should be 1986. MR NTHAI If you look at that post-mortem, Mr Labuschagne, there are quite a number of gunshot wounds, they talk about the multiple gunshot wounds, one which is one centimetre about the right eye, exit wound and the others are actually mentioned, would you say that all these wounds were caused by your firearm? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR NTHAI And it also indicates that there was a scull fracture which extends from the left ear over to the above right ear, would also that be caused by your type of firearm? MR LABUSCHAGNE Chairperson, I cannot really say anything about this report or give an opinion about it, but I shot this person with a 9mm and he fell and he died. MR NTHAI And you are the only person who shot him? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, as far as I know, I was the only person. MR NTHAI That is what I am asking you, that is what I am asking you? The type of the firearm that was used, can it cause the scull fracture? MR LABUSCHAGNE I do not know, I cannot say, it is possible, if the report says it, it is possible. MR NTHAI The other question I want to ask you is in respect of the post-mortem, I realise that you did not make an affidavit, is that correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MR NTHAI Why is it like that? MR LABUSCHAGNE I do not know, I was never approached for an affidavit concerning this. MR NTHAI Were you part of the meeting where it was discussed how the affidavit was going to be drafted? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I was not present. MR NTHAI You were not even aware of these affidavits? MR LABUSCHAGNE All that I know is that there was a post-mortem report, but I do not know anything about the statements surrounding this. MR NTHAI So you did not even know about the inquest that was held? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I do know that there was a post-mortem inquest. MR NTHAI Okay. I want to bring you to the scene, especially the point where you are saying you shot the driver. Now, you are saying that Mr de Kock was to fire first, is that correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, we agreed upon that. MR NTHAI And Mr de Kock was using a high calibre weapon, is that correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE I cannot specifically remember what weapon he had with him. MR NTHAI I think you talked about the R1 or R4, I don't remember, but it is R1 or R4, is that correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I said R1 weapons and hand carbine weapons were available. MR NTHAI No, no, Mr de Kock himself, Mr de Kock himself talked about, I don't remember whether he talked about an R1 or an R4, I stand to be corrected there, but he was using either an R1 or an R4? MR LAX It was an R1, Mr Nthai. MR NTHAI Yes, R1, he was using an R1. Now, according to you, the driver was supposed to go out and come towards your direction, is that correct? That was the plan? CHAIRPERSON He didn't say towards his direction? MR NTHAI No, no, towards the direction where he was? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct, yes. MR DU PLESSIS Mr Chairman, with respect, that wasn't the evidence, I think the question is a little bit ambiguous. The evidence was not that the driver would have come towards Mr Labuschagne, the evidence was that the driver would have got out and walked to the back of the van. CHAIRPERSON To the right, to the back of the van. MR NTHAI But that is where Mr Labuschagne was? CHAIRPERSON He wasn't, he was on the other side of the van, laying on the side of the road, on the left of the van? There was no evidence whatsoever that when the driver got to the end of the van, he was to turn right and walk towards Mr Labuschagne. MR NTHAI I mean he would go out towards the direction where Mr Labuschagne was laying? Is that correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, he ... CHAIRPERSON Have you looked at the plan and seen where Mr Labuschagne was laying? There was no suggestion that he would walk towards that? MR NTHAI Well, Mr Chairman, I have a problem because I was not shown the plan. I was not shown the point where he says ... CHAIRPERSON What point weren't you shown? He told you he was on the extreme right hand of them laying on the side of the road? MR NTHAI Yes. CHAIRPERSON There was no suggestion ever in the evidence that the driver was to turn and go towards him, was there? MR NTHAI No, there was not. CHAIRPERSON No, why put it to him? MR NTHAI Well, I will put it this way ... MR DU PLESSIS Mr Chairman, perhaps just to make this clear, my Attorney is going to present Mr Nthai with Mr Rossouw's plan which has the eight little people there, but for the rest, it is the same. CHAIRPERSON It was to walk towards the rear of the bakkie, to get out of his door and walk towards the rear? MR NTHAI And that was within the vicinity where you were, is that correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MR NTHAI Now, if Mr de Kock was the first to fire and he was using a high calibre weapon, where would he have expected the driver to jump out and run towards? Look at that map? MR LAX What is the point of your question Mr Nthai, because it is a bit confusing, you said where was the driver expected to run? At what point, had they started firing, had they not fired? MR NTHAI At the point when Mr de Kock started firing? MR DU PLESSIS Mr Chairman, I think the evidence was that the driver had already been out of the car and had been moving to the back of the vehicle when the firing started? MR LAX Yes, that is what I was about to put to you Mr Nthai, because if you put that context in, then the question becomes clearer. MR NTHAI Let me put it this way, when Mr de Kock, when the first fire was fired, where was the driver, could you see him where you were? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, when I heard the first shot, or when they fired the first shot, the driver was not in a position where I could shoot him, he was still behind the back of the vehicle. MR NTHAI Yes, and when you saw him, where was he facing? MR LABUSCHAGNE If I can recall correctly, he was running in the one direction and I could see him from the side. I saw him on the right, his right side. MR NTHAI No, no, what I just want to know is whether he was facing the opposite direction where you were or he was facing where you were, was he facing where the bakkie was coming from? MR LABUSCHAGNE He was facing where the bakkie was coming from. MR NTHAI Where the bakkie was coming from? So, it would then appear that he was supposed to run and pass the bakkie and proceed straight, is that correct, where the bakkie was coming from? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MR NTHAI There was no indication that he was going to come towards your direction or the other side of the road? MR LABUSCHAGNE It was said to me before that he would run passed the bakkie on the side, and that is why I was running on the right far end, so that he was running towards Nersden when I wanted to shoot him. MR NTHAI According to the plan, there was an agreement with the driver that he was going to stop and go out as if he was going to urinate, you knew about that plan? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I heard it here in the evidence. MR NTHAI So you were not told about that? MR LABUSCHAGNE No. MR NTHAI And were you told, I mean you were told just, he would just pass there, you were not told where he would end up ultimately? MR LABUSCHAGNE No. MR NTHAI There is something that you explain here which I could not get well, you said after you shot him, you went to shoot at the people who were sitting inside, or shooting inside the bakkie, what, can you explain that again? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, what happened is that after the driver fell down, I moved to the back of the bakkie and then from about hip height I shot at the front of the bakkie, towards the front of the bakkie, towards the cabin of the bakkie. MR NTHAI And that happened immediately after the driver fell down? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct, yes. MR NTHAI And that was before you checked whether the driver was dead or not? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I never said that I went to go and look to see if he was dead or not. MR NTHAI No, no, I am saying, I am saying you did that before you checked whether the driver was dead or not? MR DU PLESSIS Mr Chairman, but he never testified that he checked whether the driver was dead, in fact he said that he didn't, he cannot remember that he checked and he didn't check. MR NTHAI Well, that is correct, that is what I am saying. CHAIRPERSON You are not, you are putting to him that he did this before he went and checked. He has told us he did not go and check, so it is not a question of before he went and checked? MR NTHAI Yes. CHAIRPERSON You can put to him that he did this without going to check? MR NTHAI Wouldn't be that, I mean your instruction was to kill Mr Sithole, the driver, why would you start shooting the other direction before you check whether he is dead or not? MR LABUSCHAGNE I did not think at it at that stage, but if I can give a reasonable explanation, at this stage, the fact is that we knew that this person was an informer and I wouldn't have been worried about him further more, I fired a few shots at him and he fell. MR NTHAI No, but your order was to kill him, Mr Labuschagne, your order was to kill him, is that not correct? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MR NTHAI Were you not interested that he was killed? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, we had to ascertain if the person was dead or not, but not at that stage, no, I wasn't interested. MR NTHAI But that is very strange, you know, that you have an order to shoot someone, you shoot him, he falls down and then you proceed to do other things in stead of finalising your mission, is that not strange? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I do not believe so. I fired various shots at the person and he fell to the ground, and he was laying still. MR NTHAI At the time, there was no threat against you, because there were other people who were firing at the time, not so, with heavy calibre weapons? MR LABUSCHAGNE I just fired shots through the back of the bakkie, I do not have a specific explanation for that. MR NTHAI And when you were given the order, were you told what were the reasons why Mr Sithole must be killed? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MR NTHAI What was the reason that was given to you? MR LABUSCHAGNE It was discussed there the fact that he could later become a threat for those who operated in Swaziland and if I can recall correctly it was also said and I speak under correction, that he could not be trusted at that stage. MR NTHAI I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NTHAI CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT Thank you Chairperson. Mr Labuschagne, just questions in relation to your amnesty application forms, you submitted one in 1996 and then in 1998, you applied for this incident in 1996 already? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MS LOCKHAT Did you have sight of the particulars attached to your amnesty application form of 1996 that is? MR LABUSCHAGNE In 1998? MS LOCKHAT In 1996? There is a little annexure annexed to your amnesty application form, just giving a description of the incidents. Did you have sight of that prior, or when did you have sight of those details? MR DU PLESSIS Mr Chairman, with respect, I don't know, the question isn't clear to the extent that I don't know if the question relates to the signing of the 1998 incident with reference to the 1996 application? MS LOCKHAT I am referring to the 1996 application form. There is the annexure attached. MR LAX Let me make it clear for you, let me make it clear for you. If one looks at annexure H, you will see that there is the Form 1, and that it is signed at the bottom of the third page, and then there is an Annexure A to that Form 1, and I think that is what you are talking about? MS LOCKHAT That is what I am referring to. MR LAX So to put it plainly, did you see this form, this Annexure A to this Form 1, before you signed it or when you signed it? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MS LOCKHAT You did? And you read the contents of it I assume? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MS LOCKHAT Why didn't you amend your 1996 application as you did today in relation to the arrest and others? MR LABUSCHAGNE If I can just give an explanation concerning this, it happened very quickly, it was about the McBride investigation and we had a limited period of time to do it in, and if I can recall correctly, I mentioned it to the legal representative that we could amend it at a later stage when there is an amnesty hearing and then give an explanation of what happened there. MS LOCKHAT Yes, it is just a very long time, and you had three years in which to amend the application? You do realise that? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, if I may say that I signed it in 1996 and I never saw it again up until 1998. In 1998 I again saw it for the first time. MS LOCKHAT At what stage did you see that that was incorrect, the issues relating to the arrest and others, at what stage? Was it during this hearing or was it previously, was it in 1998? MR LABUSCHAGNE As far as I can remember, it was at that stage and also when I was in consultation with Mr du Plessis, we then said that we have to amend this. That was during the amnesty hearing. MS LOCKHAT So it was during this amnesty hearing that you realised that it needed to be amended? Just please be more clear relating to that? MR LABUSCHAGNE I saw the content of it when I went over or changed Attorneys, and it was then accepted as it stood. Then my legal representative said that we have to amend it during the hearing, and with my consultation with Mr du Plessis, I also said to him that the facts are not completely correct and that I would like to amend it. CHAIRPERSON So even when you changed Attorneys and you went to another Attorney, you accepted this and you left it as it was? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. CHAIRPERSON It was only when you spoke to Mr du Plessis that you thought you had to change it? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MS LOCKHAT And then just one other question, you said you were from the Ermelo Branch? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct. MS LOCKHAT Who of the other members at the Ermelo Branch participated in this operation, can you remember, can you give us more names? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, there was no one from Ermelo except for Chris Deetlefts, who was the Commander at that stage. MS LOCKHAT Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT MR SIBANYONI Mr Labuschagne, the expectation was that when the driver disembark, would he run or would he walk away from the car? MR LABUSCHAGNE That I cannot remember, but I can remember that as I gave evidence earlier on, he opened the door and jumped out and then started to run. MR SIBANYONI You say you don't know anything about these expectations that he was supposed to pretend as if he was going to urinate? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I heard it here for the first time. MR SIBANYONI When you shot at him, was he running? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that is correct. MR SIBANYONI Did he fall immediately or did he run for some distance before he fell? MR LABUSCHAGNE He fell immediately after I shot him. MR SIBANYONI If that happened, was it necessary to shoot him so many times, several times, because according to the post-mortem there are several wounds, gunshot wounds? MR LABUSCHAGNE If I can explain, what you do is that the weapon is on automatic and then you pull the trigger ... (tape ends) ... MR NTHAI So would you say ... MR LABUSCHAGNE That is per second, various bullets can be fired. MR NTHAI Would you say most of the bullets struck him while he was standing or when he was already down on the ground? MR LABUSCHAGNE I cannot say. MR NTHAI Thereafter you immediately moved to the back of the van and started shooting through the canopy to the front? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MR NTHAI At what stage did Mr de Kock place the AK47 next to the driver? MR LABUSCHAGNE That was after the whole incident was over and we realised or found out what was inside the bakkie. Everybody was standing around the bakkie and we saw that there were weapons in the back. It was immediately afterwards, after the shooting ceased. MR NTHAI These AK47s, were they mantled or were they dismantled, because if I am not mistaken what we have heard is that when these weapons are infiltrated into the country, they will be dismantled and put in smaller bags, rather than to carry a long weapon like the rocket launcher, etc. Were they mantled or dismantled? MR LABUSCHAGNE The weapon was intact, it was assembled. MR NTHAI Thank you. No further questions, Mr Chairperson. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NTHAI MR LAX Thank you Chair. Mr Labuschagne, just so that I can be clear about this, what was the object of telling the first version? In other words the version that you have now conceded isn't true? MR LABUSCHAGNE I do not think there was something specific. Chris Deetlefts said that he would deal with the incident and that we have to adapt to what he says. MR LAX What was your purpose in doing that? MR LABUSCHAGNE To be honest, is to say exactly what everybody else said. MR LAX So, if I could put it bluntly, your version was just to make sure that there were no contradictions in everyone's statement? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MR LAX And to the extent that that version is different to what you are now saying, that would amount to a cover up? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MR LAX And you did that at the time, knowing that you were obliged to tell the truth? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MR LAX And what motivated you to change it? MR LABUSCHAGNE I think the whole motivation was based on the fact that the truth must come out. If I want amnesty, you have to tell the truth. MR LAX Your moving to the back of the vehicle and then opening fire with what was left in your magazine, was that a planned thing or was that just a spur of the moment decision or ... MR LABUSCHAGNE It was a spur of the moment decision. MR LAX You people weren't sure how many people would be in that vehicle? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, as far as I can remember. MR LAX Now, there could just as easily have been people sitting in the canopy, armed, ready to shoot you? MR LABUSCHAGNE It would have been possible, yes. MR LAX Did you not consider that as a possibility in your own thinking? MR LABUSCHAGNE To be honest, at that stage, no, I did not think of it, when I moved behind the bakkie and started to shoot. MR LAX This was, this incident happened as far as we are led to understand, on the 14th of August 1986? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MR LAX And at approximately half past nine in the evening? MR LABUSCHAGNE Yes, that could have been the time. MR LAX That is mid-winter, or thereabouts? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MR LAX Where did the light come from, for you to be able to see through the windows of the vehicle, in the dark? MR LABUSCHAGNE It was not a dark night, it wasn't pitch dark. I cannot remember if it was full moon, half moon, but we could see, or I could see quite clearly. CHAIRPERSON Were the lights of the vehicle turned off? MR LABUSCHAGNE I cannot remember Mr Chairperson. MR LAX No other artificial light was used by any of you people? MR LABUSCHAGNE No. MR LAX Did anyone have nightsight? MR LABUSCHAGNE No. MR LAX And you are quite sure that you had tracer bullets in your firearm? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct, yes. MR LAX And what about your other colleagues? MR LABUSCHAGNE They also had tracer rounds that was used, I cannot say if it was in all the weapons, but some of them. MR LAX Well, when you were at the farm, did you all load up your weapons together, did you sit down and - you see the obtaining of tracer bullets, requires, you don't just normally have them lurking around? They would have had to be obtained from somewhere? MR LABUSCHAGNE If I can remember correctly, I received it just like that, I did not load the magazine. MR LAX So you didn't specifically load tracer bullets into the magazine? MR LABUSCHAGNE No, I did not. I received the weapon from Piet Retief's people for this specific operation, it was not my issued rifle or weapon. MR LAX Do you remember who gave you your weapon, did somebody arrive with a whole stash of weapons and start distributing them? MR LABUSCHAGNE I cannot remember specifically who gave me my weapon. MR LAX How did you even know there were tracer bullets in the magazine? MR LABUSCHAGNE When I fired it, I saw that it was tracer bullets. MR LAX So you weren't even expecting that? MR LABUSCHAGNE Mr Chairperson, I cannot remember whether it was told to me that I had tracers, but there were definitely tracers in the weapon that I fired. MR LAX And besides your weapon, you saw other tracer bullets going off? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MR LAX Because they leave a very distinctive mark in the sky as they go off? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. MR LAX If you will just bear with me a moment, Chairperson. Thank you Chair, I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON You have told us you were on the extreme right of the firing line? MR LABUSCHAGNE That is correct yes. CHAIRPERSON Did you choose this place or were you told to go there? MR LABUSCHAGNE If I can recall, after it was decided, it was because of that decision that I had to shoot the informer, I was placed at that specific point. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Re-examination? MR DU PLESSIS No re-examination, thank you Mr Chairman. NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS WITNESS EXCUSED MS LOCKHAT Chairperson, the next amnesty applicant is Mr Eugene Fourie.