APPLICATION NO: AM3745/96

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Cornelius on behalf of Britz, he is the second applicant, I am prepared to call him, Mr Chair. We've got a bit of a sound problem.

MR LAX: Good morning Mr Britz, what are your full names for the record please?

DAWID JAKOBUS BRITZ: (sworn states)

MR LAX: Thank you, sworn in Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman. May I proceed, thank you Mr Chair. Mr Britz, you have prepared the application in terms of Act 18 of the Act of 1995, and handed it into the Truth Commission?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And at the time of the occurrence of this incident, you were an employee as defined in Section 18 and 20(b) and 20(f) of the Act of 1995?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And at the time of this incident, you were deployed to Section C1, known as Vlakplaas, the particulars of which have been thoroughly submitted to this Committee in the so-called Annexure C, which was submitted by my colleague, Mr Hattingh, during previous proceedings?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Do you confirm the general background in your amnesty application as it has been served before the Committee today?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: It is common cause that Col Eugene de Kock was your Commander and you carried out all orders given by him, expressly?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And at the time of this incident, you acted within the scope of your duties, as defined within the Act?

MR BRITZ: That is correct?

MR CORNELIUS: It is common cause that you received an order after a request was lodged by Durban Security Branch to move down to Natal, to carry out an operation on Goodwill Sikhakane, is that correct?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Who met you at Mooi Rivier before you departed to ...

MR BRITZ: As far as I recall, we met Mr Hanton there.

MR CORNELIUS: Is it correct that you went to a bar known as van der Merwe's where further details regarding the operation was discussed?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: What was the planning? I understand that a kombi vehicle was hired?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: How would you have contacted Neville, or Neville who is also better known as Goodwill Sikhakane?

MR BRITZ: Larry Hanton would have arranged an appointment with him.

MR CORNELIUS: To meet him when?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can I interrupt, as I understand the position, once you came down into Natal, you were then under the instructions of the Natal Security People?

MR BRITZ: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Hanton told you what to do, and made all the arrangements?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well, so Larry Hanton gave you complete instructions regarding what you were supposed to do?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: What did you then do?

MR BRITZ: From van der Merwe's we went to the Lion Park Lodge where we booked in and there we discussed the operation further.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well, did you then meet Goodwill Sikhakane later that evening, please explain to the Committee what took place?

MR BRITZ: It was not the same evening that I met him. The following day we hired the kombi. Swart and Hanton arranged for an appointment with Goodwill Sikhakane.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well, the weapon which was used, was it tested according to your knowledge?

MR BRITZ: As far as I can recall, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Please tell the Committee.

MR BRITZ: It was an AK47 with a silencer and at some or other place where there was an embankment, we tested it to see if it was operating.

MR CORNELIUS: I assume that the weapon was found to be suitable for use?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well, what took place later that evening?

MR BRITZ: Later that evening we drove in the kombi.

MR CORNELIUS: Who was driving?

MR BRITZ: As far as I can recall, the vehicle was driven by Blackie Swart.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well, what took place next?

MR BRITZ: Willie Nortje and I were seated at the back of the kombi.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, you concealed yourselves in the back of the kombi?

MR BRITZ: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: For what purpose?

MR BRITZ: So that not too many people would be able to see us, in the event of Neville not wanting to climb in.

MR CORNELIUS: Apparently the purpose was to overpower him?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you then pick up Goodwill Sikhakane?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And what happened next?

MR BRITZ: After we had driven some distance out of the town, I grabbed him from behind. Nortje hit him over the head with some form of a baton.

MR CORNELIUS: I see, in your application you speak of a leather plaque, what is that?

MR BRITZ: It is like a baton.

MR CORNELIUS: Is this the sort that one would find which had a round iron ball inside which was covered with leather?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Was it also a form of a baton?

MR BRITZ: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: How many blows did Nortje deal to him over the head?

MR BRITZ: Approximately three.

MR CORNELIUS: I understand according to the evidence of Nortje, that you were also struck?

MR BRITZ: Yes, he struck me.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you also incur an injury?

MR BRITZ: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: What did you then do with Goodwill Sikhakane?

MR BRITZ: After we had arrived at the pre-arranged place ...

MR CORNELIUS: Let me ask you like this, was he under control?

MR BRITZ: Yes, he was under our control, we had bound him, we bound his hands.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well, and then?

MR BRITZ: At the pre-arranged place which we had observed before the time, we stopped. Hanton, Nortje and me pulled him out of the vehicle.

MR CORNELIUS: Just a moment, was he bleeding as a result of the assaults on his head?

MR BRITZ: Not much.

MR CORNELIUS: I want you to tell the Committee how the scene looked where you disembarked, because there may be some element of confusion regarding a wall. Can you explain to us how the embankment looked?

MR BRITZ: It was a land embankment next to the road.

MR CORNELIUS: Was it a slope?

MR BRITZ: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: A slope which progressed upwards?

MR BRITZ: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And once one was on top of this slope, how would it look, was there a wall at the top?

MR BRITZ: No, there was no wall, it was relatively level.

MR CORNELIUS: This slope, where did it lead, did it lead to a section of a plantation or a residential area, how did it look?

MR BRITZ: There was a section of a plantation there.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well, how far away from the tar road would this have been approximately?

MR BRITZ: Approximately 15 metres.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. You say that you then helped him up the embankment, who was there with you?

MR BRITZ: It was Hanton, me and Nortje.

MR CORNELIUS: Where was Swart?

MR BRITZ: He remained in the kombi.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well, and once you were on top of this slope, what did you do then?

MR BRITZ: I then held Neville down on the ground.

MR CORNELIUS: How?

MR BRITZ: I stepped with my foot on his throat.

MR CORNELIUS: And you kept him under control as such?

MR BRITZ: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And what did Larry Hanton do?

MR BRITZ: He basically moved back towards the kombi, because the arrangement was that Swart would have driven and after a time, he would have returned.

MR CORNELIUS: What was the reason for that?

MR BRITZ: Because we were afraid that somebody would stop if they saw the vehicle standing there all the time.

MR CORNELIUS: It would have aroused suspicion?

MR BRITZ: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: You wanted to remove the vehicle?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: What happened then, you stepped Goodwill Sikhakane down to the ground, what happened then?

MR BRITZ: Nortje then shot him, once in the head and once in the chest.

MR CORNELIUS: Was he dead?

MR BRITZ: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well, what did you then do with the body?

MR BRITZ: We left it there.

MR CORNELIUS: Why?

MR BRITZ: It was part of the planning, that his body had to be found, it should not be removed.

MR CORNELIUS: What did you do then? Did you then return to the Lion Park Lodge?

MR BRITZ: Yes, Swart returned and all of us climbed back into the kombi and returned to the Lion Park Lodge.

MR CORNELIUS: The following morning?

MR BRITZ: The following morning Nortje and I went to clean up the kombi, because there was blood in the kombi.

MR CORNELIUS: You then cleaned the kombi and delivered it back to the rental company?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And you then returned to Vlakplaas?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you report back?

MR BRITZ: Yes, on the farm I told Mr de Kock that everything had been successful.

MR CORNELIUS: It is common knowledge that at Vlakplaas you worked according to the need to know principle?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: What does that mean?

MR BRITZ: You wouldn't ask any questions, if you were given an order, you would simply go and execute it.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well, you were a footsoldier by definition in the service of Mr de Kock?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: If I may put it this way, what was your political motive with this action? What would Goodwill Sikhakane do according to your knowledge?

MR BRITZ: He would have conveyed information back to the ANC, so basically he would have been a double-agent.

MR CORNELIUS: How did these facts come to your knowledge?

MR BRITZ: Hanton told me this.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you observe authority and respect for the other members of the Security Forces' political convictions and orders?

MR BRITZ: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you have any feelings of personal vengeance or malice towards Goodwill Sikhakane?

MR BRITZ: No.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you receive any form of remuneration or reward with the exception of your salary as defined within the Act, for your participation in this operation?

MR BRITZ: No.

MR CORNELIUS: Do request that this Committee grant you amnesty for the murder of Goodwill Sikhakane, is that correct?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Chairman, there might be just another matter, I see there are two amnesty applications before the Committee, that might be a little bit confusing. I think I must just clear this up as well. Mr Britz, I think that there are two applications for amnesty, and the one appears to have to do with the abduction of Goodwill Sikhakane?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: But I note that in this application you state that he voluntarily co-operated in his return to South Africa?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Was this ...

CHAIRPERSON: Is it correctly described as abduction? Wasn't it assisting him to return to South Africa, I think him and Radebe at page 191, 192 deal with the same incident.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, I think you are quite correct Mr Chairman, I think this is not really a kidnapping the way I see it.

CHAIRPERSON: I see he describes on page 11 -

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. But I think that clears the situation up. This is purely I understand from my instructions, after the Attorney-General's Special Investigations Team, alleged that he was kidnapped, that this application was drawn by my client. I will leave it at that for what it is worth, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, my colleague has drawn my attention to the fact that he states, and I think he is correct in that, that there is an offence in assisting someone to enter the Republic illegally. Shouldn't you ask for amnesty in respect of assisting in him coming from Swaziland to the Republic, and any offence that arises?

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairman, I am most deeply indebted to Mr Lax for that, thank you, Mr Lax, I then apply for amnesty for assisting, for the illegal immigration of a person from a person from a foreign country, transgression of the law, thank you Mr Chair.

MR HATTINGH: Hattingh on record, Mr Chairman, I have no questions.

MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have also no questions, thank you sir.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Lamey on behalf of Mr Nortje. Mr Britz in paragraph 4 on page 23 you refer to the fact that Hanton sketched the problem and that the problem was that Neville or Goodwill Sikhakane had threatened to expose certain aspects of Operation Vula, and that you inferred that he had knowledge of certain events which could not be exposed because if they were exposed, it would cause considerable damage for the Durban Security Branch, is that also a part of the problem which he sketched when you met?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then just one other aspect, I think Mr Hanton says that Goodwill Sikhakane was shot on top of the embankment, what is your recollection with regard to this? Did you help him over the embankment to the other side?

MR BRITZ: Chairperson, it was an embankment which was level on top.

CHAIRPERSON: There wasn't another side, we have been told that it was a slope that went out and it levelled off at the top?

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Chairperson. So it wasn't visible from the road?

MR BRITZ: No, it wasn't visible from the road.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, nothing further.

MR VISSER: Visser on record, Mr Chairman, I have no questions, thank you.

MR WAGENER: Jan Wagener Mr Chairman, no questions, either.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SCHOLTZ: Thank you Mr Chairman, just one or two questions. Mr Britz, who was actually the leader of this operation after you had received instructions from Mr de Kock?

MR BRITZ: Nortje and I were the senior members of the farm.

MR SCHOLTZ: Very well, who made the arrangements, you or Nortje?

MR BRITZ: Originally Col de Kock told me that I had to get some men and go down to Natal because there was work for me. Later I found out that he had also given the same instruction or made the same instructions with Mr Nortje.

MR SCHOLTZ: Wouldn't you have expected that you would also have been in control of the financial aspects of the operation?

MR BRITZ: At that stage, I did not have any cash on me, for the purposes of such an operation, and Warrant Officer Nortje was in possession of his credit card.

MR SCHOLTZ: Can you recall where precisely you tested the firearm, was it in Greytown or at the Lion Park Lodge?

MR BRITZ: I am not certain, it wouldn't have been at the Lion Park Lodge and also not in Greytown, it would have been some distance away from there, basically between places, at a quarry.

MR SCHOLTZ: Was this while you were underway to Greytown or did you return again to the Lion Park Lodge after you had tested the firearm?

MR BRITZ: It was at a stage when Hanton and Swart drove to make the appointment with Sikhakane, that is when Nortje and I drove out to test the weapon.

MR SCHOLTZ: Did you then travel with another vehicle?

MR BRITZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR SCHOLTZ: And then just in conclusion, while you were busy shooting Sikhakane, did Hanton remain there or did he leave with Swart in the kombi?

MR BRITZ: As far as I can recall, he drove away with Swart.

MR SCHOLTZ: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Just one little thing Chairperson, you said that when it got dark, you left for Greytown, where did you leave from? I will repeat it, don't worry. You said when it got dark, you left for Greytown.

MR BRITZ: Yes.

MR LAX: Where did you leave from?

MR BRITZ: From the Lion Park.

MR LAX: You see the others have all said that you all went to some other place, one of you described it, I think Mr Nortje described it as somewhere like New Hanover, where you were at a hotel and where you had had a few drinks.

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR LAX: Did you just forget about all of that?

CHAIRPERSON: Did you leave from the Lion Park and then stopped and had drinks on the way, while you were waiting for the time to pick up Sikhakane?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR LAX: You see the previous evidence was that you left from the Lion Park, you then went to New Hanover, the others went to go and make an arrangement with Sikhakane, they came back to New Hanover, you spent the afternoon there and then you went off in the evening?

MR BRITZ: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAX: So in fact you weren't at the Lion Park during the afternoon, you were at New Hanover, waiting for this incident to happen?

MR BRITZ: It may be so.

MR LAX: That is all I wanted to clear up. You are not sure?

MR BRITZ: No, I am not completely certain.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Britz, after the deceased was overpowered in the kombi, my understanding is that he was chained, is that correct, handcuffed?

MR BRITZ: Yes.

MR SIBANYONI: The time he was taken out, was he still handcuffed?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: Until he was shot and killed?

MR BRITZ: That is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Nortje spoke about firing three shots, I noticed that you only referred to two, you said one shot at the head and the one on his chest?

MR BRITZ: That is what I recall, there were two shots which were fired.

MR SIBANYONI: But you wouldn't dispute the fact that Nortje speaks about three shots?

MR BRITZ: No, I would not dispute it.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I have a few questions, and unfortunately I cannot find my reference. The first thing I would like to ask you is why was it necessary that the body should be found?

MR BRITZ: That was the planning from the Durban Security Branch, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Because my recollection is that one of the other previous applicants said that the body might have been removed by wild animals?

MR BRITZ: No Chairperson, the orders that we received indicated that the body had to be found.

CHAIRPERSON: Shouldn't you have pulled him down the slope then after you had shot him?

MR BRITZ: There was a footpath on top of the slope, so there would have been people walking back and forth in that area during the following day or the following morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know when the body was found?

MR BRITZ: I heard that at a later stage the body was found.

CHAIRPERSON: How much later?

MR BRITZ: It may have been a day, two days, three days, I am not certain.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there an earlier post mortem?

ADV STEENKAMP: Not that I recall Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: This is a body now found with two or three bullet wounds?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, as I recall, maybe Mr Hattingh can help, but as I recall there was an inquest for an unknown person, like a normal informal inquest held. Those documents were handed in court, I think it is similar to the ones contained in the Bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: The ones in the Bundle is 1994?

ADV STEENKAMP: Yes, that is, what happened the body was ultimately exhumed Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: But you haven't got any earlier records?

MR BRITZ: No, not, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You were hit on the head and you said you received some injury, did you bleed at all?

MR BRITZ: Yes, my hand was bleeding.

CHAIRPERSON: So the blood you washed off, may have been partially yours?

MR BRITZ: Yes, that may be so.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Re-examination, sorry?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: I just want to try and clear up one small aspect which might help the Committee. The possible detection of the body, did you know that at this stage there was quite a high level of unrest in the Greytown vicinity, or do you not know that?

MR BRITZ: No, I did not know that.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I am sorry Mr Chairman, there is one matter that skipped my mind, I am terribly sorry. Mr Britz, you said that you suspected that when Larry Hanton left the scene, when you held Goodwill Sikhakane down, that he drove away with Blackie Swart, do you know whether he drove away with Swart or not?

MR BRITZ: I am not certain of it.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you accept that he had driven away with him?

MR BRITZ: Yes, that is what I accepted.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chair, I have now finally concluded my re-examination, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So he didn't go down to stop Swart when Swart came back?

MR BRITZ: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And one last question, did anybody make any attempt to pick up the cartridge cases?

MR BRITZ: No Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Just one small thing, where did you know Sikhakane from? You said that you had met him previously?

MR BRITZ: If you can just repeat that please.

MR LAX: Where had you previously met Sikhakane, you stated that you knew him?

MR BRITZ: I didn't know him personally, some of his family members were at that stage working at Vlakplaas and he made contact with them and stated that he no longer wanted to be in Swaziland, that he wanted to come over to South Africa.

MR LAX: Is that all that you knew of him?

MR BRITZ: Yes, that is all. Because after we had come through the border post, he was immediately handed over to the Pietermaritzburg Security Branch.

MR LAX: You say here "I had met him on a previous occasion"? That is on page 23, paragraph 4, the last sentence?

MR BRITZ: Yes, what I meant by that is the evening when we fetched him from Swaziland, I handed him over to the Security Branch of Pietermaritzburg, that is basically what I meant, but I didn't really know him as such.

MR LAX: You knew basically nothing of him?

MR BRITZ: No.

MR LAX: Because you create the impression that you knew something about him?

MR BRITZ: From to time we received information from the Security Branches which we had to process. At that stage we also had informers in Swaziland.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Chair, I understand we are going to call Larry Hanton now.

MR NEL: Mr Chairman, yes, Mr Larry Hanton is my client. I have placed before you an affidavit which I am going to ask you sir, may this be marked, I think it is Exhibit D and Mr Hanton will be testifying in English and his application is found on page 78 and onwards, of Bundle 1. He will be, sorry, did I say Afrikaans, he will be testifying in English?

CHAIRPERSON: What you put before me, is not an affidavit?

MR NEL: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman. I will ask him just to confirm that under oath, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Hanton, your full names for the record please?

LARRY JOHN HANTON: (sworn states)

MR LAX: Please be seated, sworn in Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Hanton, you are an applicant for amnesty before this Committee and you apply for amnesty for the murder of Goodwill Colleen Sikhakane and other offences which might have flown from that

murder, is that correct?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR NEL: Your application is found on page 78 and onwards of the Bundle in front of you, you have once again read your application, do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR HANTON: I do Mr Chairperson.

MR NEL: You have also had sight and you have read a document which serves before this Committee, which is marked Exhibit A, and do you confirm the correctness of that document and do you ask this Committee to incorporate that as part of your amnesty application?

MR HANTON: I do Mr Chairperson.

MR NEL: Also found in your amnesty application, is your political objective and do you confirm that as correct?

MR HANTON: I do Mr Chairperson.

MR NEL: I have drafted a statement which is marked Exhibit D, you have a copy of that in front of you, as pointed out by the Chairperson, it is not an affidavit, do you confirm this under oath as to be made by yourself?

MR HANTON: I do Mr Chairperson.

MR NEL: Mr Hanton, I want to refer you to that document and could you then for the Committee read as from paragraph 1, relating to the facts of the incident relating Goodwill Sikhakane?

MR NEL: Mr Hanton, just one last thing, is it correct that you are a patient of a Counselling Psychiatrist, namely Ms Christine Camitsis and that you have been a patient of hers since the 20th of March 1998?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR NEL: Is it also so that she has diagnosed that you suffer from the symptom of Major Depressive Disorder which she explains is severe and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, which she says is chronic and that you were medically boarded from the South African Police in 1995?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR NEL: Is it also so that it at times, it is very difficult for you to remember certain things relating to certain incidents?

MR HANTON: It is Mr Chairperson.

MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairperson, that is the evidence.

MR HATTINGH: Hattingh on record, Mr Chairman, no questions, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Mr Hanton, when you found that Col Taylor received instructions from Gen Steyn, you had full trust in this order that was given to you by Col Taylor?

MR HANTON: I had the utmost trust in Col Taylor's judgement, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, and obviously when you committed this deed, you did it bona fide with the object of countering the said struggle?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson, I did.

MR CORNELIUS: If Goodwill Sikhakane disclosed the names and addresses of Security Policemen of the Durban Security Branch, would that have endangered the lives of people if that was disclosed to the so-called enemy at that time?

MR HANTON: It would have been a calamity Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Was there any discussion of the possibility of the disclosure of information relating to Operation Vula or Charles Ndaba?

MR HANTON: I cannot remember Mr Chairman, I was not involved with Operation Vula at all.

MR CORNELIUS: I see. Thank you Mr Chair.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Hanton, were you present when Mr Nortje shot Goodwill Sikhakane?

MR HANTON: I was present Mr Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: You state here as far as I can recall, Sikhakane was shot twice, is it possible that he could have been shot three times, as Mr Nortje has testified?

MR HANTON: It is possible Mr Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Was it an important aspect of the planning of the operation that his body should be found, what is your recollection about that?

MR HANTON: It was Col Taylor's orders that the body be found, Mr Chairperson, that is also one of the reasons that the cartridges were left on the scene.

CHAIRPERSON: So they would be identified as AK47 cartridges?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: So the picture would then be that he had been killed by presumably somebody from the ANC?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Do you know how long after the incident, his body was found?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson, I do not, I know it was a long time afterwards.

MR LAMEY: So his body was not found as soon as what was anticipated?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Isn't it a very secluded place where he was shot?

MR HANTON: It is Mr Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: You have heard Mr Nortje's evidence in this regard and do you agree with him relating to the place that was picked, where he had to be killed? In fact you pointed it out, is it correct that you went with him prior to the meeting with Sikhakane to pick the spot?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Col Taylor, was he more than you, closely involved with Sikhakane and his movements and the - yes?

MR HANTON: Sorry Mr Chairperson, could you please repeat that?

MR LAMEY: Can I just repeat that, yes. Were Col Taylor more than you closely involved with Sikhakane and his movements prior to the decision to eliminate him?

MR HANTON: Col Taylor was closely involved with him, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Is it possible that he threatened the disclosure of the people who were killed after the revelation of Operation Vula by the Natal Security Branch?

MR HANTON: It is possible Mr Chairman.

MR LAMEY: Is it also possible that he had aspirations to become a permanent member, but as a result of his conduct, Col Taylor did not deem it fit that he receive permanent appointment and that he was unhappy about that?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson, I cannot remember anything as to that.

MR LAMEY: Okay. Thank you Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Visser on record, Mr Chairman. Mr Hanton, were you working directly under Col Taylor, Col Andy Taylor?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Were you involved also with the askaris who worked under Taylor in Durban?

MR HANTON: I was Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: As far as one can piece the evidence together, it seems that Mr Sikhakane was probably recruited as an informer who later became an askari during approximately 1988 and this happened, this must have happened prior to, perhaps you know about that, the abduction and the elimination of Mr Dion Cele, do you know anything about that?

MR HANTON: I do not Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: All right, well I am just leading up to the following, it would appear that Sikhakane was first of all stationed, placed, in Pietermaritzburg under Col Kobus Vorster and that he was later apparently transferred to Durban, do I have that right?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: According to Ms Celeste Pieterse, in terms of her evidence given at the de Kock trial, it appears that herself, together with her children and Sikhakane were brought out of Swaziland by the police. Do you know anything about that, were you involved in that?

MR HANTON: I was not involved in that Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: But do you have knowledge that that happened?

MR HANTON: I do have knowledge that that happened, yes Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: All right, and apparently according to her, they first, that is herself, her children, one or two of them, I am not sure what their ages were, but let's refer to the children and Mr Sikhakane first of all lived with Mr Sikhakane's mother. Were you, do you have any knowledge of that?

MR HANTON: I do not Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And apparently thereafter, they moved into either a house or a flat and she then gave evidence that Mr Sikhakane then stayed at the farm. If that evidence is correct, to which farm would that refer?

MR HANTON: That would refer to the farm at Camperdown, Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And this was referred to in previous applications as an operational base where Mr Taylor and the askaris and apparently yourself, worked from?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Was there such an operational base in Greytown?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You see, because the reason why I ask you this question is unless I misunderstand the evidence given by Ms Pieterse, she says that prior to Sikhakane's death for three weeks prior to that, he was instructed to work in Greytown and that he was picked up every Monday morning and dropped off on Friday afternoons at their flat, from and at their flat, where he would then stay for the weekend only to be picked up the next Monday morning. This continued for three weeks, do you have any personal knowledge of that, of that period of Sikhakane's life?

MR HANTON: Yes, I do Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And would that evidence be correct, that he was taken by Mngadi and by Ninela and perhaps others, I heard mention of a David Myeza, Spyker Myeza and that he was then taken to Greytown for the week and brought back over the weekend.

MR HANTON: Mr Chairperson, he was taken to Greytown, but when and where, the times when he was picked up and taken home for a rest period, I cannot say, I cannot remember.

MR VISSER: All right, now the question which I think the Committee might be interested in is did all of these persons that was mentioned, did they at that stage just prior to the death of Sikhakane all work in Greytown or was it a situation where only he was taken and he was left at Greytown to do whatever he had to do or can't you remember?

MR HANTON: I cannot remember, Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You see, the reference to Sikhakane staying or living on the farm, appears to me and please stop me if I am wrong, that would only have referred to Camperdown and not to anywhere else?

MR HANTON: Yes, Camperdown Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Where, do you know perhaps where he would have stayed in Greytown or where was he supposed to sleep over in Greytown while he was working there?

MR HANTON: I cannot remember Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you know anything about relationships which he had with a Beauty and a Sitombi or I am not sure that I've got the name right, but with two ladies in Greytown where he might have slept over? Do you know anything about that?

MR HANTON: I learnt of this after his death Mr Chairperson, I learnt that he had relationships in Greytown.

MR VISSER: Now the real point is this Mr Hanton, according to Col Taylor, if one has regard to page 143 of Bundle 1, and according to the evidence of Gen Steyn of what Col Taylor had told him, it appeared that Sikhakane was absent without leave from time to time and that during one or more of these absences, I think Steyn referred to two or three of them, there was information that Sikhakane had visited Swaziland without having been authorised to do so. Do you personally have knowledge of that ever occurring?

MR HANTON: I do not have personal knowledge of that Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: If Taylor says, I know that you said a little earlier that Taylor was more intimately involved with Sikhakane, if Taylor says so, would you have any reason to doubt that that was in fact so?

MR HANTON: I would have no reason to doubt him, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: As far as you can recall, at the end of the day when the order came or the instruction came that Sikhakane had to be eliminated, what stands out in your recollection today is the fact that he was a double-agent?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Who did you personally work more intimately with, you say it wasn't Sikhakane, was it some of the other or one of the ...

MR HANTON: I worked with them all at various times Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: But would it have depended on any particular, on what particular operation you would be busy with, which would have indicated with whom you would be working together with at a certain point in time?

MR HANTON: It would have depended on Col Taylor, how he posted the teams to go out and work Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: At the time, and I am referring to the latter part of 1990 and the early part of 1991, what was the security situation like in Natal and if one can include Pietermaritzburg, the Midlands, Greytown, what was the situation like?

MR HANTON: There was a lot of violence at that time, Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you handle any informers?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did Col Taylor handle any informers?

MR HANTON: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: I understand he handled quite a number of informers?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson, he had been in Natal for a very long time.

MR VISSER: Would it be fair to say that what you chaps in Natal were really concerned with, was the attack which emanated particularly from the Natal machinery in Swaziland?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: This was particularly so from 1988 onwards until 1990, 1991?

MR HANTON: That would be correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Would it be correct to say that even in 1991 the attack against the government, etc, as it was in 1988 from Swaziland, had remained more or less the same intensity?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Or even worse?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: I think the question has been put to you, but just to tie up this line of questioning, at the time in 1991, would there have been any lesser motivation to - perhaps I should put this in a different way, was it still necessary to protect informers in 1991, the same as it had been before 1990?

MR HANTON: It was still necessary Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And according to your information and what you were aware of, was there quite a formidable network of information informers in Swaziland, which served the Security Branch in Durban with information?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Before we go on, can I try to clarify something. Ms Pietersen at the de Kock trial apparently said that he stayed on the farm for about three months and that after that, he returned and they started living together?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson, in the beginning when the farm started, they all lived on the farm for a long period.

CHAIRPERSON: But then he stopped that, he went and stayed with his father at Bishopstow which is in Pietermaritzburg and they then hired a flat in Pietermaritzburg.

MR HANTON: I know of the flat, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Which he lived in with Ms Pietersen?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And she went on to say in her evidence that he was sometimes called away for a day, sometimes for a week at a time, would that be when he was sent out on a mission?

MR HANTON: Sometimes even longer, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: If I could just follow up, so clearly at this time, they weren't living permanently and exclusively on the operational base?

MR HANTON: No, no Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Most of the askaris by the sounds of things, had found other places to live?

MR HANTON: After the initial period that they lived on the farm?

MR LAX: Yes.

MR HANTON: They all went and found other houses, a place to stay. I think one or two of them remained on the farm.

MR LAX: The initial period was at least a year prior to this incident?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Just one other thing on this issue, I understand that Sikhakane was debriefed for a period of time, after his return to the country?

MR HANTON: That was before my time, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Yes, Vorster alluded to that and Ms Pietersen alludes to that on another farm, she thought it was in Richmond somewhere?

MR HANTON: As I said Mr Chairperson, that was before my time.

MR LAX: You don't know about that other farm?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: You don't know for example about the Elandskop?

MR HANTON: No, I cannot remember anything like that Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Or the Thornville farm?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Jan Wagener, Mr Chairman, I have no questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SCHOLTZ: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Hanton did you arrive at the Special Branch in Natal before Sikhakane, in other words were you here for a while before he was brought in?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson, I met Sikhakane on the farm, when the farm started up.

MR SCHOLTZ: What did his duties entail on the farm? Did they only work on the farm or were they sent out on operations from the farm?

MR HANTON: The farm was the base from where the operations were worked from, it was a place where the vehicles were kept, camping equipment was stored and from where we launched our operations.

MR SCHOLTZ: Was he ever sent out on his own for operational purposes?

MR HANTON: I cannot remember Mr Chairperson.

MR SCHOLTZ: What was the policy, would that have been permitted?

MR HANTON: The policy was that they worked in teams with a regular policeman, a senior policeman would drive the bus that they worked from.

MR SCHOLTZ: So he would have been under supervision of a regular policeman at most of the relevant times?

MR HANTON: At the times he was under his direct control, yes Mr Chairperson.

MR SCHOLTZ: Was this the position in Greytown as well?

MR HANTON: Greytown was, he had infiltrated into Greytown and it was also, he was being set up for his elimination Mr Chairperson.

MR SCHOLTZ: Did he also work under supervision there?

MR HANTON: He worked, the Branch at Greytown kept him under supervision, Mr Chairperson, yes. I cannot remember which members it was.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say it was set up for his elimination?

MR HANTON: That was the reason why he was sent to Greytown, yes Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And would the people at Greytown have known this?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson.

MR SCHOLTZ: Why would they have kept him under surveillance?

MR HANTON: I wouldn't say under surveillance, but they would have looked after him as far as money was concerned, and met him every day to make sure he was all right.

MR SCHOLTZ: Yes, except that was the term you used, kept him under surveillance? It has a very specific meaning, doesn't it?

MR HANTON: Yes, I must have just mis-spoken myself, Mr Chairperson.

MR SCHOLTZ: Is the evidence of Ms Pietersen correct that he was sent to Greytown approximately three to four weeks before he was eliminated?

MR HANTON: I cannot remember how long before the time it was, Mr Chairperson.

MR SCHOLTZ: Well, he was not sent there immediately before he was eliminated?

MR HANTON: I cannot remember, Mr Chairperson.

MR SCHOLTZ: Do you recall that you went to the flat where they lived shortly, the night or two nights before he was actually eliminated, to tell him that he should make himself ready to go to Greytown the next day?

MR HANTON: I do not recall something like that Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it that or was it something rather unusual, my recollection is that he was told he would be picked up on the Tuesday?

MR NEL: Chairperson on the evidence of Ms Pietersen, Mr Hanton arrived on the Sunday evening to tell him that he would be picked up on the Monday, but he was eventually only picked up on the Tuesday.

MR LAX: Just for the record, we are referring to page 217, paragraph 23.

CHAIRPERSON: No one picked him up on the Monday?

MR SCHOLTZ: So you do not recall this incident that you actually went to his flat to tell him to get ready?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairman, I do not recall that.

MR SCHOLTZ: Mr Hanton is it then your evidence that when he was sent to Greytown, you already knew that he had to be eliminated, because he was suspected of being a double-agent and of having been to Swaziland?

MR HANTON: Mr Chairman, I didn't know at that point of his being seen in Swaziland, but I knew that he had been, I knew of the order for his elimination.

MR SCHOLTZ: At that stage, he must already have been sitting on an information time-bomb as far as you were concerned?

MR HANTON: That would be correct Mr Chairperson, but that was Col Taylor's judgement.

MR SCHOLTZ: Yet if the evidence of Ms Pietersen is correct, he was allowed to roam the streets of Greytown for a period of three weeks before he was eliminated?

MR HANTON: As I said before Mr Chairman, I don't recall the period that he worked in Greytown.

MR SCHOLTZ: How did you contact him in order to arrange to meet him, where you did meet him?

MR HANTON: I cannot remember Mr Chairperson, I can only imagine that it would have been through members of Greytown Security Branch who were looking after him.

MR SCHOLTZ: Is the evidence correct that you first met him at a rubbish dump earlier on that day and then arranged to meet him again later on?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR SCHOLTZ: The reason for the meeting was to hand over money and his firearm to him?

MR HANTON: The reason was to make sure that he would attend the meeting at night, where we would pick him up and then take him and kill him, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't it have seemed very odd to him that you come and contact him during the course of the day and now arrange to meet him, some kilometres out of Greytown at nine or ten o'clock at night, to hand over his firearm to him?

MR HANTON: It may seem so Mr Chairman, but that was the way I organised it.

CHAIRPERSON: I would have thought it would have aroused suspicion in his mind immediately?

MR HANTON: I don't think, I don't know Mr Chairman, he made the meeting point that night.

CHAIRPERSON: And he would have also told anybody he knew, people he was staying in Greytown where he was going and why he was going, to meet you?

MR HANTON: I don't know Mr Chairperson, that is the chance I took.

CHAIRPERSON: We have been told it was so important that nobody should know that you were involved that you had to get Vlakplaas down to do the job, now you say you went and told him and arranged to meet him later that night in some lonely spot?

MR HANTON: That was the decision I made on the ground, to put it that way, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: ... Mr Scholtz, if you would allow me. Which dump did you meet him at in Greytown?

MR HANTON: It wasn't a dump, it was a road going to a quarry, just outside Greytown Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Yes, but where outside Greytown, I know Greytown quite well, I am just interested?

MR HANTON: It is a road leading to the quarry.

MR LAX: The one that goes passed the township?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: On the other side of Greytown?

MR HANTON: The other side.

MR LAX: There is another township on that side as well?

MR HANTON: I cannot remember Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: It is just that if it is a dump as we have been told it is, people hang around dumps, they scavenge from dumps, it would be the most obvious place to be noticed meeting him?

MR HANTON: I cannot remember it being a dump Mr Chairperson, I remember it was a road to the quarry.

MR LAX: Well, everyone said it was a dump until now? Everyone said it was a refuse place?

MR HANTON: I cannot remember that Mr Chairperson, I remember it is a road to the quarry.

MR LAX: So are your colleagues all mistaken then?

MR HANTON: I won't say they are mistaken Mr Chairperson, but my memory, I just know it as a road to the quarry.

MR LAX: Yes. You see if we accept what they say and they say it was a dump, that was a place where people would scavenge on a regular basis, you may not realise this but scavenging is one of the most highly economic activities in this country, certainly from people on low income groups.

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson, as I say I know it was the road to the quarry, I don't know recalling it as a dump, that the dump was there.

MR LAX: Yes, anyway, there was no one there when you met him?

MR HANTON: There was no one there when we met him, no Mr Chairperson.

MR SCHOLTZ: Did you choose this place where you first met him, because it was secluded and you would not be seen there?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR SCHOLTZ: Why then was it necessary to take him to some other place, why couldn't he just be eliminated there at that spot?

MR HANTON: As I said Mr Chairperson, these were decisions made on the ground. It was just decided to take him just outside, the other side of Greytown and leave his body there.

MR SCHOLTZ: Did you drive the kombi to this first meeting?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairman, to the best of my recollection Swart drove the kombi.

MR SCHOLTZ: Did you at any stage drive a kombi?

MR HANTON: I cannot recall driving the kombi Mr Chairperson.

MR SCHOLTZ: Did you assist in any way to overpower Sikhakane when he got into the kombi?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson, I was sitting in the front, Britz and Nortje overpowered him.

MR SCHOLTZ: Did you assist to remove him from the kombi to where he was shot?

MR HANTON: I cannot remember assisting him out of the kombi Mr Chairperson.

MR SCHOLTZ: Is it correct that the driver of the kombi left the scene and returned later?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR SCHOLTZ: Did you accompany him?

MR HANTON: No, Mr Chairperson, I stayed up at the top with Britz and Nortje.

MR SCHOLTZ: Did you remain with them until the kombi returned?

MR HANTON: I remained with them until the kombi returned, Mr Chairperson.

MR SCHOLTZ: Did anybody go to stop the kombi on its return?

MR HANTON: Not to the best of my recollection Mr Chairperson, no.

MR SCHOLTZ: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson. We have heard evidence from Mr Nortje yesterday that he knew about this man because you had come up to Pretoria with his documentation and there were problems with his wife's citizenship, we heard that whole story, you were sitting at the back, you heard that?

MR HANTON: I heard that Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: He seems to have a very clear recollection of that incident having taken place, because it formed the basis of how he knew Sikhakane, he knew about the problems with Sikhakane's appointment as a police officer?

MR HANTON: I do not remember that incident at all Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Did you know Sikhakane was having problems getting his appointment as a police officer?

MR HANTON: I did Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Were you involved in processing that application in any way?

MR HANTON: I was involved with the documentation, with the paper work, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: So it is quite conceivable that you did actually go to Pretoria then?

MR HANTON: It is possible I accompanied Col Taylor to Pretoria with paper work, Mr Chairperson, I often accompanied him to Pretoria, accompanied Col Taylor.

MR LAX: And you are just saying that you cannot remember that?

MR HANTON: I cannot remember Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: So you won't deny that it actually happened?

MR HANTON: I cannot remember Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Did you regularly go to the flat in Halston Road, in Pietermaritzburg?

MR HANTON: I did go to the flat once or twice Mr Chairperson, yes.

MR LAX: So if Ms Pietersen says you came there on the Sunday, that would probably be correct, you wouldn't be able to deny that?

MR HANTON: I would not deny it Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why would you have gone there on the Sunday?

MR HANTON: I don't know Mr Chairperson, I cannot remember going there.

MR LAX: You see she says that was the first time you had ever been to their home?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson, I had been there before.

MR LAX: She says that normally Mngadi and Spyker Myeza used to pick up Goodwill?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson, I have definitely been there before that.

MR LAX: Did you normally pick him up?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson, Mngadi used to pick him up.

MR LAX: Yes, so you normally did not pick him up?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson, I did not.

MR LAX: And you weren't working with him in Greytown at that time?

MR HANTON: No, the Greytown Branch were looking after him, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Yes, but you weren't one of the handlers who were working in the Greytown operation?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Because clearly more than one person was working in Greytown according to this?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: You have told us that he infiltrated Greytown, what do you mean by that, what exactly did he do?

MR HANTON: He established himself in Greytown and become known not as an askari or a policeman, thus he was in a position to gain information.

MR LAX: And all of this was a front to kill him?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Now, when did you know that he was going to be killed?

MR HANTON: I cannot remember the time, how long before Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Was it weeks, was it months?

MR HANTON: It could have been weeks Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: And so you hatched this elaborate plot to have him transferred to Greytown?

MR HANTON: These were Col Taylor's orders, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: The Greytown Security Branch didn't know that there was any plot to kill him?

MR HANTON: They had no knowledge of that Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: And yet they were handling him?

MR HANTON: That is correct.

MR LAX: In his undercover work?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Well, don't you think they would have missed him immediately?

MR HANTON: Well, they didn't Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not? This I find incredibly hard to believe, they didn't know there was anything underhand about it, they have somebody transferred for a special purpose to Greytown and he suddenly disappears, so they do nothing?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson, they launched a massive investigation into the search for him.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, they did.

MR LAX: And then his body is subsequently discovered?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson, his body was discovered much, much - I don't think his body was discovered, he was missing, he just went missing.

MR LAX: Yes.

MR HANTON: His body wasn't found. It was found much later when Nortje brought it out.

MR LAX: What did you chaps do about it? I mean he was one of your men, you would have been the first people they would have asked about it?

MR HANTON: Mr Chairperson, Col Taylor gave Greytown Branch instructions to put out a search for him.

MR LAX: But they would have known he was missing themselves?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson, but he then gave an extra, orders above that to put out a special search for him.

MR LAX: Yes, but what did you tell them?

MR HANTON: I don't know what he told them, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: I am wanting to know what you told them, surely you must have been questioned by them, they must have contacted you?

MR HANTON: I just said, I just denied any knowledge of what happened to him Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: But Ms Pietersen would have told them that you arrived at the flat two days before he disappeared?

MR HANTON: I do not know Mr Chairperson, what she told them, if she had told them.

MR LAX: Well you see, either they must have colluded with you and they must have realised something was wrong and they should just avoid going too deep into this matter, or they really had a proper investigation. On your version, they had a proper investigation and yet they never really spoke to you, and you were one of the people who was in command of him, one of the last people to see him alive?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson, I was one of the last to see him alive. Col Taylor put out orders for the investigation into his disappearance and then told me to keep out of it.

MR LAX: You see, on your initial version as you have just - when I started this questioning, you knew nothing about what Greytown did about the matter, suddenly you remember that they had a huge investigation?

MR HANTON: That was after his death Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Precisely. Now, all this leads to the next issue which is, you say your orders were to make sure that the body was found, that is why you left the "doppies" on the scene?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Yet, some of your colleagues who were involved in this matter, gave a very different version of that. They said the body was to be left on the top, it couldn't be seen from the top, and in fact they had an expectation that wild animals would eat the body so that it might not be found?

MR HANTON: No Chairperson, Col Taylor's orders were that the body must be found.

MR LAX: Well the point is how do you marry these two completely different versions?

MR HANTON: I do not know how to, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: You see if those were your orders, why didn't you just shoot him somewhere close to Greytown, closer to where the violence was actually happening, because there wasn't violence happening out at Kranskop on the Kranskop road, the violence was in Greytown, in Nhlagahli and places like that, you would know that very well. Isn't it so?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: So why didn't you just dump him on the outskirts of Nhlagahli where anyone would find him and know that he was part of the violence?

MR HANTON: As I said Mr Chairperson, we just decided on groundlevel that this was what we would do.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but we have heard you went and looked carefully for a place to do it?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you found a place where the body was never found, yet your direct orders were that the body should be found?

MR HANTON: That is just how it happened Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: The two are completely and utterly irreconcilable? You concede that?

MR HANTON: That is what happened.

MR LAX: You must concede that at least?

MR HANTON: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: I am just asking you this, is it not possible that you fetched him from Greytown or from the flat, and just disposed of him in your own way?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: I've got no questions Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We have heard evidence about how important it was that the local Security Branch should not be involved, and that is why you had to get Vlakplaas, but on your version now and Ms Pietersen, you personally go for some unknown reason on the Sunday, to visit the deceased at his flat in the presence of his wife?

MR HANTON: As I said Mr Chairperson, I cannot remember going to see him at his flat.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, she gave that evidence. You go and see him on the morning or sometime during the day to arrange yet another meeting?

MR HANTON: That was done at Greytown Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, where he is in contact with other policemen, he is in contact with other people, he has gone there to infiltrate and yet you arrange yet another meeting with yourself later that night?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It would appear that you were trying to make it known if anybody made enquiries, that you were the person who had made the arrangements for the deceased?

MR HANTON: That was not my object Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you do it?

MR HANTON: As I said it was just a decision I made on the ground, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: As my colleague has put, you could have just gone and picked him up, taken him away, shot him somewhere and left the body if it was to be found, if that was the whole purpose?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson, but it is just not the way it was done.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr Taylor annoyed?

MR HANTON: He was annoyed when the body was not found.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he suggest that anything should be done to disclose where it was?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson, he said to just leave it alone.

MR LAX: Just one last thing Mr Hanton, just a follow up from the point the Chairperson raised. We heard from Gen Steyn that the whole idea of bringing Vlakplaas people in, was to keep the distance between local operatives who had things to do with Sikhakane and his elimination?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Why did you then play such a central role in this whole thing?

MR HANTON: I had no choice in that Mr Chairperson, Col Taylor gave me the orders to assist them and how to do it. I don't know what his reasoning was.

MR LAX: But all you could have done was shown them the place and then made sure you got the hell out of there, so that nobody could trace you to it?

MR HANTON: It could have been done that way Mr Chairperson, but I did not.

MR LAX: So you in fact went against the whole rational of the operation?

MR HANTON: It could be put like that Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Hanton, you obviously knew the people from Vlakplaas, this is Britz, Swart and Nortje who came down?

MR HANTON: I did Mr Chairperson, I do.

MR NEL: Did they know the area of Greytown at all?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson.

MR NEL: So you would have shown them the way?

MR HANTON: I would have shown them the way Mr Chairperson.

MR NEL: Are you aware of any problems that Mr Sikhakane had with Ms Pietersen and which she might have reported to Col Taylor?

MR HANTON: I can seem to remember that there were problems between her and him Mr Chairperson.

MR NEL: What sort of problems if you can recall?

MR HANTON: I think he was, it was drunkenness, he was abusing alcohol.

MR NEL: Did you ever get an order from Col Taylor to go and investigate that while he was still alive, possibly at the flat?

MR HANTON: It is possible I did go to the flat once or twice to do that, Mr Chairperson. I cannot remember though.

MR NEL: One last question, Mr Sikhakane did not become a policeman because he was killed, but a little bit of your involvement to try and make him a policeman, what was that all about?

MR HANTON: Mr Chairperson, he just never brought his documentation in, to the best of my recollection. The others all brought their documentation in, their school certificates, etc. He never brought in any documentation.

MR NEL: Without those documents, you could not make him a policeman?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I've got nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: The people who had been Umkhonto trained overseas, who had come back, who had been turned and become askaris, they wouldn't have had school certificates or things of that nature, would they?

MR HANTON: Mr Chairperson, the others all brought their certificates and identity books, etc.

CHAIRPERSON: The people who had been out of the country for some time, you say they all brought ...

MR HANTON: Those that we made policemen, yes Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Just one thing Chair, on this point. You confirmed earlier that the problem with Sikhakane wasn't anything to do with his documents, the problem was his wife's citizenship, as I put it to you, that was the Nortje story?

MR HANTON: Yes, I remember nothing of that Mr Chairperson, of her documents.

MR LAX: You see, Sikhakane got his South African citizenship, that was initially a problem, he then got his certificate, his citizenship, what Nortje told us was that Ms Pietersen couldn't get hers sorted out. He distinctly remembers that is why you were in Pretoria?

MR HANTON: As I say, I cannot remember any meeting, talking to him about anything like that Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: But now you can remember that the problem with his application, was that he couldn't get his documents in order and things like school certificates?

MR HANTON: I can remember that Mr Chairperson, yes.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Just call Mr Hanton for a moment.

MR LAX: He is just outside, at the back here.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hanton you said that it was intended that this should look like an ANC killing and that is why the cartridges weren't picked up?

MR HANTON: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We have heard evidence at a previous hearing where it was intended that the killing should look like an ANC killing, and the entire magazine was fired of an AK47 because we were told that was the ANC method of committing such killings.

MR HANTON: I don't know Mr Chairperson. It was Nortje's, it was his decision to only shoot him twice or three times, as mentioned.

CHAIRPERSON: You hadn't made any enquiries to find out what was the practice the ANC used?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson, I hadn't.

CHAIRPERSON: You had no knowledge of it?

MR HANTON: No Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Mr Nortje here?

W.A. NORTJE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: I think you will remember the previous application where there was a shooting that was supposed to look like an ANC and the whole magazine was used?

MR NORTJE: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And I think, were you the person who after that, fired a few more shots into the body?

MR NORTJE: No, not with Brian Ngqulunga, I was not present during the shooting. However, the case of what took place here, I don't believe that I had it in mind to fire an entire magazine. At the moment I decided that it would be enough, I did not do it with the idea, at that moment I did not think that the idea was to make it look like an ANC attack. The person investigating the matter would have to draw his own inference, the fact that we used the AK and the shells, yes, the fact that we left the shells there and used the AK, that contributed to the idea.

CHAIRPERSON: But as far, are you telling us you did not, you were not told and did not do anything to make it look like a typical ANC killing, that wasn't your plan?

MR NORTJE: No, not in my mind.

CHAIRPERSON: You were the man who did the shooting?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Nobody told you to, they left it to you to do the killing?

MR NORTJE: Yes, yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you think that it was the purpose that the body should be found?

MR NORTJE: I have listened to what Mr Hanton has said, I would recall that something was mentioned to that effect, but I cannot say. Well, if we didn't want the body to be found, we would for example have taken him into the bushes, we would have buried him or something, so basically that had to be the idea that at some or other time, he would have to be found.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it you, I am sorry, I cannot, I haven't had a chance to have a look at my notes, was it you who said that the body might be eaten up by wild animals?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is one of the things you thought if you left it there, it might be taken away and destroyed by wild animals?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I call the third applicant, Johannes Swart.

MR LAX: Your full names for the record please, Mr Swart?

MR SWART: Johannes Jakobus Swart.

JOHANNES JAKOBUS SWART: (sworn states)

MR LAX: Sworn in Chairperson, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Swart you have submitted an application before this Committee and you confirm the contents thereof, is that correct?

MR SWART: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: At all times you were an employee as defined in terms of the Act, Section 20(2)(b) and 20(2)(e), is that correct?

MR SWART: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You were deployed to Vlakplaas, the Unit Vlakplaas as defined within the documents before this Committee and you served under the command of Col Eugene de Kock, is that correct?

MR SWART: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And at all times you acted in the scope of your duties and in the execution of an order in terms of this action?

MR SWART: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Now Dawid Britz and Willie Nortje, were they your seniors?

MR SWART: Yes, they were.

MR CORNELIUS: What were their ranks according to your knowledge?

MR SWART: Both of them were Warrant Officers.

MR CORNELIUS: And Larry Hanton, what was his rank?

MR SWART: He was also a Warrant Officer.

MR CORNELIUS: And Col Andy Taylor was the Colonel?

MR SWART: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: What was your rank?

MR SWART: I was a Constable at that stage.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well, you worked strictly according to the need to know principle in terms of your orders?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And if one studies your amnesty application it states that you received an order to go to Mooi Rivier to meet Hanton?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And it is also common cause for the Committee that you then went with Willie Nortje and Dawid Britz to meet Hanton and Any Taylor in Mooi Rivier?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: It is also common cause that you went to bar called van der Merwe's and later to Lion Park?

MR SWART: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: What was your order? What was your order, what were you supposed to do, why did you go to Natal?

MR SWART: As I understood it, there was a person who had to be eliminated because he posed a threat for the senior police officers in terms of information that he could expose from Operation Vula.

MR CORNELIUS: How did this information come to your knowledge?

MR SWART: It was discussed with Col Taylor and Mr Hanton. Warrant Officer Nortje conveyed it to me.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you make any further enquiries regarding this man's political objective, the objective of the man Goodwill Sikhakane or did you not?

MR SWART: All that I understood was that he posed a threat for the senior officers of the police.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. When you refer to the senior officers of the police, do you refer to the police from the Durban Security Branch, I assume?

MR SWART: Yes, that is what I assumed.

MR CORNELIUS: If the information from Operation Vula became known, would this have posed a very sensitive situation for the government?

MR SWART: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And to whom did you think this information would be made known?

MR SWART: To the ANC.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you regard the ANC as a political enemy at that stage?

MR SWART: Yes, I did.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. It is also common cause that you were present when test shots were fired with the AK47, is that correct?

MR SWART: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And it is also common cause that you took Hanton to arrange an appointment with Goodwill Sikhakane for later the following evening?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Could you just tell the Committee in your own words you then drove the kombi on the evening when you went to fetch Goodwill Sikhakane, is that correct?

MR SWART: I assume that I drove the kombi, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And it was the evening when it was raining when you went to pick up Goodwill Sikhakane to murder him?

MR SWART: Yes, that was when I drove the vehicle.

MR CORNELIUS: You were driving and what happened while you were driving the kombi?

MR SWART: Warrant Officer Britz and Nortje waited for Goodwill behind the seat of the kombi, he climbed in, Hanton spoke to him. We drove, I am not quite familiar with the road, it was outside the town. There was a slope on the left side of the road.

MR CORNELIUS: Was Goodwill Sikhakane overpowered at a certain stage?

MR SWART: Yes, he was.

MR CORNELIUS: And how did they manage to overpower him, I know that you were driving but how did they manage to overpower him according to your knowledge?

MR SWART: According to my knowledge they grabbed him from behind and hit him over the head with a blunt object.

MR CORNELIUS: We have heard evidence that it was some form of a leather baton with a metal ball inside, is that correct?

MR SWART: Yes, it is possible.

MR CORNELIUS: Did Goodwill Sikhakane bleed according to your knowledge?

MR SWART: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well, he was overpowered and you then stopped next to a slope, what happened then?

MR SWART: I was instructed to stop the vehicle, Nortje, Britz and Hanton took Goodwill out of the vehicle and they went up the slope. I continued driving for approximately three kilometres.

MR CORNELIUS: Were you alone in the vehicle?

MR SWART: Yes, I was alone.

MR CORNELIUS: What did you do then?

MR SWART: I kept driving along the road for approximately three kilometres and then turned around and drove back slowly to the same point where I had left them. They met me there and climbed into the vehicle.

MR CORNELIUS: What was the purpose with driving ahead?

MR SWART: The purpose was not to draw attention to the place where they were murdering the man.

MR CORNELIUS: If the kombi had been on the scene, what would have happened?

MR SWART: A police vehicle could have stopped there or a member of the public could have stopped to offer assistance and they may have heard the shots.

MR CORNELIUS: I see. It is common cause that you then returned to Lion Park and later you returned to Vlakplaas?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You also cleaned the vehicle if I study your application?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you cherish any feelings of personal vengeance or malice towards Goodwill Sikhakane?

MR SWART: No.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you receive any reward for your participation in the action, apart from your regular salary as set out in Section 23?

MR SWART: No.

MR CORNELIUS: And you are applying for amnesty for the murder of Goodwill Sikhakane?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just clarify something please. I think you said that if the information from Operation Vula became

known, it would be a threat to the government, but Operation Vula was an ANC operation, wasn't it?

MR SWART: Chairperson, as I understood it, this man had information which would have threatened the lives of officers of the police, I don't know, they may have been killed if this information was exposed. In terms of Operation Vula, I understood that he had too much information and that they regarded him as a threat to the South African government.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it that he knew too much about what the South African Police knew about Operation Vula?

MR SWART: Would you repeat that please?

CHAIRPERSON: That he knew too much about what the South African Police had already discovered about Operation Vula?

MR SWART: Chairperson, I am not certain of what he knew. As far as I understood from Warrant Officer Nortje, he was a threat to the people and we had to eliminate him.

CHAIRPERSON: You weren't given any details of how or why he was a threat?

MR SWART: No, just in general.

MR LAX: I mean you wouldn't have refused to carry out the order? You weren't even interested in the reason why he was to be killed, you were just told to kill him and you killed him?

MR SWART: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You relied on the judgement of your senior officers?

MR SWART: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Hattingh on record, Mr Chairman, I have no questions, thank you.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH.

MR LAMEY: No questions Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Swart, Mr Hanton cannot recall that he was present when the shots were fired with this weapon, the AK. He does not say that he was not present, he says that he simply cannot recall, could you tell us whether or not he was present?

MR SWART: What I do know is that Warrant Officer Nortje fired the weapon, I think we drove with the BMW, I am not certain whether he was present or not, I cannot say with certainty.

MR NEL: Mr Hanton himself did not give you the information why this man had to be eliminated, you said it was Warrant Officer Nortje?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR NEL: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NEL

MR LAX: Mr Lamey, any questions?

MR LAMEY: I have already indicated I have got no questions.

MR VISSER: Visser on record Chairperson, I have no questions for this witness, thank you.

MR WAGENER: Jan Wagener Mr Chairman, no questions, thank you.

MR SCHOLTZ: I have no questions, Mr Chairperson.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR SWART: Thank you sir.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairperson, as far as I understand all the applicants have finished their testimony, you will see on the record, there is still the application for Mr Radebe on the role, I am not exactly sure what his position is, as far as I can establish, he is not an applicant. I don't know what the final position is of his legal representative, maybe Mr Hattingh can maybe indicate what his position is, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, Mr Radebe was not involved in this incident at all, and he is not an applicant for amnesty in respect of this particular incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that complete the evidence that is to be led on behalf of the applicants? Mr Scholtz, do you propose to lead any evidence?

MR SCHOLTZ: Mr Chairperson, I have discussed it with the family of the deceased, and I have decided not to call any evidence.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I am not calling any further evidence, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you gentlemen ready to commence argument now or would you like to take the adjournment now and start at two o'clock or do you have any other suggestions?

MR HATTINGH: Strictly speaking for myself Mr Chairman, I am ready to commence argument now.

MR VISSER: Visser on record Mr Chairman, I am also ready to commence, to complete the argument now.

CHAIRPERSON: I see all of you are.

MR LAX: They clearly don't like Pietermaritzburg.

CHAIRPERSON: All want to go and visit Greytown.

MR HATTINGH IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, as far as Mr de Kock is concerned, it is clear from his

evidence that he firmly believed that he had instructions from Gen Engelbrecht to arrange for the elimination of Mr Sikhakane. It matters very little as to whether Engelbrecht in fact gave such instructions, it is clear from the evidence Mr Chairman, that Mr de Kock told Gen Steyn that he had to clear the matter out ...

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't say he had instructions from Gen Engelbrecht, did he, he said it had Gen Engelbrecht's approval?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, indeed Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Because he told Steyn you must get it and he presumed this had been done?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, particularly in view of the fact that Engelbrecht then gave him instructions to contact Gen Steyn again and inform him that he would know what it was all about. Clearly Mr Chairman, he falls within the ambit of Section 20(2)(f) which reads -

At the very worst for him Mr Chairman, he entertained a bona fide belief that he had the implied authority if not express authority from Gen Engelbrecht to arrange for the elimination of Mr Sikhakane. He thereafter received instructions from Gen Steyn and he arranged for the elimination of Mr Sikhakane. He was given a reason why it had to be done, Mr Chairman, and he based on that information, he believed that it was necessary for Mr Sikhakane to be eliminated. It is quite clearly in my respectful submission, Mr Chairman, established a political objective. One really needs very little imagination to realise what the effect would have been had Mr Sikhakane disclosed the fact that the police had in fact arrested Ndaba and Shabalala and that they were responsible for their disappearance and subsequently their killing. I submit therefore Mr Chairman, that he had a very clear political objective, he acted under instructions and he made a full disclosure of all the facts known to him. He did not carry out the instructions for any personal or financial gain, there was no evidence that he received any such remuneration such as Mr Nortje received, and we submit therefore Mr Chairman, that he made out a clear case for amnesty and we apply for amnesty for murder, for the illegal possession of an AK47 fitted with a silencer and for possession of the ammunition for that particular firearm and in addition Mr Chairman, we apply for amnesty for theft or possibly fraud in respect of the amount of money which he told Mr Nortje to keep for himself. We have heard once again Mr Chairman, that there are minor children involved here, and therefore we seek amnesty for all delicts, claims on the basis of delicts, Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I think it will be more in sequence if Adv Visser proceeds with Gen Steyn and then we can come down to the footsoldiers.

MR VISSER IN ARGUMENT: I have no problem with that Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairman, I am going to be brief, I find myself in respectful agreement with what my learned friend, Mr Hattingh has submitted to you. Chairperson, as far as the situation is concerned, perhaps it might be helpful to place it against the background of some of the facts as one can piece it together from other evidence which the Committee has heard. This takes place, Chairperson, it starts off in 1988 when there was a drive from Swaziland by the so-called Natal machinery and it was in 1988 that Mr Sikhakane was recruited Chairperson. You will recall perhaps in the Dion Cele matter, I am not quite sure whether you in fact Chaired in that, I have just been told you weren't, but apparently Sikhakane was the person that was instrumental in the abduction and the later murder of Mr Dion Cele and according to Vorster's evidence in the Cele matter, Sikhakane and his wife and one child if I remember correctly, Commissioner Lax can correct me if I am wrong, were brought out the very next day, one day later. Chairperson, it is clear that Sikhakane was involved as an

informer and as an askari since 1988, some two years at least prior to his demise. It is not in our submission terribly relevant to find out what his whereabouts were other than to know that in the period of two years Chairperson, he must have gained substantial knowledge of the workings and the operation of the Durban Security Branch and their attempts to counter the revolutionary onslaught from Swaziland, also he must have had a very good knowledge of informers and the informer network, all of which formed part of very sensitive information of which he possessed Chairperson.

Gen Steyn has told you what his knowledge of the incident was and he said this, he said that Taylor came to him and informed him about problems that were experienced with Sikhakane, there was an alcohol problem, there was a problem, a domestic problem between him and his wife, which he assaulted her, threatened her with a firearm, we know from her own evidence that that was so, that she had complained to Col Taylor, Col Andy Taylor and as a result of which, the firearm of Sikhakane was confiscated from him on more than one occasion, for a few days. The issue Chairperson, of Sikhakane's own dissatisfaction with his work as a result of him not being appointed as a policeman in our respectful submission, is not really a material factor in the matter. We accept that there must have been something like that, it has been alluded to by Ms Pietersen, it has been supported to some extent by Mr Nortje, by Mr Hanton. It takes the matter no further, the fact of the matter is that there was a dissatisfaction apparently on the part of Sikhakane as well as from Taylor's point of view. Taylor's problem with Sikhakane was that he posed a security risk because of his alcohol problem and because of the fights that he was having, his domestic problems and Chairperson, he later started doubting whether Sikhakane was in fact not a double-agent. A line was thrown out, a disinformation line, and when the disinformation was fed back from Swaziland, according to the statement of Mr Andy Taylor, he took that information to Gen Steyn and that according to Gen Steyn, was the final straw. Gen Steyn, Chairperson, told you that when he first heard about the complaints regarding Sikhakane, he went and spoke to him at Camperdown and asked him to mend his ways and in fact Chairperson, this is very important, he says, he told you here that he told Sikhakane that with his lifestyle and what was occurring, he did not only pose a threat to his colleagues, but also to his own life because obviously in a drunken state, people might say things which may endanger not only the lives of others, but also of himself.

Chairperson, I would ask you to bear this one factor in mind in as much as I submit that this absolutely supports the credibility of what Steyn has told you. One must bear in mind that Charles Ndaba was arrested by both Vusi Ninela as well as Goodwill Sikhakane. We know that nothing ever happened to Ninela. He was not eliminated. So, any idea or thought or perception that a vicious circle had come into effect the moment that Charles Ndaba and Mbuso Shabalala were eliminated, and that that was really the reason as it was put to Gen Steyn, why Sikhakane had to be eliminated, does not hold water Chairperson, because if that was so, then clearly Ninela would also have been eliminated. In our respectful submission, it corroborates and supports the evidence of Gen Steyn that what really became the critical reason was the fact that they were sure on what they had in front of them by way of information, that is himself and Taylor, that Sikhakane was a double-agent. It was only in that sense Chairperson, that the issue of Charles Ndaba and Mbuso Shabalala perhaps obliquely became relevant as well, as one of the factors.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the real reason Mr Visser, we only have alleged report made by Taylor that he thought he might be. Wasn't the position Mr Visser, that on the evidence available, Sikhakane should never have become a security operative, that he had these problems before he came to this country, he continued with them and as you have said, he must have picked up a lot of knowledge about what was going on. They tried to correct him, Gen Steyn went himself to speak to him and said "look, you must change", he didn't, he went on. It seems to me clear that there was a great deal of co-operation by Col Taylor, with his wife, that he tried to smooth things over for the family, it did not work and eventually they were driven to the conclusion that this man was a danger to all the things they say, the security operatives, he could identify people, he might say things that could affect the negotiations going on and it was for that reason that they decided. The double-agent was merely another possibility, but it was just the man's general behaviour, is what decided that he was

such a potential danger?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I am in full agreement with you, but by the same token, we cannot ignore the fact that Steyn told you and that Taylor said before he died, in his affidavit, that he became convinced that he was a double-agent because you see Chairperson, with great respect, on what, on the proposition which you have just posed to me, now that becomes a real danger because while the man, Sikhakane, is not divulging the information which he possesses to anyone else, that is one thing, but the moment there are indications that he might be a double-agent, it becomes critical Chairperson. That is the only submission I am making. Of course, of course, part of that involves the whole issue of Charles Ndaba and Mbuso Shabalala, it cannot be denied Chairperson. Certainly that must have been part of what must have been going on in the mind of Gen Steyn and he says that that was.

CHAIRPERSON: The trouble is, Gen Steyn, as I understand his evidence, had to rely entirely on Taylor. It was in Taylor's mind that this was happening, and he came and told him that he might be a double-agent, he might, Taylor and Steyn had to rely on the judgement of a senior officer, who was in active charge of that Unit?

MR VISSER: Those are the facts Chairperson, yes, absolutely. Although I must say Chairperson, with respect to the evidence of Gen Steyn, is that he put it slightly higher than a mere presumption, he put it as slightly higher. He said that Taylor, in fact he said in his evidence "we became convinced that he was a double-agent".

CHAIRPERSON: My note says he said "Taylor told me that he might be playing a double roll".

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, and then the line was thrown out.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and that he gave him disinformation which was then, the Security Branch in Swaziland picked it up?

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson. And my recollection and I may be wrong, was that Steyn thereafter said, said that thereafter he had become convinced that in fact the man was a double-agent because of that. But be that as it may Chairperson, the fact is that we are in complete agreement with the proposition which you have just put to me, that is in fact our argument Chairperson, and we say with great respect that that, per definition, presupposes a political objective, it certainly does not presuppose any personal malice or action taken against Sikhakane for any personal reasons and Chairperson, certainly in the present case, we submit that on the evidence of all the applicants that you have heard, there was a clear desire on their part to make a full disclosure to you of what they remembered Chairperson.

Lastly on this issue Chairperson, and honourable members, it is my submission that the evidence of Steyn is supported basically by the evidence of all the witnesses to a lesser or a major degree. They are giving evidence today of what they can recollect or what they heard nine years ago, eight years ago, and it is clear Chairperson, even from the evidence of Mr de Kock, that he recollects that he was told that there was a danger that Mr Sikhakane would divulge sensitive information to the ANC, which really in cross-examination he correctly conceded in our submission, which really boils down to the same thing. He remembers the issue of Charles Ndaba, etc, Chairperson. There is a lot of corroboration among the evidence of all the witnesses before you, to allow you to safely draw the inference that what they have told you, is the truth and the truth of the matter is that Sikhakane was eliminated for all the reasons which you put to me a moment ago. Mr Chairman, enough about the facts of the matter, there remains one issue Mr Chairman, which I hope you will allow me to address you and your members of your Committee briefly and that is the issue regarding the specification of offences.

Chairperson, the Act in Section 20 provides that if you are satisfied of certain prescribed issues having been complied with, that you can give amnesty, that you shall give amnesty, grant amnesty for any act, omission or offence as described in subsection (2) of Section 20 and subsection (3). Chairperson, you will recall when the Amnesty Committee commenced with its work, there were a number of issues which were unclear from the language of the legislation in terms of which you operate. Most of those have by way of interpretation, been dealt with in various decisions Chairperson. This is one issue that seems to remain unanswered because the problem which we all had with subsection (2) was that reading it, in the plain English language, what the legislature said was that an act, omission or offence must be an offence or a delict which in essence means that what the legislature said was inter alia that an offence has to be an offence before it can be an act or omission associated, an act or omission associated with a political objective. Mr Chairman, what I am leading to, and I am going to cut straight to the chase, is this, the question which we really have to ask ourselves is whether the legislature requires from the Amnesty Committee to specify the offences for which it grants amnesty and the answer to that is no, Mr Chairman, it does not. There is nowhere in Section 20 or elsewhere in the Act where the legislature stated that the Amnesty Committee shall only grant amnesty for such acts or omissions or offences as it finds to have been committed by a particular applicant. What it says is that if it is satisfied with the requirements set out in subsection (1) of Section 20, it shall grant amnesty for acts and offences, acts, omissions or offences and here is the submission Chairperson, which we believe with respect lies at the heart of it. When the Act speaks of acts or omissions, we submit it does not more than refer to a delict, that is all. It refers to nothing more than a delict. So what really if you read in subsection (1) of Section 20, each time for the words act, omission, the word delict, everything falls into place. Now Chairperson, why is this important? This is important from this point of view, Commissioner de Jager ...

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on) ... is an offence or delict, not a delict.

MR VISSER: No, but that is subsection (2) Chairperson, but in subsection (1) it talks of an act or an omission. If that does not refer to a delict, the question must be what does it refer to? It cannot refer to an act or an omission in vacuo because subsection (2) says it cannot, it must be a delict or an offence. All that we are submitting Chairperson is that perhaps, because it could be more fortunately worded, we say that if you read in Section 20(1) the same words as there are in subsection (2), it makes great sense that what you are dealing with here and we know that this is what you are dealing with, are delicts and offences and may I explain my argument to you in this way. Commissioner de Jager on more than one occasion has said "well, we cannot just give you a blank amnesty because just now the Attorney-General comes and he charges you with an offence and you say but hang on, I've got amnesty already and then we have a problem because you did not specify what specific offence you applied for in that particular incident." But Chairperson, the acid test is this, in not one single case before the Amnesty Committee ever, have you specified the delicts and that is part of what you grant amnesty for, not in one single case that we have come across. Not in one single case that we have heard an application, has any delict been specified. Is it a delict for loss of support, is it a delict defamation ...

CHAIRPERSON: My practice is it is normally any delict arising from that offence.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, and that is precisely my argument. My argument is all you need to say is any offence that arises from the incident, any offence. May I illustrate that by referring you to one example only from the amnesty decisions in the Cronje cluster? In the zero handgrenades Chairperson, the Amnesty Committee heard the evidence and the application of Brig Cronje and Mr Venter, in the case of Brig Cronje, just confining myself now to the unlawful possession of explosives, the Amnesty Committee gave amnesty to Brig Cronje and that is at page 11 of that decision, for the following - contravention of Section 2, 28, 29, 32, 36 and 39 of the Arms and Ammunition Act, 75 of 1969; contravention of Section 2 of the Dangerous Weapons Act, 71 of 1968; contravention of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 29 of the Explosives Act, 26 of 1956.

Mr Chairman, with respect without much trouble, the Attorney-General can go and sit down and find I am quite convinced in my own mind, quite a number of other issues that have been missed and the problem here Mr Chairman, is once the Amnesty Committee has given this amnesty, then inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, Brig Cronje is now bound to the amnesty which he received from the original Amnesty Committee in this particular sense of what I have just read to you with reference to the Sections. If you look at Venter and the decision which was made, amnesty granted in Venter's case Chairperson, and this is in exactly the same incident, by exactly the same Committee, at page 8 of Venter's decision, the Amnesty Committee in regard to the zero handgrenades formulated its amnesty for Venter as follows, it says - for the reasons set out in that decision amnesty is also granted, that is with reference to Brig Cronje, to this applicant in respect of the following offences - (a) deals with something else and then (b) Chairperson, any attempted murders and the possession of explosives or weapons pertaining to these incidents and any other offence directly linked to the facts of this particular incident. The interesting part is this, the Attorney-General can never charge Venter on that amnesty order which was granted, but it can charge Brig Cronje and this brings me Chairperson, and I apologise for going in a roundabout way, to illustrate the point, the submission is this on a proper reading of the Act, all that the legislature required from an applicant was to place a full disclosure of all the relevant facts before the Amnesty Committee and all that the legislature required and still requires of the Amnesty Committee is to grant amnesty for any delict or offence connected to that particular incident based on those particular relevant facts, and Chairperson with great respect, it is iniquitous to say the least, to expect from either the legal representatives or members of the Amnesty Committee to go and sit down and try to determine each and every single offence or delict which may have been perpetrated on the facts of any particular incident. We submit Chairperson, that it would be the most proper order in all cases, for the Amnesty Committee to make, to say the applicant is granted amnesty, if you are satisfied with the other requirements of the Act that they have been complied with, that the applicant is granted amnesty for any delict or offence committed by him in regard to this incident and then Chairperson, to identify that incident so that it can never be said as Commissioner de Jager was afraid it might be, to say for an applicant to say I got amnesty where in fact he did not. Now there is one further aspect that relates to this, you may say to me Chairperson, but then in every case where this might happen in future, the Court might have to decide on the facts what we gave amnesty for, well, the answer to that is a very simple one. If the Attorney-General on an order such as the one which I have just suggested to be the correct order, wants to charge any applicant who had obtained that amnesty, it is for him to come and prove, to show that the applicant did not obtain that amnesty. Chairperson, if at the end of the day the Court is then compelled to go and look at the facts to determine for itself what was meant by the Amnesty Committee when it granted the order, well, then so be it Chairperson. Then so be it. Just lastly Chairperson, returning to the order handed down in Cronje's amnesty decision, a number of matters immediately occur to you which have never been dealt. One of the things is that he did not get any amnesty for any delict for example. Surely Chairperson, that could never have been the intention of the legislature to expect from you sitting as you do in every single application, to have to go and suffer the burden of determining exactly each and every delict. One can think of dozens of reasons ...

CHAIRPERSON: That is precisely Mr Visser, why we have asked you to please tell us what you want, what your amnesty application is for and if we look at your application at page 162, you will see that all you needed to do was to ask for an order in those terms.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, it is question of establishing the principle here. Is it expected of an applicant and his legal advisor and in fact of yourself to specify each and every delict and each and every offence?

CHAIRPERSON: Look at your order Mr Visser, page 162. I am not saying you should specify anything. Please look at what you are asking for and tell me if that does not cover your argument precisely?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman ...

CHAIRPERSON: You are asking for amnesty for any offence or unlawful deed based on his connection with the murder of Goodwill Sikhakane, finished.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, that is the only principle which I wish to try and establish, is that that is all that is expected of you to consider, and all that is expected ...

CHAIRPERSON: And that is what the applicant or legal advisors should come and ask for. And that is what we are asking you to tell us what you want.

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, but - I don't want to belabour the point, but I haven't, I have taken up the time, perhaps may I just round it off. One has the situation Chairperson where a number of other offences, if this is accepted by you, that is the end of the matter Chairperson, because that is all I want to ask you to do, is to accept that this is the proper way in order for an order to be asked for and to be granted. If you tell me now that you are satisfied with that, that is the end of the argument Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that is sufficient thank you Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: That would then conclude my argument Mr Chairperson, I would then ask for amnesty for Gen Steyn for any act, for any delict or offence committed by him in regard to the death of Mr Goodwill Colleen Sikhakane on the date mentioned in the papers, thank you Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS IN ARGUMENT: I will be brief, Mr Chairperson, thank you. Mr Chairman, three requirements need to be satisfied and it is my submission that my clients both the second applicant Britz and the third applicant, Swart, conformed with the requirements of the Act laid down in Section 20(1)(a) as far as their applications are concerned. They have testified to that affect as well and they have fully complied with Section 18 as well. As far as full disclosure is concerned, which is also a requirement, it is my submission that both applicants have fully complied with that relevant prescription and it is clear that they were credible witnesses, they were, especially Mr Britz was quite severely cross-examined and it is clear that he was a credible witness in all relevant aspects, as well as Mr Swart. They were basically the footsoldiers who carried out the instructions. Mr Britz in a way was in a bit of a more authoritative position, but it is clear that he carried out the instructions which came from a higher authority. Thirdly the, if the offence was committed with a political motive. It is clear that they were acting in the cause and scope of their duties with their employer. I cannot elaborate

more than Your Honour, Chairperson's judgement in the matter of the Khotso House, Cosatu House bomb explosion where you analysed the Mkhize and Martin's decision as well as the decision of Veltman and Mall and the estate Swanepoel decision fully, and it is quite clear that we have here to do with two footsoldiers who were acting in the cause and scope of their duties, with their employer. They might have deviated in small aspects from their original instructions, but as it is covered by the decision of Swanepoel, it is quite clear that that still falls clearly within the cause and scope of their duties with their employer, the South African Police. They were clearly acting on authority, there can be no doubt about that either. They were clearly acting in their minds on a subjective test against the political struggle. They thought they were acting against the ANC and they were in fact protecting the government of the day at that time. As I reiterate, they acted bona fide in the objective of countering and resisting the struggle. It is clear also that both my applicants did not receive any bonus of any nature whatsoever, they did not do it with any pecuniary gain in mind and it is also clear that they did not have any motive or hate or any of that type of feeling against the deceased, Goodwill Sikhakane. Therefore I ask as far as Mr Britz is concerned, for amnesty in his participation in the murder of Goodwill Sikhakane, also known as Neville, as well as his participation in gaining Mr Sikhakane illegal entry into the Republic of South Africa, obviously transgressing certain laws in that respect, thirdly as far as his possible possession of an illegal firearm fitted with a silencer, which is also illegal, and the ammunition is concerned, we would request amnesty for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this the Makarov?

MR CORNELIUS: This is the AK47.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't there evidence he had a Makarov pistol?

MR CORNELIUS: There was something referred to a Makarov, I recall that as well, so that will include the Makarov pistol Mr Chairman. The obviously following the elaborate and very detailed argument of my learned colleague, Mr Visser, for any possible delict which may flow from his actions. As far as Mr Swart is concerned, he would request amnesty for his participation in the murder of Goodwill Sikhakane, the illegal possession of a firearm, silencer and ammunition, of the AK47 and possibly the Makarov, the Makarov is not as far as Swart is concerned, I don't think, he didn't know about it at all, and any possible delict. Both applicants obviously are applicants as described in Section 20(2)(b) and 20(2)(f) possibly of the Act. That concludes my argument Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on)

MR CORNELIUS: I understood so Mr Chairman, it would include the Makarov as well as far as Britz is concerned, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR NEL IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairman, I am even going to be more brief than that, especially in the light of the fact that I took the liberty of preparing a written argument which I am going to ask the Committee to give an exhibit, it will be Exhibit E. In this document Mr Chairperson, I deal fully with under the heading "General", my client's legal position. I have also included a portion of the mental condition of Mr Larry John Hanton, I also have a document which I would like to hand in in conjunction with the written Heads of argument, which is a letter from a psychologist, which was sent to me, to my office on the 20th of August, which will be Exhibit F if I may and it is in respect of these Heads of argument that I ask for this Committee to favourably consider granting Larry John Hanton amnesty for the murder of Goodwill Sikhakane or any other offence that might relate to this incident. If I may hand these up, I will hand this in at the conclusion of the hearing if it pleases the Committee.

MR LAMEY IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, a list has been prepared in relation to the offences that can be deduced from the facts as earlier required by the

Committee. Chairperson, it is my submission in short that Mr Nortje's position as one of the subordinate officers below Mr de Kock, his position is not different from that of Britz or Swart and that he had all reason to believe at the time that he received instructions, based on what he was told by Mr de Kock, that this was an instruction from Head Office and that it was an instruction which by nature had to be carried out as a result of a political risk that the victim posed for the Durban Security Branch. Chairperson, it is my submission that Mr Nortje's application comply with the provisions of the Act, specifically Section 20(2)(b) or at least also Section 20(2)(f) and that it was clearly also from the outset, he was inspired by the, first of all the instruction that he received and then secondly also the motive about the reasons that were given to him and that he had knowledge of at the time. Clearly in his position, from his vantage point he was not in a position to have more than that information and as we have heard before the Committee by Gen Steyn, there were actually also more to it about Sikhakane than Mr Nortje would have known. It is my submission that at least what he knew was sufficient for a political objective if one just looks objectively at what potential danger there lay with a person who threatened to disclose or who had possible knowledge to disclose about the disappearance of those ANC MK people who were involved in Operation Vula. If one cast your mind just a little bit back, one can recall how much Operation Vula was for political purposes also used by the previous government in order to gain some moral high-ground during the negotiation process. Chairperson, one could further imagine in my submission that had this information been disclosed, there would have been a great loss to that ground that they gained at the time. Chairperson, there is just one aspect and that is the bonus that Mr Nortje received, it is my submission that this was a matter after the fact. He could never have been inspired for personal gain when he received instructions to accompany the other members for this task. If I read the meaning of the Act Chairperson, it says it excludes any act committed by a person who acted for personal gain. By that I read by implication that the action of the person or the offence must have been inspired by, or motivated by personal gain, and this is clearly not the case. The fact of the matter is I think, it just is indicative of also full disclosure, the fact that Mr Nortje has disclosed this in the way that he did. It is my submission that he complies with all the requirements for amnesty. As the Committee pleases.

MR WAGENER IN ARGUMENT: Jan Wagener, Mr Chairman, as in previous applications, Gen Engelbrecht does not formally oppose any of the present applications before you, Mr Chairman. He merely disputes parts of the evidence. In that sense I was

instructed to appear here on his behalf, to protect his interests. Mr Chairman, the evidence of Gen Steyn is quite clear, he and Taylor had discussions about the problems concerning Mr Sikhakane and this eventually led to the stage where he, Gen Steyn, decided that Sikhakane had to be eliminated. Thereafter he duly instructed Taylor to proceed with the operation. Mr Chairman, Gen Steyn was quite clear that he did not ask for instructions or permission from anyone, not from Security Head Office, not from Gen Engelbrecht. He in fact went even further and said that he has never done that in any other matter, for which he is applying for amnesty. To a degree Mr Chairman, he is corroborated by Taylor who also makes no reference in his application, that previous authority had been obtained from a higher office than Gen Steyn. Mr Chairman, the version of Mr de Kock which is denied by Gen Engelbrecht in so far as he, Engelbrecht, is implicated by Mr de Kock, de Kock's own version Mr Chairman, is that before the operation he had a discussion with Engelbrecht where only reference was made to a problem in Natal and the furthest Mr de Kock could go was that he assumed that Engelbrecht knew this was about Sikhakane and the planned murder of Sikhakane. After the operation, according to the version of Mr de Kock, he reported back to Engelbrecht, but once again in vague terms that the problem of Natal had been solved. In cross-examination he wasn't even sure whether the name of Sikhakane was mentioned, although he said that he thinks so and that is what he remembers, but he wasn't sure. Mr Chairman, reference was made to two directives of Security Head Office, early directives of 1980, 1981 which called upon all Security Branch Commanders that should they require the services of Vlakplaas, the way they should go about, they should formally request authority via the Head of C-Section and only once that has been given, could Vlakplaas be deployed to the different areas of our country. Mr Chairman, I submit that those directives is totally irrelevant to the present proceedings. Mr de Kock conceded that those directives only referred to legal operations and in the case of illegal operations as was the murder of Mr Sikhakane, these procedures would definitely not be followed in terms of the written requests and so forth, but it would merely go by word of mouth, as was testified. We also heard the concession of Mr de Kock that in a number of incidents where he was involved in crimes for which he has been asking for amnesty, he did so on his own initiative, without the authority of his immediate seniors. Mr Chairman, based on that, based on the evidence presently before you, I therefore submit that concerning Gen Engelbrecht, no negative finding ought to be made by you in any sense. Thank you.

MR SCHOLTZ IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr

Chairman, I don't propose to address the Committee on the applications of the first, second and third applicants, that is de Kock, Britz and Swart. Mr Chairman, as far as the fourth applicant, Nortje is concerned, I simply wish to submit that he acted for personal gain and should therefore not be granted amnesty. It is my submission that it makes very little difference whether you received the remuneration before or after the act was committed. The fact is that he did receive it in connection with this act. It is also significant Mr Chairman, that he was the person who did the dirty work, he is the actual one who pulled the trigger, and the question is, is this a pure coincidence or is this, was he given this incentive as a result of the part that he played in the commission of the offence.

Mr Chairman, with regards to the other applicants Hanton, Taylor and Steyn, it is my submission that the Committee should approach their evidence regarding the double-agency of Sikhakane and his visit to Swaziland extremely carefully. Mr Chairman, there is in the first place the clear discrepancy, a glaring discrepancy between the evidence of de Kock and that of Steyn regarding the reason for this operation. De Kock says there was a simple threat by this askari to walk over to the ANC if he was not permanently appointed in the police, Steyn on the other hand denies completely that he at any stage discussed the matter with de Kock or anybody else. But Mr Chairman, the point that I want to emphasise is the procedure which was followed after it is alleged that it became clear that Sikhakane was a double-agent. That relates to the fact that he was transferred to Greytown at a stage after he was suspected of being a double-agent, in fact after it was confirmed that he was a double-agent. Mr Chairman, if this was so, then it is highly improbable that he would have been transferred to Greytown, that he would have been permitted to walk around in Greytown in circumstances where he could have disclosed his knowledge, more particularly so in the light of the allegations that he was abusing alcohol and neglecting to come to work.

Mr Chairman, if the Committee finds that the allegations of being a double-agent and his going to Swaziland are untrue, then of course the matter of full disclosure comes up and it is submitted that on that basis, amnesty should not be granted to Hanton, Taylor and Steyn who were obviously involved in fabricating this evidence regarding Sikhakane. Those are my submissions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV STEENKAMP: I have no submissions to add, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER IN FURTHER ARGUMENT: Mr Chairman, I see

you are ready to rise, may I enquire whether we might be allowed a brief reply to what we have heard now, being thrown at us by way of objection to the applications, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it necessary Mr Visser, what do you want to raise?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I will be no more than two minutes. May I first of all draw your attention, you can time me Mr Chairman, may I first of all draw your attention to the regulations made, laid down on the 5th of February by this Committee, under your Chairmanship Chairperson, to say that where there are objections, such should be communicated to the applicants and the grounds for the objections should be set out so that they could be dealt with during the application. None of that has been done, and technically there is no objection before you, but be that as it may Chairperson, the grounds of the attack upon Hanton, Taylor and Steyn rests on the assumed, the assumed non-existence of the visits to Swaziland as well as the, an apparent clear discrepancy between de Kock and Steyn, none of which exists. Chairperson, there is no evidence before you to contradict the evidence of all these witnesses, and with great respect that is the end of my reply to the attack Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take time to consider our decision and that completes this hearing. I thank all you gentlemen for your co-operation during the course of the hearing and I presume I will be seeing some of you in Pretoria on Monday.