---------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. We want to start the proceedings. For the record, it's Thursday the 4th of May 2000, it is the continuation of the sitting of the Amnesty Committee, at White River, Mpumalanga. The Panel is constituted as has been indicated on the record earlier. The Leader of Evidence is still Ms Mtanga. We will be hearing the application of Josias Seemise, amnesty reference AM8044/97.

Just before we proceed to hear this application that's before us this morning - Ms Mtanga, can we just deal with the application that we heard on Tuesday, Nyanda and Others. There was the one issue that remained about the interested parties, victims, some of whom had not yet indicated what their attitude is towards the application. Have you managed in the meantime to get any further information about that, and if so, what have you managed to learn about the position of those people?

MS MTANGA: Thank you, Chairperson. Having advertised on the radio that the victims in the application of Mkhonto, Shoke and Nyanda, should contact the Commission, we did get a response and they came to see us yesterday. We met them at the SABC. The people that I met with were Mandla Sithole, he is the son of Joel Sithole, who died in the landmine incident where four people were killed and one injured. Mandla Sithole didn't have a statement to give, all he gave me were the details of his family, that he was the eldest at home and then his younger brother is Vusi Sithole, who is 19 years old and he's in standard 10. They also have a sister, Zondo Sithole, who is 16 years old and is in standard 6. Their concern as the family is that they still have their mother but the mother is unemployed. Mandla Sithole had to leave school in standard 8 in 1988, that is the year after the incident, the landmine incident. He had to leave school to go and work to support the family and take the two other kids to school. What he and his family would like the Committee to do is assist them financially and put the two kids through school, and Mandla himself would like to go back to school. That's what he has stated.

And then I further met with Mr Michael Sheba. Michael Sheba is the son of Mr Msibi, who also died in the incident, and also his grandmother, Christina Msibi, also Pagathi, that's another surname that she used at the time, also died in the incident. So Michael Sheba is the grandchild and the son to the two victims. His position is that they were living with their mother, they don't have a father, that's him and his brother, Vusi Khumalo. So he's got a brother who is 25 years old, Vusi Khumalo. They had to live without any financial support and even today they are unemployed, so they would like the Committee to assist them financially. That is their position. Both persons, both victims, Mr Sithole and Mr Sheba, indicated that they are not opposing the application. Even if they had attended, they would not have opposed. They understood what was going on at the time, they know that it was a struggle to liberate them and they were aware of MK cadres' involvement in that area, so they are not opposing the application.

And then this morning I met with Mr James Motsa - the correct surname is M-o-t-s-a, not Mota as it's been on the record. Mr Motsa was badly injured in that incident, he is blind and he can't speak properly. He's unemployed and he's depending on pension. At the time of this incident he was married and he has a son from that marriage. What he would like the Committee to do is also assist him financially to educate his son, because he's now unemployed. He doesn't have any source of income except for his pension. He's also a brother to Sipho Xhomota(?), who also died in that incident. That is all. And he is also not opposing the application. That is their position, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SIBANYONI: Just one question, Mr Chairperson. Does their explanation of how the event happened accord with what the applicants told the Committee?

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, not exactly. When I asked Mr Michael Sheba to sort-of draw a diagram, his explanation of the road, the small road where the landmine was put, it's that that road didn't end, it went as far as the Motsa family's homestead, but then it did end in a cul-de-sac, where they would have to walk to their family home, but the point where they put it, if they had driven on that road, they would have been victims of that landmine, because it was the road leading to their home. But what they do say, which accords with what the applicant says, is that all the families who lived in that area didn't have vehicles and the bakkie that was caught up in that landmine belonged to a Mr Sithole, who lived in an area that was very far from them. So the vehicles which used the road were indeed vehicles used by the SADF at that time.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, Ms Mtanga, for your trouble, your efforts, we appreciate that. As we have indicated at the end of the day yesterday, or Tuesday, we will take into account all of the further factors that the interested parties and the victims have placed before us via Ms Mtanga, which we have noted, and that will be taken into account in coming to a decision on those applications. Yes, well that would conclude that matter.

We also just want to indicate that we are starting the proceedings later than usual this morning, we've had some difficulty in getting started. The victims, amongst other things, with an interest in the matter, had to travel to the venue where we are sitting, and the applicant is in custody, he's serving a sentence in regard to some of the matters that he's applying for amnesty in respect of before us, and that has caused some unforeseen delays. So we are starting the proceedings, unfortunately, later than what we had planned and anticipated and we apologise if any inconvenience has been occasioned as a result of that.

We will just take the appearances first before we proceed with the application. On behalf of the applicant? Mr Lubbe.

MR LUBBE: As the Chairperson pleases. I am Lubbe J, instructed in terms of Section 34 of the Act, by your Commission. I am from the company Swart, Redelinghuis, Nel and Partners, based in Krugersdorp. Telephone number 011-9544000. Thank you, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lubbe. We're going anti-clockwise.

MR VAN DER HYDE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I'm Chris van der Hyde, from the attorneys firm, J H van der Merwe attorneys. I'm appearing on behalf of the implicated persons, namely Mr Linda Napoleon Mkhonza, Mr Dingaan Maluleke and then also on behalf of the IFP. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Heyde. Then on behalf of the victims and interested parties?

MS MOHAMMED: Mr Chairperson, it's July Mohammed, from the firm Mthembu and Mohammed Attorneys. I appear for 27 victims. Should I read the names out for the record, or should I just hand out the list?

CHAIRPERSON: How long is it, Ms Mohammed?

MS MOHAMMED: It's 27 names.

CHAIRPERSON: 27 names. No, I don't think it's necessary to read it out, it might help us if it is in some written form somewhere, that we can attach it to the record of these proceedings.

MS MOHAMMED: It is, Mr Chairperson. I'll hand it up. I'll have a copy made during the course of the proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, so you'll be appearing on behalf of those parties.

MS MOHAMMED: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. And we've already indicated that Ms Mtanga appears as the Leader of Evidence. Mr Lubbe, is there anything you want to put on record, or do you wish your client to take the oath?

MR LUBBE: Mr Chairperson, before we commence, I formally move for an amendment, or certain amendments to the application itself.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LUBBE ADDRESSES: If I can refer the Committee to page 2 of the bundles which contains Form 1 of the application. Firstly, the spelling of the applicant's name in paragraph 2, Josias(?), the "a" should be replaced with an "i".

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, is it Josias? Perhaps you could just spell it out in full.

MR LUBBE: As it pleases. J-o-s-i-a-s.

CHAIRPERSON: J-o-s-i-a-s. Is that the only name?

MR LUBBE: Yes, Mr Chairperson, he's known as China.

CHAIRPERSON: Also as China.

MR LUBBE: That is correct. Then paragraph 7 - I beg your pardon, paragraph 9(a)(ii) which deals with the time period. As indicated to you, Mr Chairperson, my client would also like to apply for offences that were committed during the period and including 1989, up until 1992. So the period should not read 1991 to February '92, but in fact 1989 till 1992.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what is the effect of this issue that you've just raised Mr Lubbe? Does that period introduce incidents which are not listed in the summary in paragraph 9(a)(i), read together with the supplementary affidavit?

MR LUBBE: That is in fact so, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Dated the 4th of May 2000.

MR LUBBE: That is in fact so, Mr Chairperson. I've indicated that I've received instructions that certain other incidents took place during 1989, prior to Mr Hlongwane coming to Ermelo and then being in charge of the Black Cats. I've got details of these actions or offences, and I don't really know whether I should add them to the record now, or whether I should introduce them by way of leading my client on them. I understand the logistical problem, and that is that I would curtail the application today before you, simply for these matters that are contained in the supplementary affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LUBBE: Then (iii) should also read "Davel", in other words, not only Ermelo, but also in Davel. Then Mr Chairman, there's reference in (iv) of paragraph 9, of a person by the name of Stanley Percy de Kock, also in 9(c)(i). The applicant doesn't know where that comes from. I've asked my clerk who attended to the completion of this form in the presence of the applicant, if he can afford any explanation as to where the name comes from, but apparently not, nobody knows who Stanley Percy de Kock is.

CHAIRPERSON: So do you want that name deleted?

MR LUBBE: Simply by deleting the name "Stanley Percy de Kock". Well it would not quite make sense, maybe we should say: "The death of various unknown persons".

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LUBBE: Then turning to page 7 of the bundle, Mr Chairman, paragraph 11(b), to add the names of Mr I N Hlongwane, as well as Mr Chris Ngwenya.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just give that last surname.

MR LUBBE: Ngwenya.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LUBBE: The time period obviously would also have to be adjusted to 1989 to 1992. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, Mr Lubbe. Ms Mtanga, I just want to hear your response on the one issue, in regard to the application for amendment of Mr Lubbe, and that is the extension of the date to 1989 and the introduction through that amendment of incidents that are not before us and apparently don't form part of the application at this stage. Have you got any response or any views on that issue at this stage?

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, even though I do not wish to oppose this application, it does appear to me that the addition of, or the change in the date to '89, would amount to an ovation, but I would like to leave this in your hands. In the event the Committee does grant Mr Lubbe the application, I would say those incidents that he wishes to add on will have to be separated from these incidents because they were not investigated and we wouldn't know who the victims are, so we will not be in a position to deal with them today.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes I'm not specifically calling on any of the other parties, but if you wish to raise something you are free to do so, because it's not apparent at this stage whether this concerns any of your clients or any of the interests that you represent. There are no details before us at this stage about this, but you are free to raise any issue that you want to raise in regard to this extension.

In regard to the formal amendments, those are granted. They have been detailed by Mr Lubbe. In regard to the extension of the period which this application covers, or let me put it this way, the period in respect of which the applicant wishes to apply for amnesty, that appears to us to be a substantive issue, a substantive application, which would need full motivation, it will have to be a formal application which is submitted to the Committee, to deal with. Sitting here as we are at this stage, we are operating under unfortunate restraints, time restraints and otherwise. We have a number of interested parties who are attending the hearing in respect of the incidents which are properly before us at this stage. We regard it as not being in the interest of justice to fully deal with this issue that was raised in the application for amendment, and therefore we will grant the applicant an opportunity to submit a substantive application to the Committee, fully motivated, on affidavit, and for that application to be considered and dealt with by the Committee at a more appropriate stage and at a time when the further incidents which the applicant wishes to introduce, can be considered and investigated and a proper and better view, better informed view, to be formed in regard to those issues.

So the application in regard to the extension of the date is then dealt with on that basis, so that the nett result of that ruling is that what we will be dealing with in this session are the incidents which are properly identified in terms of paragraph 9(a)(i) of the application form on page 3 of the bundle of documents before us, read with the supplementary affidavit dated the 4th of May 2000. In fact, we will mark the supplementary affidavit Exhibit A, for the purposes of the record.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Lubbe, is there anything else, or do you want your client to take the oath?

MR LUBBE: Thank you Mr Chairman, no. I'm calling my client, the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Are your full names Josias Seemise?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Please stand to take the oath.

JOSIAS SEEMISE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated. Yes Mr Lubbe.

EXAMINATION BY MR LUBBE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Seemise, I'm referring you to the supplementary affidavit, Exhibit A in front of you. You've got a copy in front of you. Now please look at paragraph 2 of the affidavit, and can you briefly explain to this Committee the reason why your - Mr Chairperson, sorry this doesn't work.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you need a headset, and you must just make sure that it is on channel 2.

Very well, we seem to be sorted out. Yes you may proceed.

MR LUBBE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Seemise, please look at paragraph 2 of Exhibit A in front of you. The allegation is made that your application, which is the form in the bundle, starting at page 2 and running through to page 8, was completed insufficiently. Can you briefly explain to the Committee how it came about that this form was completed in the fashion and in the way it has been.

INTERPRETER: Will you please just repeat the question, Sir.

MR LUBBE: Yes. Please look at paragraph 2 of Exhibit A, briefly explain to the Committee please, how it came about that this application of yours was not completed sufficiently.

MR SEEMISE: With regards to my application, I was assisted by my previous attorney who then referred me to Mr Lubbe. Mr Lubbe did not know how far I had gone with my previous attorney.

MR LUBBE: Yes, and the application was submitted shortly before the cut-off date for the amnesty applications, is that correct?

MR SEEMISE: That's correct.

MR LUBBE: Now coming to paragraph 3 of your affidavit, Exhibit A, you confirm that you ended up, approximately during 1988, in Ermelo, is that correct?

MR SEEMISE: That's correct.

MR LUBBE: Can you also confirm that as far as your political involvement is concerned, that it is correctly reflected in paragraph 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 of Exhibit A?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, it is so.

MR LUBBE: You became a member of the IFP in 1989, is that correct?

MR SEEMISE: That's correct.

MR LUBBE: And you were also a member of the youth organisation of the IFP, called the Black Cats.

MR SEEMISE: That is correct.

MR LUBBE: Can you tell the Honourable Committee who were the leaders respectively, of the IFP and the Black Cats, when you joined in 1989.

There seems to be a problem, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it working? Alright.

MR LUBBE: Should I repeat the question?

MR SEEMISE: Yes.

MR LUBBE: Can you tell the Honourable Committee who were the leaders respectively, of the IFP and the Black Cats, during your involvement in 1989, in Ermelo.

MR SEEMISE: I will begin by naming the leaders of the Black Cats. The first person was Chris Ngwenya, whose deputy was Sabatha Zwane. Those were the IFP leaders. The IFP leaders in Ermelo were Madaka Hlatchwayo and Mr Mxobogazi. Those were the person I knew to be the leaders of the IFP.

MR LUBBE: What was your position in the Black Cats itself in the organisation?

MR SEEMISE: In 1991, I was elected as the youth chairperson.

MR LUBBE: Can you briefly explain to the Committee what the aims and purposes were of the Black Cats.

MR SEEMISE: The Black Cats were an IFP structure, mainly the youth. The IFP encountered problems at the time, to the effect that the ANC did not welcome them in the area. They were called Black Cats, so as to hide the fact that they were an IFP structure, because the IFP itself was not welcome in Ermelo. So the Black Cats were in effect, the IFP Youth Brigade.

MR LUBBE: Did the IFP and the Black Cats regard the ANC, at that point in time, as their political enemies in Ermelo?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, they regarded the ANC as the enemy.

MR LUBBE: Would you describe the struggle that existed between the IFP and the ANC, as a political struggle?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, it was a political conflict because we had political differences.

MR LUBBE: Now I want you to turn to paragraph 5 of Exhibit A, dealing with the list of convictions of which you were found guilty and for which you are currently being imprisoned. Mr Chairperson, I'm turning to page 15 of the bundle, as well as page 22, 23 and 24, which is a summary in terms of Section 144(?) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Now the first charge which you faced in the Regional Court in Ermelo, was a charge of conspiracy to murder one, Mr Mashlungwela Jeremiah Shongwe. The name appears on page 16 of the bundle. According to the charge sheet, this incident took place on the 30th of July 1991. Do you see that?

MR SEEMISE: Yes.

MR LUBBE: Now reading through the documents it would seem that charge 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, as well as 8, on pages 17, 18 and 19 of the bundle, also pertain to the same incident which charge 1 pertains to. Is that correct, is that one incident that took place on the 30th of July 1991, at Wesselton?

MR SEEMISE: That's correct.

MR LUBBE: Now you pleaded guilty to these charges and eventually you were sentenced on these. Can you briefly explain to the Committee the background to this specific incident, pertaining to charge 1 up until 8.

MR SEEMISE: Mr Shongwe was suspected of having been responsible for the death of the Black Cats leader. It was alleged that he had been with the deceased before he died. That was Mr Sabatha Zwane. Mr Mxobogazi then issued an order that Mr Shongwe should be killed.

MR LUBBE: Just before proceeding, let us pick it up at the very start. This operation, this instruction that was to be executed, that was given by Mr Noah - I didn't get his surname.

MR SIBANYONI: The surname is Mxobogazi.

MR LUBBE: Thank you, Mr Sibanyoni.

Now was this operation conducted by the Black Cats? This order was issued to the Black Cats?

MR SEEMISE: He issued the order to Israel Hlongwane, who was the Instructor or Commander of the Black Cats. Hlongwane then came and reported to us that such an order had been issued.

MR LUBBE: Let us first deal with Mr Hlongwane's position. Ir has been testified by Mr Hlongwane - Mr Chairman, I'm not quite sure whether I may put this because in terms of the normal rules of evidence, this is not evidence, the bundle in front of you. May I refer to the bundle as being evidence adduced by Mr Hlongwane, or is that not permitted?

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, you can, you can refer to that and you can elicit the comments of the applicant in regard to the allegations of Mr Hlongwane.

MR LUBBE: As it pleases you. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Now it has been testified by Mr Hlongwane, that he came from KwaZulu Natal to the Ermelo district in order to take charge of the Black Cats, is that in fact correct?

MR SEEMISE: That is correct.

MR LUBBE: Yes. Now this incident happened when he was already in Ermelo and being in charge of the Black Cats.

MR SEEMISE: That's correct.

MR LUBBE: And according to your evidence, he conveyed to you that he was instructed by Noah to execute this deed as contained in charge 1, 2 and 8.

MR SEEMISE: That's correct.

MR LUBBE: Now can you briefly describe to the Committee what happened after you were informed by Mr Hlongwane of your instructions. What actually took place? Give us a description of the event or the events.

MR SEEMISE:

MR LUBBE: Now the handgrenade that you threw, that was on the instruction of Mr Hlongwane.

MR SEEMISE: Yes, it was on Mr Hlongwane's instruction.

MR LUBBE: And the people that were injured are the people of which the names appear in charges 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, is that correct? On pages 17 and 18 of the bundle. These are the people that were in the room where you threw the handgrenade.

MR SEEMISE: I am not precisely certain of their names, but I believe that yes, those are the names.

MR LUBBE: And the handgrenade or the description of the handgrenade that you used in this attack is the F1 handgrenade which appears in charge 8 on page 19 of the bundle, is that correct?

MR SEEMISE: That is correct.

MR LUBBE: You were never charged with the murder of Mr Shongwe's mother, is that correct?

MR SEEMISE: That is correct.

MR LUBBE: But you in fact did associate yourself with the actions of Mr Hlongwane, is that correct?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, I did.

MR LUBBE: And do you also seek amnesty in respect of the death of Mrs Shongwe, the mother of Mr Shongwe?

MR SEEMISE: That's correct.

MR LUBBE: Now can we turn to charge 9, on page 19 of the bundle. It is so, Mr Seemise, that you also pleaded guilty to this charge where it is alleged that you assaulted a person by the name of Tiki Tilli Malaza? The particulars of that offence appear on page 20, paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15.

MR SEEMISE: Will you please repeat that.

MR LUBBE: It is also correct that you were charged with the assault of Tiki Tilli Malaza, charge number 9, page 19 of bundle A, and the particulars of the assault appear in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, on page 23 of the bundle. Mr Chairperson, my client does not understand Afrikaans, if I may just freely translate this to him, so that he can associate with it.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR LUBBE: It is alleged in paragraph 11, page 23, Mr Seemise, that during January to February '92, at Wesselton, Tiki Tilli Malaza was accompanied by two children and she was on her way to her sister-in-law. One of the children, Nomza Malaza, was carried on her back. On her way - paragraph 12, someone engaged in a conversation with her and that person presented himself as a debt collector.

You then, accompanied by Mr Hlongwane, approached her on the basis that you wanted to ask her something - paragraph 13, you suddenly pulled a firearm, aimed and shot her, or shot at her and that you then ran away. She was hit in the face and she sustained serious injuries.

Paragraph 15: The baby, Nomza Malaza, who was carried on her back was not injured.

Now you did instruct me this morning that you've got no knowledge of this incident at all, although you've pleaded guilty and were found guilty, is that correct?

MR SEEMISE: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: That's not very clear to me. Can you explain, is it a fact that you pleaded guilty to this incident?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, I did plead guilty, but at that time I did not understand that the offence related to Tiki Malaza, I actually mistook that incident for the other one that happened at the Nkosi household. I think there was a mistake that was made there.

ADV SANDI: So is it presently the position that you are not really asking for amnesty in respect of this incident?

MR SEEMISE: No, I am not seeking amnesty because I do not recall it.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Mr Lubbe.

MR LUBBE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. The problem is, and I've advised my client, that he cannot seek amnesty for this and that even if he does get amnesty, he must serve his sentence, and he appreciates the fact.

May I refer the Committee, with respect to page 122, 123 and 124 of the bundle, and I will come back to that later, but I just want to briefly inform the Committee that this in fact the incident that my client recalls, where Mr Hlongwane testifies about a Ms Nkosi, that also carried a baby on her back and which he shot at, and my client only pointed out to him who Ms Nkosi was. My instructions are this morning that he was under the impression all along that this incident of Malaza referred to that of Nkosi. As it pleases the Committee.

Now charge number 10 was withdrawn. Can we proceed to charge 11 and 12 of the bundle. Please look at page 20, Mr Seemise, and also look for me at page 24, which is a summary of these events, paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19.

Again with your permission, Mr Chairman, if I may translate that to my client.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LUBBE: During the period - I'm translating this paragraph 16 to you. During the period January to February '92, the Complainants in charges 11 and 12, Johannes Mabuza and his brother-in-law, Aron Kori Malinga, were busy serving a person in his tuck shop. Paragraph 17. The accused, that is you, Mr Seemise, suddenly entered the shop and fired several shots with a handgun, then you ran away.

Paragraph 18. Johannes Mabuza was shot several times in the chest, resulting in serious injury.

Paragraph 19. Aron Kori Malinga wasn't injured at all.

Do you recall this incident?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, I do.

MR LUBBE: It would seem, according to the summary that I've put to you just now, that you acted on your own. What is the position? Can you inform the Committee about this incident.

MR SEEMISE: I did not act alone, I was in the company of Israel Hlongwane. Mr Hlongwane informed me that Mr Mxobogazi had told him that this family was aligned to the ANC, therefore they had to be attacked. Hlongwane who had the firearm, gave it to me and ordered me to enter into the house and shoot at people in there. I then proceeded to do so and I found some person who was buying something from the shop and two persons who were serving him. I fired two or three shots and thereafter fled from the scene.

MR LUBBE: And this incident you also carried out on the instructions of Mr Hlongwane.

MR SEEMISE: That's correct.

MR LUBBE: Turning to charges 13 and 14, it relates to the gun you used, as well as the ammunition that was used in the incident of charges 11 and 12, is that correct?

MR SEEMISE: That's correct.

MR LUBBE: And you don't seek amnesty on charge 15. That would be the escape from custody, you're not applying for amnesty in that regard.

MR SEEMISE: No, I do not seek amnesty for that.

MR LUBBE: Mr Chairperson, I'm moving on to page 4 of Exhibit A, paragraph 6.1, which deals with: The Attack On Certain UDF Members at iZikumplazi.

Mr Seemise, will you kindly turn to pages 107 and 108 of the bundle. According to the evidence adduced in this instance by Mr Hlongwane in his amnesty application, this incident pertains to a - or rather, refers to an incident where, according to him, he received instructions from one, Noah, to attack or shoot a particular shop. You had the opportunity of reading the record or these portions of the record this morning, do you confirm the evidence of Mr Hlongwane in this regard and more in particular the role you played in this instance?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, I do.

MR LUBBE: Now the role in this specific instance was simply to point out to Mr Hlongwane where the shop was situated which he had to attack, is that correct?

MR SEEMISE: That's correct.

MR LUBBE: I want to refer you to page 196 of the bundle, towards the bottom where Mr Hlongwane testifies about your involvement. He says:

that is now you.

Do you see that?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, I do.

MR LUBBE: Yes, and your job was primarily to assist Mr Hlongwane in locating these various targets that he had to hit on the instructions of Noah.

MR SEEMISE: That's correct.

MR LUBBE: Paragraph 6.2 of your affidavit deals with the killing of a Mrs Zini Shongwe. It is contained on pages 108 to 112. Now previously you indicated to the Honourable Committee that you also seek amnesty for the death of Mr Shongwe's mother. Is this in fact the mother of Mr Shongwe, the person that is referred to in charge 1 of the charge sheet?

MR SEEMISE: Please repeat the question.

MR LUBBE: You will see that the person referred to in this instance, specifically on page 108, approximately 10 lines from the top, and if you turn the page around, on page 110, where Mr Wills proceeds, approximately in the middle of the page. This person is referred to as Bobolina's mother, being Mrs Zini Shongwe. The question is, Bobolina, is that the person referred to in the first charge, the first count, on which you pleaded guilty where you conspired to murder this person?

MR SEEMISE: It is the same person.

MR LUBBE: Mr Chairman with respect, you will see that the particulars of this incident coincides exactly with what my client testified on counts 1 to 8, as on pages 110 and 111.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LUBBE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I'm proceeding to paragraph 6.3, page 5 of Exhibit A: The Death of Two Unknown School children from Tembisa School.

Please have a look, Mr Seemise, at pages 113 to 115. This incident deals with the death of two children, school children, who were killed according to Mr Hlongwane, on the instructions of Noah. Now towards the end of page 113, I'll pick it up for you, Hlongwane says:

It carries on, and then towards the bottom of page 114, Mr Hlongwane testifies that you, that is himself and you, met two young boys:

...(indistinct) referring to them and then eventually he shot them, killed both and doesn't know what their names are. Do you recall this incident?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, I do.

MR LUBBE: And the role that you played in this, is it correctly reflected in the evidence of Mr Hlongwane?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, it is.

MR LUBBE: And the instructions also came from the person called Noah, is that correct?

MR SEEMISE: That's correct.

ADV SANDI: I don't know, maybe you're going to proceed to deal with some other incident.

Can you tell us exactly what happened in this incident?

MR SEEMISE:

MR LUBBE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Seemise, without knowing what political sentiments these children maybe held, did you regard any person opposing the Black Cats, as being an enemy of the Black Cats?

MR SEEMISE: That is correct.

MR LUBBE: Mr Chairperson, I'm moving to paragraph 6.4 of the exhibit: The Attack on Three ANC Scholars. Which is to be found on pages 120, 121 and 122.

Mr Hlongwane testifies here that he failed to get the leaders of his opponents, if you read it in context, and he told Noah that and that Noah said that any of the ANC:

He carries on to say:

towards to top of page 121. Do you recall this incident?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, I do.

MR LUBBE: And can you also give in more detail to the Committee, the background to how this happened.

MR SEEMISE:

MR LUBBE: Please look at pages 122, 123 and 124 - it concerns, Mr Chairperson, paragraph 6.5: The Attempted Murder of Ms Tilli Nkosi.

Towards the end of page 123, Mr Seemise, I'm picking up Mr Hlongwane's evidence where he says:

Then he goes on to say that he shot this woman. The baby wasn't hurt and apart from you identifying the woman, you didn't do anything else. Do you recall this incident?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, I do.

MR LUBBE: Is this the incident that you initially thought and confused yourself with that of Tiki Tilli Malaza and on which you pleaded guilty?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, it is.

MR LUBBE: You will see, Mr Chairman, on page 122, that this lady's name is also Tilli, towards the end of that page.

Now can you also give to the Committee a brief description please, of what happened here.

MR SEEMISE:

MR LUBBE: You referred to a person by the name of Sugar, is that in fact Israel Hlongwane?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, it is Mr Hlongwane.

MR LUBBE: Now turning to page 125 and 126: The Attempted Murder of Mr Crackit(?). Paragraph 6.6. This instance deals with an attack on an ANC member by the name of Crackit, and according to the evidence of Mr Hlongwane, he took you along to point and identify the house of this Mr Crackit. Towards the bottom he says - approximately nine lines from the bottom:

Do you recall this incident?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, I do recall the incident, but Mr Hlongwane made a mistake in saying that we did that operation on the same day as the Nkosi operation, it was on different occasions.

MR LUBBE: It wasn't on the same night?

MR SEEMISE: No, it was not.

MR LUBBE: Can you also briefly describe to the Committee the background of this incident.

MR SEEMISE:

MR LUBBE: Now we move on to paragraph 6.7: The Attack on an ANC member in Kati Township. You say in your affidavit, Exhibit A:

Mr Chairperson, you will not from the record, the bundle, that initially Mr Hlongwane indicated to the Committee that the deceased's name was Willie Frans Strydom, on page 127, but eventually after an adjournment he was notified by a representative of the deceased that the correct name was Jackson Kubeka. That you will find in line 5 of page 130, and that it is in fact not Mr Strydom.

Now Mr Seemise, do you recall this incident where a person by the name of Mr Kubeka was killed?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, I do.

MR LUBBE: Although you don't have an independent recollection of his name, can you relate to the incident that is being described in the bundle by Mr Hlongwane? And if so, please give us your version of what happened here.

MR SEEMISE:

ADV SANDI: Sorry, can I ask you, did you attend ANC gatherings also?

MR SEEMISE: Please repeat that question.

ADV SANDI: Did you also attend ANC gatherings? You say this person you had seen at ANC meetings, did you also attend such ANC meetings?

MR SEEMISE: I did not attend ANC rallies, but we would see them when they were on their way to those occasions.

MR LUBBE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

It's common cause, Mr Seemise, that all the incidents that you've testified about up until this stage, took place in the Ermelo district, but eventually the Black Cats also moved to Davel, to commit certain acts there, is that correct?

MR SEEMISE: That's correct.

MR LUBBE: And in Exhibit A, paragraph 6.8, more specifically 6.8.1, .2 and .3. On page 7 you refer to these incidents that took place in Davula. Now I want you to turn to page 135 of the bundle which deals with these incidents. Firstly, on page 135, Mr Hlongwane relates to the burning of two houses, the attack on two houses and the burning of that. He simply refers to the Black Cats, and then on the next page 135, towards the seventh sentence it is indicated that yourself, Obed Hlambati, Bafana Khumalo and one, Sija, also accompanied the Black Cats. Do you recall this incident where the two houses were attacked and burnt?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, I do recall the incident.

MR LUBBE: Maybe you should ...(indistinct) into the detail just indicate to the Committee what led the Black Cats to proceed from Ermelo to Davel. What was the reason behind this, why did you move from point A to point B to pursue your attacks in that area?

MR SEEMISE: There was a Mr Mkhonza who resided at IFP, who was a Mayor and IFP member there and we learnt that he had been attacked by ANC members in that area. This is the information that he conveyed to Mxobogazi, and I am not sure whether they met personally or he telephoned Mxobogazi.

Mxobogazi then issued an order for us to proceed to Davula to attack there, and we were informed that Mr Mkhonza would direct us as to where we would attack specifically. We then proceeded to Davula and met Mr Mkhonza at his home. He informed us that he had been attacked by the ANC on the previous day. Amongst those attackers were Philani Mtetwa and July Mtetwa. There was also another person whose last name was Maluleka. He then said that he would accompany us to point out the houses. It was myself, Stiga, Obed, Bongani, Malinga and others whose names I cannot recall now.

Mr Mkhonza gave us some petrol and we went to attack the first house. On our arrival there we broke a window, poured petrol through the hole and lit the house. There were people inside who started screaming, shouting for help. We left that house immediately, proceeded to the second house. We did the same, broke the windows, poured petrol and set the house alight. That is where Sugar fired three shots as well. We then returned to Mr Mkhonza'a house and reported that the task had been completed, and he congratulated us.

MR LUBBE: If I can just interpose here. The houses that you attacked, were they identified by Mr Mkhonza or Mr Hlongwane? Who indicated to you which homes are to be attacked?

MR SEEMISE: If I recall correctly it was Philani.

MR LUBBE: Philani.

MR SEEMISE: Philani Mtetwa.

MR LUBBE: Was he a person who stayed at Davula, or knew the area?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, he resided at Davula. He was also an IFP member.

MR LUBBE: Thank you. Now there is reference on page 136, of the death of a certain woman as a result of the attacks on these two houses, have you got any personal knowledge as to what injuries, if any, were sustained by the residents of these two houses? In other words, do you know whether somebody died in this attack and if so, do you know the name of the person or persons that died?

MR SEEMISE: I did not know the residents of Davula, and when we completed that operation we left for Ermelo, and we were not informed on who had sustained injuries or who had died as a result of that attack.

MR LUBBE: As far as your personal involvement in this incident is concerned, did you partake in the killing of someone, the killing of people, or did you merely throw petrol bombs? What precisely did you do in this instance where the two houses were attacked?

MR SEEMISE: I carried the petrol and when the windows were broken, I poured the petrol and the others set the house alight. I was amongst the people who broke the windows and poured the petrol into the house.

MR LUBBE: But you also associated yourself with any other member or members of the group that may have killed the residents of the homes, not so?

MR SEEMISE: That's correct.

MR LUBBE: And you also request the Committee to grant you amnesty in respect of any of the deaths that followed upon these attacks.

MR SEEMISE: Yes, I do.

MR LUBBE: So the next incident Mr Seemise, is related to on page 141 - I'm sorry, Mr Chairperson, it is in fact on 136, it follows on 136, towards the bottom. Second attack, where according to the evidence of Mr Hlongwane, the Black Cats were split into five groups and also received instructions to attack various houses. Can you tell the Committee what you know about this incident?

MR SEEMISE:

MR LUBBE: You would not know the name of the people that died in this attack, but according to the evidence of Mr Hlongwane, the boy that was killed is named Matthew Mtweni and there is also a mother that was killed in the house. Were you involved personally in the deaths of any of these two people?

MR SEEMISE: I was involved, but I cannot remember or know their names, because I didn't know the people from Davula.

MR LUBBE: Now the last instance, Mr Seemise, I'm referring you to page 153, towards the top, and that is: The Possession of 50 Rounds of Ammunition and a 303 Rifle. Now here Mr Hlongwane deals with certain ammunition and weapons which was received from KwaZulu Natal, and he says that yourself and him obtained a box of 50 rounds of ammunition and a 303, just before you went back to Ermelo. Do you recall this incident? And from whom did you receive this ammunition and the firearm?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, I do remember.

MR LUBBE: Can you briefly explain the background to this incident?

MR SEEMISE:

MR LUBBE: Yes, and what happened to the ammunition and the 303?

MR SEEMISE: The 303, that's the one we used to hunt down the ANC members.

MR LUBBE: I just want to put on record, Mr Seemise, there's certain other incidents in which you were involved prior to 1991, in fact during 1989 and 1990, and which at this point in time do not serve in front of the Committee, and for which you also intend to apply for amnesty, is that correct?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, that's correct.

MR LUBBE: Yes. Would you say that all your actions as has been described in your evidence this morning were performed during your association and affiliation with the IFP and/or the Black Cats, in opposition to the ANC more particularly?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, that's correct.

MR LUBBE: And you also subjectively bona fide believed that what you did was in support of the IFP and the Black Cats.

MR SEEMISE: Yes, that's correct.

MR LUBBE: And can you tell the Committee, under oath, that as far as these incidents which you have testified about, that you have disclosed all relevant facts for the Committee to decide upon?

MR SEEMISE: Would you please repeat your question.

MR LUBBE: Would you say that in respect of the incidents that you testified about, you fully disclosed all relevant facts?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, that's correct.

MR LUBBE: Do you know any of the victims of any of the incidents in which you were involved and who may be present here today in this hall?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, I've seen some of them.

MR LUBBE: And can you tell the Committee today what your attitude is towards what you've done in the past, specifically in relation to what you have testified?

MR SEEMISE: Today I am feeling a great remorse about my actions, but at the time I believed that I was fighting to liberate ourselves in South Africa. Today I can say it was not proper and it was not a good thing to do, but I don't have the powers to heal those wounds, but if I had the powers I would do my best. All I can say that I am requesting forgiveness from the families and from the people who had suffered through my actions. At the time I was forced by circumstances. I apologise deeply.

MR LUBBE: Do you accept the new political dispensation that came about in 1994 in South Africa?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, I do, because it is now clear where the truth lies.

MR LUBBE: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, Mr Lubbe. We'll adjourn and reconvene at 2 o'clock.

JOSIAS SEEMISE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Lubbe, you've concluded your evidence-in-chief, have you.

MR LUBBE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Just for the sake of convenience we'll go around that way. Mr van der Heyde, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER HEYDE: Mr Chairperson, I'm just going to put something to Mr Seemise, and I'm going to leave it at that.

Mr Seemise, are you aware that Mr Napoleon Mkhonza and Dingaan Maluleke have been indicted by the Attorney-General or the Director of Prosecutions, to stand trial for certain things that happened in Kwadela in Davel? Do you know about that?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, I do.

MR VAN DER HEYDE: In fact you were going to be one of the chief State witnesses at the trial.

MR SEEMISE: Yes.

MR VAN DER HEYDE: The trial should have started in July 1998, the morning when the trial was due to start, you told the Director of Prosecutions that you do not want to testify anymore against Mr Mkhonza and Mr Maluleke, is that right?

MR SEEMISE: No, that's not correct.

MR VAN DER HEYDE: Well I put it on record that the State has withdrawn their charges against these people on the grounds that you were not ready to testify. In any case, it is my clients' instructions that they wish to deny any versions that you put, where you implicate them and at this stage they are not willing to testify. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, Mr van der Heyde. I assume you don't have any comment on that, Mr Seemise.

MR SEEMISE: What I can say about testifying, the truth is I am willing to testify against them, but in Court the police who were responsible, taking statements, kept on changing. Sometimes I will be transferred to Ermelo and sometimes to another police station, and we were not given a reason why we were transferred. I was transferred from Pretoria to Ermelo and then again from Ermelo to Pretoria, but I was not told why. But I was always willing to give testimony about these incidents.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Does that conclude your points?

MR VAN DER HEYDE: It does.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Heyde. Ms Mohammed.

MS MOHAMMED ADDRESSES: Mr Chairman, in the light of the full disclosure made by the applicant, as well as the submissions made, the victims have decided to withdraw opposition to the application. For what it's worth, Mr Chairman, the victims were not aware that the charges were withdrawn against the other implicated persons and certainly the matter will be taken up with the Attorney-General.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, Ms Mohammed, we've noted that. Ms Mtanga, questions?

MS MTANGA: I have no questions for the applicant, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Mtanga.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Seemise, I didn't hear your comment on the statement, the last statement put by Mr van der Heyde, where he stated his clients deny any version you put implicating them. What is your comment insofar as that is concerned?

MR SEEMISE: They are disputing that because it is a case and it is a crime, but I'm not making a mistake if I'm implicating them, I'm telling the truth, they were present.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr van der Heyde appears for the IFP. In other words, if I understand you correctly you are saying the Black Cats were the youth organisation of the IFP at Ermelo and then they didn't say they are the IFP, they instead say they are Black Cats because they wanted to hide the fact that they are IFP. Are you sure that they were really the IFP Youth Brigade?

MR SEEMISE: I am certain about that fact, because in a number of occasions, IFP leadership used to come and meet with the Black Cats, Themba Khoza for one, Alfred Ndlovu, they were coming from Gauteng to Ermelo to meet Black Cats members.

MR SIBANYONI: By Alfred Ndlovu, are you referring to Humphrey Ndlovu?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, I'm referring to Humphrey Ndlovu.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Seemise, can I just go back to the incident where Mrs Shongwe was shot and killed in her home by Israel Hlongwane. Now you say that the order to execute that operation came from Noah. I've got a difficulty to recall his surname, but would that be correct?

MR SEEMISE: The instruction to go to Davula, came from Mxobogazi, but the main person who pointed out the areas to attack was Mr Mkhonza, who was IFP Chairman in Davula.

CHAIRPERSON: We are talking at cross-purposes. I am referring to - I'll tell you know what her first name is, I think it's Zini, but let me just make sure. Yes, I'm talking about the incident that you deal with in paragraph 6.2 of your supplementary affidavit, Exhibit A, the killing of Mrs Zini Shongwe. That incident. Are you with me?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, now I do understand. Mxobogazi gave us this instruction to kill her.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it the sole reason that if you kill her there would be a funeral and her son would then attend the funeral and you would then be able to get to the son and kill him? Is that what you understood to have been the reason why you had to kill Mrs Shongwe?

MR SEEMISE: That's how I understood it to be.

CHAIRPERSON: So there was nothing that Mrs Shongwe did that led to this decision to kill her, she's done nothing against the Black Cats or the IFP, if I understand you correctly.

MR SEEMISE: No, she didn't, but what I can recall is that she was an ANC member.

CHAIRPERSON: Did that play any part in the decision to kill her?

MR SEEMISE: Yes, it did.

CHAIRPERSON: Assume you found the son at home, whom you were looking for, and the mother was also at home, would you have done anything to the mother?

MR SEEMISE: We were acting on instructions all the time. If we found her son we would have killed her son, but the instruction came as that if we don't get hold of the son we must kill the mother.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because I'm trying to work out what was actually taking place. Look, you said that Hlongwane was there before, the son wasn't there, Hlongwane didn't kill the mother and he went back to Noah and he went to report that the son wasn't there at home, not so?

MR SEEMISE: It is so.

CHAIRPERSON: So it seems as if the thinking was simply to use the death the death of this lady as a bait to lure her to get the son out, to come out from wherever he was.

MR SEEMISE: Yes, one can say so because the instruction came like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you got to this house and now you find a lot of other people sitting drinking there, did you know any one of them?

MR SEEMISE: No, I didn't know them, I personally didn't know them.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't know whether they were politically active or not.

MR SEEMISE: No I didn't know.

CHAIRPERSON: They were basically sitting drinking in the shebeen, they were patrons of the shebeen, if I understand you correctly.

MR SEEMISE: Yes, it is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And was there any indication that they had anything to do with this son that you were looking for? This Mr Shongwe that you were looking for.

MR SEEMISE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Now this idea of throwing the handgrenade, that happened on the scene there, if I follow your evidence. Or do I misunderstand you? I understand that you were saying that when you were there at the house, Hlongwane gave you the handgrenade and he told you, you will kill the mother and you must throw the handgrenade into the room where these patrols of the shebeen were being kept.

MR SEEMISE: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: If Hlongwane hadn't told you to do that, would you have done it?

MR SEEMISE: No, I wasn't going to do that, but Hlongwane was my Commander, so I was following his instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: Now in your view, did that throwing a handgrenade into this group of patrons of the shebeen, did that help your political struggle as the Black Cats/IFP, at all?

MR SEEMISE: No, it didn't help.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Lubbe, any re-examination?

MR LUBBE: No, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, Mr Lubbe. Mr Seemise, you're excused. Thank you. Mr Lubbe?

MR LUBBE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Chairperson, I respectfully request the Committee to favourably consider granting amnesty for the applicant ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes before we get there, is that your case?

MR LUBBE: Yes, that's my case. Sorry, I thought that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll probably get there in a minute, but we must just follow the process. Mr van der Heyde, I assume that you're not going to present any evidence.

MR VAN DER HEYDE: No, I have no witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: And Ms Mohammed, in light of what you had said, what is your position, are you presenting any evidence?

MS MOHAMMED: I'm not presenting any evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. And Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes Mr Lubbe, you can carry on, I've interrupted you.

MR LUBBE IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

With respect, Mr Chairman, I submit that regarding the three provisions of the Act, Section 20(1)(a), (b) and (c), that the application of the applicant should succeed.

First of all I would respectfully submit that the application itself complies with the requirements of the Act. Secondly, that the acts which my client applied for, relate to acts associated with political objectives and that they were committed in the course of the conflict of the ANC and the IFP, and furthermore that my client has made a full disclosure of all the relevant facts as far as these matters are concerned.

Mr Chairperson, what is not in dispute is the fact that my client was a member of the IFP. The fact that the IFP had a Youth Brigade stationed in Ermelo, of which he was a member. The fact that from the viewpoint of the applicant, subjectively speaking, the ANC was regarded as the political enemy in that region and that all the activities of the Black Cats were aimed or directed at combatting this political enemy, as described by my client in his evidence.

It's furthermore I think common cause, that at all relevant times during the commission of the various acts, that my client acted on the instructions of a certain Mr Hlongwane and/or Mr Noah Mxobogazi, who at that point in time was the Chairperson of the IFP for the district of Ermelo.

If I can turn to the specific acts for which my client requests amnesty, I respectfully submit count number 1 of the application deals with the conspiracy to assassinate of to kill Mr Shongwe. That Mr Shongwe was viewed by the IFP, which is uncontested, as a person being responsible for the death of a certain Zabatha, who was a leader figure in the IFP, and that this planning for the assassination of Mr Shongwe was purely politically motivated.

With regard to the second count, which I would respectfully submit should be read together with counts 3, 4, 5 6 and 7. It is common cause that all these persons were in one room where my client threw the F1 handgrenade and that action of his, as has been cleared up by yourself in examination, directly resulted from an order that he received from Mr Hlongwane, to throw the handgrenade.

With regard to count number 8, that would be the possession of the handgrenade, I also respectfully submit, Mr Chairperson, that the mere possession of the handgrenade was also in the furtherance of the political struggle in which my client was involved.

There's no application for charges number 9 or 10, because 10 was withdrawn and my client indicated to yourselves this morning that as far as charge 9 is concerned, he wrongfully pleaded guilty to that charge.

I furthermore submit that in respect of charges 11, 12, 13 and 14, which can be viewed as one act, this was also committed under the instructions of his Commander, Mr Hlongwane, in the furtherance of the political struggle.

There's no application for charge number 15.

Then Mr Chairman, turning to the offences referred to in paragraph 6.1 of Exhibit A, that is the attack on certain UDF members at iZikumplazi, I also submit that this specific incident was executed under the direct command of Mr Hlongwane.

6.2 is the killing of Mrs Zini Shongwe. May I just - I know that your Committee is not bound by a previous decision, but you will find on page 273, paragraph 7.10 deals with the granting of amnesty which was granted in respect of Mr Hlongwane. Referring to the attack in paragraph 6.1 of Exhibit A. 7.11 deals with the murder of Zini Shongwe, for which Mr Hlongwane was also granted amnesty. I would respectfully submit, Mr Chairperson, that the mere fact that my client associated himself with the act or the deed of the killing of Mrs Shongwe or might have foreseen the consequences, also makes him culpable of this, and I also respectfully request that amnesty be granted in his case for the death of Mrs Zini Shongwe.

The gist of the application for both paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4, I submit is on the same score. And you will note, Mr Chairman, that Mr Hlongwane also obtained or was granted amnesty in respect of 6.3, that is the death of two unknown school children from Tembisa. You will find that on page 273, paragraph 7.12.

As regards the attack on the three ANC scholars, it is not quite clear - well, it's not evident from the record why he wasn't granted amnesty, that is Mr Hlongwane, but my client seeks amnesty for these instances.

Regarding the incident of Ms Tilli Nkosi, I think the record speaks for itself, as well as that of Mr Crackit. 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7. And then of course the actions or deeds that were committed in Davula.

I respectfully submit, Mr Chairperson, that in all of these instances, especially also in Davula, my client acted under the direct instructions of either Mkhonza, who was the Mayor of Davula, and/or Mr Hlongwane, who took command of the Black Cats operating in that area. I therefore request the Amnesty Committee to favourably view the application and grant amnesty in respect of these matters. As it pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just ask you, Mr Lubbe, in regard to the shebeen patrons, that's counts 2 to 7 of the original charges, your client seems to hold the view that that didn't really assist their political struggle, throwing the handgrenade at these unknown people.

MR LUBBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What are your submission? Over and above the fact that it appears that Hlongwane gave an order, is that sufficient to comply with the requirements of Section 20?

MR LUBBE: Mr Chairperson with respect, I think the view one has to take here is looking back today, it would seem that it is a futile exercise, this whole exercise was futile by, with respect, all political parties engaging maybe in these kinds of actions. But the test is not whether today looking back, one would say it didn't help the cause of the IFP or not, the question is whether at the point in time where he got the instruction, he was under the belief that it would have assisted or helped the cause of the IFP.

And I respectfully submit that this is in fact the case. The fact that a man goes into a house trying to find which he believes is the enemy, or enemy number one, and in that whole process commits a series of offences under the instructions of a Commander, one surely must take a realistic approach to say, at that point in time he must have believed it would further the cause of the organisation and not judging from today's perspective, obviously not.

ADV SANDI: Having listened to his evidence I did gain the impression that he was saying as part of his evidence that at the time he was complying with the order from Hlongwane, he thought that to do so would somehow assist his organisation to pursue the political struggle as they saw it at the time. He didn't tell us about what was going on in his mind at the time he was complying with the order from Hlongwane. He didn't take it that far.

MR LUBBE: Advocate Sandi - through you, Mr Chairperson, if I understand you correctly you say we should not judge, or we've got no evidence as to what went through his mind on that occasion, what we've got, and I agree, is the fact that we deal here with a soldier under the instruction of a Commander, who simply instructs him "Put an F1 grenade in that room", and that's it. It's not for the soldier to judge whether this instruction would hold good in future or not, the mere fact that he was instructed, I would suggest, would suffice the requirements of the Act.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but if you look at the Act, I think that is under Section - I don't have a copy of the Act in front of me, that is Section 20(3), I think that would be (e) or something, and if you look at that, is it not clear that it is envisaged that the action taken must have been taken against a perceived political opponent or enemy of the organisation of the perpetrator? And now these people are just sitting in a shebeen and drinking, their political affiliation is not even know, there's not even a suspicion to that effect.

MR LUBBE: Advocate Sandi - again through you, Mr Chairperson, if one has regard to (3)(e), it says that whether the act or the omission or the offence was committed in the execution of an order of, or on behalf of, or with the approval of the organisation. It doesn't go beyond that I would respectfully submit, to say that the person that executes the order must truly believe that such an order or the execution of such an order would enhance his own political, or the organisation for which he acts. It simply says if he executes an order, that would suffice.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but you see your argument would amount to suggesting that any action taken by a so-called political activist or soldier against any person, regardless of the political affiliation of that person, that is an act necessarily falling within the purview of this legislation. Which point I would not agree with. Not every act carried out against any person necessarily falls within the parameters of this legislation. The political affiliation of those people sitting in a shebeen and drinking is not even known, and the - not by Hlongwane either. I hope you follow me.

MR LUBBE: Yes. Mr Chairman, may I put the following perspective of this. If this was a once-off incident, in other words, if my client would have only applied for one simple incident, namely this thing, I would agree with that point of view, but the fact is that he was at this point already involved in other incidents, his mind-set already was "I'm involved against the ANC, on behalf of". Now if that is the case and he receives an order, I would simply suggest that he need not go and judge whether this order now given will in fact enhance the political struggle of his own organisation. But if it was a once-off situation, yes, I would surely doubt whether he shouldn't have dug deeper into the instructions.

It's not a question of a soldier - the classical instance is where you as a soldier is sent to execute a certain lead, it's a once-off situation. Your Commander tells you "Go and shoot X and come back", you don't question that, you do it otherwise you will be court marshalled. This is different.

ADV SANDI: Let us talk about another incident, the incident where school children are attacked at night.

MR LUBBE: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I believe the evidence there is the following, that the instruction came from Noah Mxobogazi, who indicated that because the Black Cats were not received as co-children, colleagues, in the school, the youth of the ANC was then pointed out as also being the enemy. I believe, and I think you can appreciate my situation, I don't know much about the political movements of the ANC and the IFP, but I believe that you don't get the distinction in the black community where you say the political movement only consists of the registered members of the ANC or the IFP, like you would get in the opposing parties.

So if a person with the authority of Noah Mxobogazi would say the youth of the ANC, whether they are card-carrying members of the youth organisation or not, the youth are in fact the enemy, kill them. This is the evidence. And my client would then proceed, and this is his sole participation, he would then proceed and pinpoint to the assassin, the person or person to be assassinated. I would suggest that this fully complies with - falls within the ambit of what the Act also requires.

ADV SANDI: I thought the evidence there was that these so-called ANC scholars were preventing those people who were affiliated to the Black Cats, they were preventing them from attending school. They didn't kill them, there was no evidence that they were assaulting them, they were simply preventing them from attending that particular school. Now the reaction we were told by the applicant, was to kill them. Now where does that put us in terms of proportionality?

MR LUBBE: The wrongdoing, Mr Chairman with respect, in this instance would seem to me the mere fact that you belong to a party which opposes your own political view. Because of the war that raged between the political parties, a war that has no boundaries, because of the mere existence of a war simply means that "Sir, if you belong to a party which I don't belong to, I regard you as my enemy and I feel free to eliminate you". This was, as i understand it, this was the case where children who don't allow the Black Cats to be part of the community, were simply being viewed as the enemy of the IFP.

And with due respect, I think that the Act also makes provision for that. The furtherance of the political object of the IFP, would obviously have been to eliminate what is in the - maybe my learned friend here would tell us more about that, I don't know precisely what that is, but would also be to eliminate people from the ANC. As simple as that.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Chair, I won't pursue this any further.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just come back to the shebeen patrons. It appears that Mr Noah Mxobogazi has been the primary source of these orders that your client was executing. Now in respect of that incident, I understand that Mr Mxobogazi's position was that "Well if you don't find Shongwe, kill his mother, then he must come to the funeral, then you kill him". I understood that to have been the sum total of Mr Mxobogazi's order under those circumstances. Now do I misunderstand that, or what is the position ...(intervention)

MR LUBBE: That is how I understand it. She was to be used as bait, as you yourself put it, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And was this thing of throwing the handgrenade, was that Hlongwane's plan on the scene there whilst they were busy executing Mxobogazi's order?

MR LUBBE: Mr Chairperson, it's not clear from the evidence where this whole plan of throwing the handgrenade emanated from, whether the decision was taken impulsively by Hlongwane in the kitchen, because the evidence is, the six people were ordered to stay in one room, he took the mother to the kitchen, he told my client that he's going to kill her and then he said to him "You throw the handgrenade".

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LUBBE: So I would not think that this was planned prior to going there, certainly.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the sort of impression that I gained too.

MR LUBBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It was Hlongwane's way of executing the order, throw the handgrenade in there.

MR LUBBE: Yes. But what we suggest on behalf of the applicant, with respect Mr Chairperson, is that if that was an order that was received on the spot by my client, it was not premeditated by him. Looking back today I think he would say "What an absolutely wrong thing to do".

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, that is true, that is true, you're quite correct when you say that we have to judge the actions in that particular context at that time, not now from a sort of a convenient armchair position, and we certainly don't intend doing that either. But I think what concerns us a bit is, we have to assess this in terms of the criteria that are laid down in the Act. My brother has referred you to some of that, some of those provisions. So we've got to weigh this up and see whether this particular action, over and above what your client might have thought subjectively of this, we have to test it against all these yardsticks, of proportionality, of a cause or connection between the incident and the objective that they were pursuing, the nature of the act, who the victims were, whether it was political opponents.

So we've got to take a global view of the situation and then assess it and see whether we are satisfied that it is an act associated with a political objective, as it's defined in that Section 20(3). So I think that's really what we're talking about. Leaving aside the subjective state of mind of your client, when we test this action against all these other criteria, does it fall within the definition of an act associated with a political objective? Where you throw in the handgrenade, not strictly speaking in line with your instruction from the primary source of authority, but on the scene when you busy actually executing that. And I think that's the difficulty that we are trying to deal with.

MR LUBBE: Mr Chairperson, I would suggest in this instance that the position of Hlongwane, and he already received amnesty for this, but his position would have been vastly different, in the sense that his action or his decision to instruct my client to throw the handgrenade, would precisely have been met with that kind of argument put forward by yourself. But my client being the one that was ordered ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think they refer to them sometimes as footsoldiers.

MR LUBBE: Yes. ... I would suggest that if amnesty was not to be granted for the throwing of the handgrenade or the injury, it would rather not have been granted to Mr Hlongwane, because he must have considered whether the proportionality etcetera, that you referred to, the cause and the objective to be achieved, was in proportion to each other. And I would suggest that my client would much easier meet that kind of requirement than he should have met.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes no, I think I follow what you're saying. We must obviously throw into the scales when we assess this incident, we must throw into the scales the fact that your client was what is often referred to as a footsoldier. It's not to say that under those circumstances, if we're dealing with an applicant in that position, that the criteria in Section 20(3) don't matter anymore, we can ignore the criteria, we must only ask "Is this a footsoldier?" If it is, did he get an order. No matter how unreasonable the order was, no matter how senseless the incident was, no matter whether the incident furthered a political struggle and all of the other requirements of the Act, he's entitled to amnesty. It appears to me on the face of it, that what we have to do is, we must take into account the position of your client, but that we must still do the exercise that we do with every other application, and that is to judge it against those criteria and decide at the end of all that exercise whether we are satisfied that the application complies with the requirements of the Act.

And I think that is why we raise this thing about, is it relevant, to what extent is it relevant, what is the weight of the fact that those were unknown people just sitting drinking in a shebeen, having absolutely nothing to do with the Shongwe's, except that they came to drink at their shebeen. Whether that is a relevant fact and if so, what weight should we be attaching to that. And that's the sort of exercise that we were thinking of really. But we do have your submissions in that regard. Very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Heyde, have you got any submissions?

MR VAN DER HEYDE: I have no submissions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Mohammed.

MS MOHAMMED: No submissions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: I have no submissions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I assume under those circumstances you wouldn't have anything further that you wanted to add, Mr Lubbe.

MR LUBBE: Pardon, Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: I say I assume under those circumstances, given the position of your colleagues, you wouldn't have anything further that you wish to add either. There would be no reply?

MR LUBBE: No reply, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, well that concludes the formal proceedings in this application. The matter concerns quite a large number of incidents. There is a fair deal of evidence and other material that has a bearing on the matter that we have to decide. There is an application by a co-perpetrator, which is served before another Panel of the Amnesty Committee. There are Court proceedings and various other issues that we have to look at. Under those circumstances we will reserve the decision in the matter. We will endeavour to come to a decision as quickly as the circumstances permit, bearing in mind that the Committee and its Members are operating under various constraints, but given that situation, we will endeavour to produce the decision in this matter as quickly as we can. But for the moment the decision in the matter would be reserved.

We take the opportunity of just expressing our thanks to Mr Lubbe and Mr van der Heyde, Ms Mohammed and Ms Mtanga, for your assistance in this matter. We appreciate it.

And to the people who have attended the proceedings, we regard it always as important that the process should occur in public and we attach particular importance to the presence of as many of the interested parties, particularly the victims of these incidents, at these hearings. We appreciate that as well.

So under those circumstances the decision will be reserved and we will notify you once there is a decision available.

There is another matter that is on the roll, Ms Mtanga, but it's probably easier if we were just to stand down briefly.

MR SWART: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: To allow you just to rearrange the ...

MS MTANGA: Yes, Chairperson, we'll require about five minutes to reorganise ourselves.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. We will then adjourn until you've indicated that you're ready.

CHAIRPERSON: We want to continue with the applications of Daniel Benjamin Snyders, amnesty reference 0074/96, Jan Petrus Kruger, amnesty reference 2734/96 and Martinus Chritoffel Ras, amnesty reference 2736/96.

The Panel is constituted as would be constituted from the record. The Leader of Evidence is Ms Mtanga. And I'm going to ask the rest of the representatives to put themselves on record, starting with the representative on behalf of the applicants.

MR SMIT: As it pleases, Mr Chairperson. I'm J M C Smit from the Pretoria Bar, on instructions from the firm, Uys and Coetzee, on behalf of the three applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Smit.

MR VAN WYK: I am P A van Wyk, I'm also counsel from the Pretoria Bar and I'm appearing on behalf of one of the alleged implicated people, being Louis Snyders, the applicant's brother. I'm appearing on behalf of the firm of Herman Grobler at Groblersdal. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van Wyk. And the next in line?

MR MORGAN: As it pleases the Committee. Shane Morgan, an attorney from Nelspruit, representing the victims, Sophie Mashaba and Mercy Sithole.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Morgan. And the interested party? Nobody else. We will then start.

MR VAN DER BANK: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'm Steven van der Bank from the firm J H L Moodie in Ermelo. On instructions of the State-Attorney, we are representing the Mpumalanga Education Department.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Bank. Mr Smit, is there anything that you want to put on record, or do you want your client to be sworn it?

MR SMIT: Mr Chairperson, nothing I want to put on record at this stage, my client can be sworn in and will then lead evidence on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it Mr Snyders?

MR SMIT: Yes Mr Daniel Benjamin Snyders, the first applicant. As it please you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

DANIEL BENJAMIN SNYDERS: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR SMIT: Mr Chairperson, the witness is Afrikaans-speaking and I will proceed in Afrikaans then. As it pleases you.

Mr Snyders, you are the first applicant in this application for amnesty, together with Messrs Ras and Kruger, and before this Committee three affidavits were deposed to by yourself, is that correct?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: These three affidavits you have recently read and you still confirm the contents thereof as correct, is that correct?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

MR SMIT: Mr Snyders, in order to assist the learned Committee with regard to these applications, will you firstly please state these actions for which you apply for amnesty, and I wish to refer you to page 117 of the documents. This is a supplementary affidavit by yourself. Right at the top of this page you mention that you apply for the criminal procedures taken against you with regard to numbers 1 to 17, B1 to B10, as well as arson of the attorney's offices where attorneys by the name of Claasens offices were burnt down, and you request that amnesty be granted to you as it is stated in paragraph 19.2 on page 5.

Now if I may refer you initially to Annexures A1 to 17, these appear from pages 14 to 30 of the documents. On page 15 of the documents, Annexure A2, it would appear that there are several charges against you in the High Court of South Africa in a Circuit Division, is that correct?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: And these charges are, amongst others, murder, attempted murder, possession of firearms, ammunition, explosives and so forth. Do you bear knowledge of this?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, I do.

MR SMIT: And for the sake of completion, you have already appeared in the High Court with regard to these charges, is that correct?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: And would I be correct to say that the case against you was postponed, not to a specific date, pending the result of this amnesty application?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

MR SMIT: I shall momentarily return to the specific incidents with regard to these charges, but if I may refer you to page 31 of the bundle. These are charges where you are charged with your fellow applicants, Messrs Ras and Kruger, with regard to sabotage and malicious damage to property, as well as possession of explosives, is that correct?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: And you also apply for amnesty with regard to this.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: And furthermore, you mention in paragraph 19.2, on page 5, the fact that an attorney's offices in Frankfort were burnt down and you wish to apply for amnesty for that as well.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: And in this paragraph as well on page 5, you say for example:

Were you also part of those actions?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, I was.

MR SMIT: And you wish to apply for amnesty for those actions as well.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: Before we commence, at the time of these offences committed by yourself, were you a member of a political organisation?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: Of which organisation?

MR SNYDERS: Of the Conservative Party of South Africa.

MR SMIT: Since when have you been a member of this party?

MR SNYDERS: Since the inception of the Conservative Party in 1982.

MR SMIT: And in which capacity? Were you just a member or were you part of the top structure of the organisation?

MNR SNYDERS: "Ek was in die bestuur van die organisasie gewees. Ek was op verskeie Kiesafdelingsrade, op die Heilbron Kiesafdelingsraad en ook op Nelspruit, op die Kiesafdelingsraad."

MR SMIT: Very well. You mention in the documents a body by the name of "Toekomsgesprek".

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: Will you please explain to the Committee Toekomsgesprek was about.

MR SNYDERS: Toekomsgesprek was a secret organisation which flowed out after the inception of the Conservative Party. It was chosen members of the Conservative Party, who met secretly and operated secretly.

MR SMIT: And to emphasise this, you said this was in secrecy, this was an absolute secret organisation and not - may I draw the inference that not everyone in the Conservative Party knew of this organisation?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

MR SMIT: The organisation, Toekomsgesprek, what were their aims?

MR SNYDERS: It was to place the conservative-thinking member in a position of power and to support such persons and if the Conservative Party would come into power, then certain strong leaders would already be in place. For example, in Agriculture and Police, in Education and all the other functional departments which would function within a normal government.

MR SMIT: For the sake of completion, your membership with the Conservative Party, there is no membership certificate attached to the documents, can you please explain that to us.

MR SNYDERS: All the documents that I had with me with regard to the Conservative Party, were taken by the police when they arrested me and I did not have any further access to it.

MR SMIT: So you do not have it in your possession any longer?

MR SNYDERS: No, I do not.

MR SMIT: If we may return, you say that in Toekomsgesprek, members had received training in explosives, were you one of these members? Or I draw that inference from your statement.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, I served on the Defence Group of the secret organisation when I received this training.

MR SMIT: This training with regard to the storage of weapons and ammunition and the manufacturing of explosives, if I can refer to paragraph 4 on page 11, it reads:

this armed struggle against the government, is this where the bomb explosions emanated from?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct. Our aim was to stop the National Party in its apparent governing methods.

MR SMIT: In Toekomsgesprek, did you resort under the command of anyone, or were you one of the Commanders?

MR SNYDERS: I resorted under someone's command.

MR SMIT: And who was your direct Commander?

MR SNYDERS: Commandant Douw Steyn from Nelspruit.

MR SMIT: Did you receive all your instructions from him?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: If we may return to the various acts for which you apply for amnesty. Firstly, if I may refer you back to page 13, Annexure A1 to 17, specifically A2, the charge against you there was that on or about the 16th of March at the Nelspruit High School, you had killed a Mr Sithole. In your supplementary affidavit you mention that a bomb was planted at the Nelspruit High School and it would appear that Mr Sithole had died in this bomb explosion, is that correct?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

MR SMIT: And a Ms Mashaba was apparently in his presence, and there you are charged with attempted murder with regard to her.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: Can you briefly sketch, the bomb at Nelspruit High School, by whom was it manufactured? Let me ask you that first.

MR SNYDERS: It was manufactured by myself and my brother.

MR SMIT: And you also went and planted it there.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: That is stated in your supplementary affidavit, page 120, paragraph 8.3, is that correct? Page 120, paragraph 8.3

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct.

MR SMIT: Very well. The instructions to plant this explosive device there, by whom was this instruction given?

MR SNYDERS: At that stage I received my instruction from Col Johan Broekman, who had taken up my position after Jan Kruger's arrest at TG.

MR SMIT: TG refers to Toekomsgesprek?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct. And liaised directly with Commandant Douw Steyn.

MR SMIT: So he received his instructions from Commandant Douw Steyn and then conveyed the instructions through to you.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: When you planted this bomb, what was your aim with the planting of this bomb? Why was it placed at the Nelspruit High School?

MR SNYDERS: The aim was that a certain Mr Kon Booyens was a member of the Afrikaner Broederbond and they expelled Mr Douw Steyn's son because they protested against a mixed high school, and it was my instruction to liven them up a bit.

MR SMIT: Was this action aimed against Kon Booyens himself, or for another purpose?

MR SNYDERS: It was never aimed at any lives, that was one of our instructions, to ensure that no-one was injured or killed and the times when the bombs had to explode had to be late at night and Mr Kon Booyens was not at his house that time. We just wanted to scare him.

MR SMIT: And this reign of terror, if you wanted to cause some reign of terror, would it serve any purpose?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, Mr Kon Booyens was an outspoken person in the Education and it was ordered to prevent them from expelling any other scholars who were rightist in their attitude, and we thought that they would be afraid of taking any further steps against these scholars.

MR SMIT: And in scaring Mr Kon Booyens you mentioned that the National Party had to be threatened by these bombs, if I may put it as such, would that have had any impact on the National Party, who was the government of the day?

MR SNYDERS: Definitely, because the schools at that stage were targets in the political arena and Mr Kon Booyens was a highly recognised member of the National Party, and as I've said, he represented the Education in the Afrikaner Broederbond and one could see that he was a prominent member.

MR SMIT: If we move over to page 31, these are the charges of sabotage and malicious damage to property. On page 31 the charge against you was that the Magistrate's Court at Sabie was damaged, was this done by a bomb?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, it was.

MR SMIT: And this was on approximately the 20th of December 1991, is that correct?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct.

MR SMIT: Were you on that occasion present with your fellow applicants, Ras and Kruger?

MR SNYDERS: No.

MR SMIT: I see that they are charged along with you on this charge, but they were not with you.

MR SNYDERS: No.

MR SMIT: At the Magistrate's Court in Sabie.

MR SNYDERS: No.

MR SMIT: And then Annexure B2, deals with malicious damage to property, you say you weren't involved there?

MR SNYDERS: No.

MR SMIT: These bomb that were used at the Sabie Magistrate's Court, by whom were this manufactured?

MR SNYDERS: By all three of us.

MR SMIT: And then in your application there is reference to the Lowveld High School, which was bombed.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

MR SMIT: Were you involved there by yourself?

MR SNYDERS: No, all three of us were there.

MR SMIT: All three of you.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: For which reason was this school attacked?

MR SNYDERS: Lowveld High would have been the first school to offer mixed activities and the confrontation was with regard to this and that is why Mr Douw Steyn and his sons were expelled from Nelspruit High, and we then had to damage the pavilions and the main buildings, so that the mixed inter-high could not take place because the persons would be too afraid to come to such a place.

MR SMIT: If I may refer you to page 7 of the documents, paragraph 21, you say Commandant Douw Steyn placed you under great pressure to blow up Lowveld High, because at that stage there were many bombs "geloop" in the Western Transvaal.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: When you say that he placed you under great pressure, what do you mean by that?

MR SNYDERS: We went through a time period where bombs had to go off at certain identified colleges and schools right throughout the country and he was the Commander of the whole Defence Group at that stage, and the bombs had already exploded in the Western Transvaal, where Nelspruit was seen as the leader organisation, and then Mr Steyn visited me in order to find out why we had not done the job which was given to us and that the school caused them great problems because it was an English inspired school, but we did not want to let anyone know the dates because we were afraid of any insurgencies or infiltrations. "So ek het die opdrag van hom af gekry, en ons het self ons datum tyd beplan, wanneer ons sou in beweeg het."

MR SMIT: And certain summonses were issued with regard to damages to these State properties.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: The attorney's offices at Frankfort to which you referred, which had been attacked, what was the reason for this?

MNR SNYDERS: Die prokureur Claasen het teen sakemanne in vrede opgetree namens swartes wat by daai stadium by stakings betrokke was, en toe is my opdrag gewees om sy kantore af te brand, om hom tot niet te maak.

MR SMIT: Was he favourable inclined towards the National Party?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, he was.

MR SMIT: And the purpose then was - the purpose of burning his office was then in order to prevent him from assisting any persons.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: May I return to the explosion at Nelspruit High. There were charges laid against you, will you please tell me, the bomb at the high school, at what time was it supposed to detonate? Why did someone die there?

MR SNYDERS: The situation at Nelspruit High School was - I wish to put it clearly to the Committee, was that we are very sorry and I am terribly sorry for what had happened there, but the two bombs that had exploded at the Agriculture College and at Nelspruit High, were electrically installed and I personally developed the mechanisms so that they should explode at three in the morning when there was no-one around. I was five kilometres away from there and the echo from the Agriculture College which was at the foot of the mountains, it seemed to me as if all the bombs went off simultaneously and then we departed.

I did not realise that the bomb at the high school did not explode, because if I did know that it did not explode, I would have gone back to disable it, because apparently I tripped when we planted the bombs and some dirt came into the mechanism and unfortunate the gardener who arrived there on Monday, found these things and picked it up and the mechanism went off.

MR SMIT: When you say "these things", for the sake of completion, how were these bombs manufactured?

MR SNYDERS: The bomb that had the timing mechanism was in a gas bottle, the explosives were in a gas bottle and the others were connected to it with cortex in a truck's slave cylinder which was closed up, and it was connected to that and it placed next to the house of Kon Booyens, next to his garages, and it was placed as such so that persons would not be injured if anyone was close-by, but I did not realise that they did not detonate.

MR SMIT: The explosives within the gas bottle, with which the bomb was manufactured, this was bought by yourself and manufactured by yourself?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, it was. It was amfax.

MR SMIT: And where did you get the resources for this?

MR SNYDERS: We received this from a Sasol depot where Mr Douw Steyn was an owner. It was fertiliser that we used, and we were financially supported.

MR SMIT: Will you please have regard to page 10 of the documents, paragraph 10(a). There you mention the political aim, you say that:

These actions that you have described now, am I correct in saying that the objective was in order to disrupt the regime? Was this to construct a reign of terror, or what was this all about?

MR SNYDERS: Firstly, it was to draw the attention of the government that the greater part of the Afrikaners in South Africa were not happy with their policy at that stage, and secondly, it was in order to scare people from the National Party and its policies and then also to draw the attention of the leadership figures, to tell them that it was not acceptable, this transitional period that we were going through.

MR SMIT: When you say you wanted to force a general election before the implementation, would you please explain how the planting of bombs and the actions that you had launched, cause a general election.

MR SNYDERS: If there were many bombs going off all over the place where we planned them to go off, it would create the impression that the country was ungovernable and then Mr de Klerk would call a State of Emergency, or call an election, but we did not want a referendum at that stage, we wanted a general election which would have been more representative at that stage.

MR SMIT: A final aspect, the political objective which you have described now, was this your own viewpoint or was that the CP policy or the Toekomsgesprek policy?

MR SNYDERS: It was basically the CP's strategy in order to force the government to listen to them, because as you know they were ignoring the media and television and all those places, and these actions would have placed the attention on them and also of the people, because you know what coverage the media and television gave to them at that stage.

MR SMIT: Somewhere in your documents you mention that the instruction did not directly come from management of the CP, it would appear that it came from Toekomsgesprek, the secret organisation.

MR SNYDERS: The management of the CP was the Toekomsgesprek because it had to take place in secrecy, but Commandant Douw Steyn was connected to them directly and he had to clear all actions with Dr Treurnicht and with Mr Andries Beyers, who was the Chief Secretary at that stage.

MR SMIT: This information, was this to your own knowledge or were you told this?

MR SNYDERS: I was informed of all of this by Douw Steyn, and I personally attended some meetings.

MR SMIT: Is there anything else that you would like to add at this stage?

MR SNYDERS: No, it is only about the fact that at Nelspruit High there was dissatisfaction, and once again I would request the Commission and the relatives of Mr Sithole and so forth, I would like to apologise to them for what had happened there. These actions were never aimed against any black person or persons who were in the National Party at that stage, it was aimed at the National Party leaders and to draw the attention to that. I would just like to offer my apologies to all the families who had suffered and I would like to tell them that it was not aimed at any one of them.

MR SMIT: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, Learned Committee Members, I have no further questions at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Smit. Mr van Wyk, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN WYK: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Snyders, I have a few aspects which I would like to take up with you. I appear on behalf of your brother, Louis Snyders. Would you agree with me that your brother at some stage had worked for you?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN WYK: Would you agree - I would not like to go in-depth here, but at some stage you accused your brother of theft, do you recall that? And you withheld his bonus with regard to work done at Escom.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN WYK: And it would appear that there are several disputes between yourself and then within your family with regard to your father.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN WYK: There are differences between you.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR VAN WYK: Your father at some stage lived with you and then he left your house, is that correct?

MR SNYDERS: Well he did not live with me but he lived on the farm.

MR VAN WYK: And your father at a later stage went to live with your brother, is that correct?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, I think so.

MR VAN WYK: Do you not know of this?

MR SNYDERS: I am not entirely certain, I just knew where my father lived at some stage.

MR VAN WYK: With regard to this point, I would just like to conclude that my client, your brother, says that he heard from your sister that because of these differences between you, you at a stage would have said to your sister that your brother would crawl before you, can you recall that?

MR SNYDERS: No, I am not aware of that.

MR VAN WYK: Why I ask this question of you, Mr Snyders, is because the first application which you handed up was dated the 22nd of February 1996, if you study page 12 of your bundle.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN WYK: You would agree with me that in your initial application you nowhere involve your brother, Louis Snyders, my client.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN WYK: And the second application I see has the stamp of the 3rd of December 1999, if you study page 76 of the bundle. Have a look at my bundle.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN WYK: And in this supplementary application your brother's name appears on three occasions.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN WYK: Why did you not mention your brother's name right from the start?

MR SNYDERS: If you look at my first statement you will see that a supplementary statement would follow, and if there were any omissions, these would be highlighted during the hearing. At that stage thereafter the attorney who handled our case was deceased and that is why our supplementary affidavits followed so long afterwards, but I warned Mr Louis Snyders and I told him that we had to apply for amnesty and he refused to do it.

MR VAN WYK: But that is indeed what I want to know from you, when you warned him and told him to apply for amnesty and you handed up an application, why did you not mention him in your first application? I want to make the point that your brother denies his involvement here, and secondly, my instructions are that you involve him because there is a family feud. Would you like to comment on this?

MR SNYDERS: I think that is his version and your version of it, but the fact of the matter remains that the Truth Commission came back to us on various occasions and they wanted certain detail with regard to these incidents and I elaborated thereupon and they wanted names of other persons who were involved and that is why I elaborated on it. So that is his version and I will stick to mine.

MR VAN WYK: A following aspect which I would like to take up with you, has regard to the secret organisation, Toekomsgesprek. You would agree with me that your brother, my client, was not a member of Toekomsgesprek.

MR SNYDERS: No, never, he would not have made it.

MR VAN WYK: In other words, he was not part of your inner circle who took decisions and was with management?

MR SNYDERS: Not at all, he was too young.

MR VAN WYK: The reason why I ask you this is, if we page to page 83 of the application, paragraph 20 reads:

Do you agree? Do you have that on page 83?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN WYK: And then you mention in 20.1:

and then you give the names there. And if we page over to page 83, L, why does your brother's name appear there if he was not a member of TG?

MR SNYDERS: No, that was an elaboration, Johan Broekman and Johan Segers were the TG members, he was just along with them.

MR VAN WYK: The reason why I ask you is because you deal with the TG members and then you include your brother, but your brother is not a member of Toekomsgesprek.

MR SNYDERS: No, he was never a member, but the other two were.

MR VAN WYK: Do I understand you correctly, that with regard to the letter "L", you do not want to insinuate that your brother was involved in Toekomsgesprek?

MR SNYDERS: No, he was not involved at all.

MR VAN WYK: I would just like to make a statement to you, my instructions from your brother are that he denies that he went to Maputo to fetch arms. That is your brother's version, would you wish to comment?

MR SNYDERS: Let us accept that that is his version, what I had said here in this thing, and that is the whole purpose of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it does not help that I am trying to suck lies from my thumb here. This is not about Toekomsgesprek, this mentions whoever was involved in the Lowveld. It's because the whole organisation was about Toekomsgesprek, so if Mr Snyders alleges that he was not there, then we shall say that is his statement. I know where he was and I know what he did and that is that.

MR VAN WYK: Is this on the grounds of what you had heard?

MR SNYDERS: No, this is what I know.

MR VAN WYK: The reason why I ask you this is because in the initial application where reference is made to the arms in Maputo, no reference is made to your brother. Do you have any problem with that statement of mine? I shall assist you here. If you study page 7 of your previous application, clause K, and in your initial application you did not mention your brother, but later you do involve him.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you. The following aspect to which I wish to refer you to is, if you would go over to page 85 of the bundle, this is in regard to the explosions at the high school and the Nelspruit Agricultural College. I shall deal with these simultaneously. You will note that on page 85, paragraph 23, in that paragraph you twice refer to your brother, you say:

And furthermore you say that:

Do you see it here?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN WYK: You would agree with me that if you study page 7 of your initial application, paragraph 23, then your brother's name does not appear there. Do you agree?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR VAN WYK: And then in your second application which was filed in 1999, and the first one was in 1996, two-and-a-half years later, you just add your brother's name there. Do you agree?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR VAN WYK: Do I understand you correctly that your brother was involved in the manufacturing of explosive devices, or did your brother just accompany you?

MR SNYDERS: I do not wish to elaborate too much on this, the point is that he accompanied me on many occasions. One has to accept that where I wanted to protect one - at that stage in my first statement it was only myself, Jan and Tienie who were arrested, so the whole thing revolved around myself, there were no other arrests, but after some communication between ourselves and the TRC, they told us to elaborate on everything that had happened and that is why I elaborated more in detail as to who was involved and when.

MR VAN WYK: But you agree in your new application it was just your brother's name that was mentioned.

MR SNYDERS: That's correct.

MR VAN WYK: The reason why I ask this is, if we look at your newest statement, page 120 of the bundle - you must please assist me if I understand this incorrectly, paragraph 8.3 reads as follows:

you do not say Louis and I, and this concurs with your initial application. In other words, you were involved yourself by yourself, or do I read this incorrectly?

MR SNYDERS: No, you are not incorrect.

MR VAN WYK: And then you say that you and your brother planted it there. For the sake of completion for the Committee, my instruction is that your brother denies any involvement in the manufacturing of these bombs or the planting of these bombs. Your comment to that?

MR SNYDERS: I have not comment, I would just like to say that that is his version of the matter. What I had written here and what I had elaborated on here is the truth and I shall stick to that.

MR VAN WYK: And a following aspect which I would like to clear up with you, if we study page 86 of the bundle, paragraph 24, the last there lines of paragraph 24:

Was this when you manufactured these bombs, November of 1991?

MR SNYDERS: Some of them.

MR VAN WYK: Because my instructions are that your brother at that stage, in November 1991, was still in Perdekop, would you agree with that?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, I don't know where he was at that stage. Those were not all of the bombs, I kept some of them from 1991.

MR VAN WYK: But the bombs were built in 1991.

MR SNYDERS: Not all of them.

MR VAN WYK: And on the same page paragraph 25.2, reference is made to the R1 rifles and ammunition which was fetched by Johan Broekman, Johan Segers and Louis Snyders in the Komatiepoort vicinity. So this is the third time you refer to your brother here, but which does not appear in your initial application, would you agree?

MR SNYDERS: Yes.

MR VAN WYK: Once again, my instructions are that your brother denies that he was involved. Your comment to this?

MR SNYDERS: I say once again I shall stand by my statement and that what I had said here was the truth and only the truth.

MR VAN WYK: I see from the charge sheet and the list of witnesses, that two Magistrate's names appear on this list - if I could just find the page for you, page 28, are these statements which you had deposed to before the Magistrate?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN WYK: Magistrate Moldenhauer and du Preez. At number 14 is Moldenhauer, do you see that?

MR SNYDERS: Magistrate Moldenhauer visited me in prison, but I deposed to my statements in front of du Preez.

MR VAN WYK: And did you admit your involvement there?

MR SNYDERS: That's correct, yes.

MR VAN WYK: May we accept that in that statement your brother was not mentioned?

MR SNYDERS: No, he was not at all. Basically nobody was involved there.

MR VAN WYK: I see. So you accepted responsibility for your actions then.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, because that was under oath.

MR VAN WYK: Mr Chairman, I've no further questions in respect of this applicant, I can just point out that an additional affidavit has been prepared by my client, I think copies have been supplied to yourselves - ja, I see some of your Committee Members do have copies, and I will merely ask that this affidavit be accepted on behalf of my client. I do not intend tendering any evidence, I'm just handing in the affidavit for that purpose. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van Wyk. I just want to arrange for these things to be marked, so that we have a proper reference to all these documents. There are further supplementary affidavits from all of the applicants, they are attested to - I'll just make sure if they were attested to on the same date ...(intervention)

MR VAN WYK: Mr Chairman, if I may assist, it appears that the last page is page 137.

CHAIRPERSON: 137, yes.

MR VAN WYK: And then I want to suggest that this may be marked then page 138 and onwards.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so those - was that 137 - 132? What did you say, Mr van Wyk, what was your last page?

MR VAN WYK: My last page that I have is page 137, that is the additional affidavit of ...

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, of Ras, yes.

MR VAN WYK: Of Mr Ras, the third applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: That's right, yes.

MR VAN WYK: I'll suggest pages 138, 139 and 140 be allocated ...

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you, Mr Chairman and Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Morgan, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MORGAN: As it pleases the Committee, Mr Chairman, just a few questions on behalf of the victims.

Mr Snyders, is it correct that in the execution of all the bombings, special care was taken to prevent the loss of life?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that's correct.

MR MORGAN: Would it be correct to say that quite a bit of planning went into these bomb attacks?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct.

MR MORGAN: Could you elaborate on the planning that went into the execution of the bombing at Nelspruit High School?

MR SNYDERS: I personally did the reconnaissance work in the area, as well as watched Mr Kon Booyens' movements for approximately there weeks. I determined the distances and drew up a timing schedule as to how we would arrive there and how we would leave. And as I have said previously, the planning was for 3 o'clock that night when he would not be at home and no workers or any other staff would be in the vicinity. I think it was a Saturday night, if I recall correctly.

So the misunderstanding came about with the two bombs which were supposed to be detonated at 3 o'clock that night at the Agricultural College and the Agricultural College's explosion sent out an echo over Nelspruit and it appeared that all the bombs had been detonated at the same time, and then we departed.

I said earlier on that I am terribly sorry because of this because it was never our objective to hurt any people, our actions were not directed at any people or to take anyone's life away.

MR MORGAN: Mr Snyders, are you saying that it is usual for Mr Booyens not to be at his homestead at 3a.m. in the morning?

MR SNYDERS: They were away that weekend and they were not home that Saturday evening because the school was away with certain sporting obligations.

MR MORGAN: Mr Snyders, when did you realise that the bomb had not detonated at the time it was supposed to have gone off?

MR SNYDERS: We only realised that it did not detonate the following morning when we heard it on the news, because the police had a tremendous task force which had surrounded the school. That was after a certain Mr Sithole, who was the gardener there, had picked up the explosive device and the one exploded in his hand, which had the timing mechanism on it and by picking up the bomb he pulled out the detonators of the other two and the police defused these. That is the first that we heard of this.

MR MORGAN: Was the bomb supposed to go off on a Sunday, Mr Snyders?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, it was actually Saturday night, but it was actually Sunday morning 3 o'clock.

MR MORGAN: As it pleases the Committee, Mr Chairman. In light of the answers received, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Morgan. Mr van der Bank?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER BANK: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Snyders, it is correct that extensive damage was caused to the school at Nelspruit, as well as the Agricultural College at Nelspruit, because of these bomb explosions where you were involved in.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER BANK: And it is also correct that civil claims were instituted against you, which at this stage are delayed, pending the result of your amnesty application.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER BANK: To return to these explosions in order to determine the power of these explosives, is it correct that you had to do certain tests?

MR SNYDERS: That's correct.

MR VAN DER BANK: Would you please explain to the Committee how these tests were done, in order to determine how much damage would be done to these buildings?

MR SNYDERS: We carried out various tests with various materials and various metal structures and the purpose of this was to get a container which would be shredded apart, and the amfax is a slow explosive but it has much power, and we built these things and we went and tested them in the plantations until we had the correct size. One has certain explosives where charges are used, where fast charges are used, and others where slow charges are used and others that are used for demolitions.

MR VAN DER BANK: Will you please tell the Committee how many killogrammes of explosives were used at the High School in Nelspruit.

MR SNYDERS: At Nelspruit we used approximately two to two-and-a-half killogrammes. That is the explosives excluding the containers.

MR VAN DER BANK: And how many killogrammes of explosives were used at Lowveld High School?

MR SNYDERS: I think at Lowveld High we used four killogrammes.

MR VAN DER BANK: You are aware that at the Agricultural College approximately R12 800 damage was caused because of this explosion.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER BANK: And furthermore, the damage caused to the building at Nelspruit High was approximately R6 000.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN DER BANK: Sir, I wish to commence with your objectives when you planted these bombs. Would you please tell the Committee whether the principals of these schools were members of the NP, or Broederbond?

MR SNYDERS: This was not determined by me, I was under the command of one, Commandant Douw Steyn, who served on the Management Committee of Nelspruit High at that stage. They determined the targets and determined who belonged to what, so I was actually only an operation on the ground. I served in the higher structures at TG, but they were in command and they identified the persons. And as you know, persons in the Broederbond were prominent persons in the National Party. That is how we determined it.

MR VAN DER BANK: Is it correct when I put it to you that the Afrikaner Broederbond just like Toekomsgesprek, were both a secret organisations of which the members or the membership were unknown to the general public?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER BANK: Therefore Sir, when you accepted these instructions from Commandant Steyn, you accepted in good faith that they were members of the Broederbond or the National Party, who you had taken action against at that stage?

MR SNYDERS: That's correct. I would just like to tell the Committee that Commandant Douw Steyn and some of the other members were also earlier in the Broederbond, and that is how they knew. Commandant Douw Steyn was a Commander in the Army, which was automatically part of the Broederbond and he and Mr Booyens served in the same organisation before the breakaway of the CP, and after this breakaway, the Rapportryers also broke away.

MR VAN DER BANK: At a stage after these explosions had taken place at the Agricultural College, as well as Nelspruit High School, did the organisation Toekomsgesprek succeed in any political objective as you have stated earlier, to cause this reign of terror?

MR SNYDERS: No, I do not believe they succeeded. That is my version.

MR VAN DER BANK: And furthermore Mr Snyders, this act, was it primarily aimed at the State?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct, the instructions we received.

MR VAN DER BANK: And furthermore, is it correct to state that the purpose was to cause great damage and to cause great disruption at these schools?

MR SNYDERS: I would say it was more to cause a disruption. The damage was not that great, but the impact of a bomb explosion, if you look at the damage of R6 000, that is not a great damage, one could have damaged the whole building. This was just a reign of terror that we wanted to create and the fact that it received media coverage and persons would react tremendously to this. We know what happened in the past.

MR VAN DER BANK: And insofar as you know, the leader of the CP was Mr Andries Treurnicht at that stage and he was completely aware of all the plantings of bombs in the Nelspruit vicinity.

MR SNYDERS: I am not able to say that he was completely aware, but the fact is that I was under the command and all that I knew was that I was a member of the Defence Group that had to train many other cells, and all that I know is that it had to be cleared with the politicians first, with the leaders. The leaders, meaning Andries Beyers and Andries Treurnicht. Douw Steyn had direct liaison with them and that is what he conveyed to me and that is my version.

MR VAN DER BANK: Yes. Sir, if I may refer you to page 70 of the bundle, this is a document from the Conservative Party to the Amnesty Committee itself. As you will see from this letter, the Conservative Party denies any actions outside the political framework of political activity and by implication, that they were never involved in any unlawful planting of bombs and so forth. What is your comment to this?

MR SNYDERS: I think the Commission is aware of political parties and their versions of everything. The fact of the matter is that we were at grassroots level, we were on the ground and we had to do these things on their instructions. My version here is the truth, I cannot comment as to what he denies and what he does not deny. These people making these allegations must come and stand here in the box and say under oath that they knew or they did not know. In any case I see this is a Mr Wouter Hoffman who signed it, who at that stage was not the Head Secretary of the political party, but Mr Andries Beyers. Mr Andries Beyers personally came from Pretoria. Where we tested bombs, he came to see what the effect of these bombs were. So I reject this document in its entirety.

MR VAN DER BANK: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Bank. Ms Mtanga.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Thank you, Chairperson, I just have a few questions.

Mr Snyders, in your evidence you referred to the bombing of Sabie Magistrate's Court, were you involved in this bombing?

MR SNYDERS: I was not involved in the area, but I conveyed the instruction to Tienie Ras and Jan Kruger, from Commandant Douw Steyn and I was involved in the manufacturing of the explosive device.

MS MTANGA: Are you therefore applying for manufacturing those explosives for that incident?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct.

MS MTANGA: What was the reason for the bombing of the Magistrate's Court?

MR SNYDERS: The attack there was aimed at State targets and it was to draw attention to the Afrikaner resistance which was developing.

MS MTANGA: How would this serve your political organisation or the armed action that you referred to, the - I think it's the "gesprek", I can't recall the name.

ADV SANDI: Toekomsgesprek.

MS MTANGA: How would that bombing serve that organisation and the Conservative Party?

MR SNYDERS: I do not understand your question completely, would you please repeat it.

MS MTANGA: I'm trying to understand the political objective that would be achieved by the bombing of Sabie Magistrate's Court, in respect of your organisation, the Conservative Party and the Toekomsgesprek that you were a member of.

MR SNYDERS: The purpose of explosions like for example, at the Magistrate's Court in Sabie, that was to cause panic with the voters, the voters who had to vote for the National Party, and the fact that certain State targets were identified was merely because the attacks were aimed at this. As you know schools and courts, these are all State property, and it was to draw attention, the attention of the National Party, of the Afrikaner's resistance and these unacceptable policies that they wanted to execute. This was just pre-emptive, to show the world that the country was ungovernable at that stage. I cannot tell you exactly, I acted under instructions myself, I received an order and I was just told to do this.

MS MTANGA: Were you told what would be the significance of - or what was the reason for choosing that particular Magistrate's Court?

MR SNYDERS: No, no reasons were extended to me as to why that court was chosen.

MS MTANGA: I have no further questions, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Mtanga.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Chair. Mr Snyders, can you say at what stage exactly the Toekomsgesprek Group was established? I know the Conservative Party was formed in 1982, when was this Toekomsgesprek formed?

MR SNYDERS: I was not present at the founding of Toekomsgesprek, the only thing I can tell is that after the break of the National Party, when the CP was founded and many months after that there was great confrontation in the Afrikaner Broederbond, because you will know that Andries Treurnicht was a member of the Broederbond. So the confrontation within the secret structures at that stage, caused the break in the Broederbond and that is why the CP's secret organisation was founded. At a later stage I was involved by Commandant Douw Steyn, but I was not involved in the founding of it. I was at that stage a member of the Rapportryers corpse.

ADV SANDI: From what you have said it would appear that you gentlemen had a problem with the idea of integration, do I understand your evidence correctly? Integration in schools, you had a problem with that.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, it was not my personal problem, that was the whole CP policy as you would know yourself, that the entire Conservative Party was against any government of national unity, or whatever had been tabled at that stage and they wanted to advocate separate development.

MR SNYDERS: Ja, but don't you have integration in schools today?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes, I accept that.

ADV SANDI: Has anything happened as a result of integration in schools? Or to put it differently, have heavens fallen because of integration in schools?

MR SNYDERS: Definitely not, definitely not.

ADV SANDI: How would you - I'm not for a moment suggesting that this is the position, if one is suggesting to you that that operation you carried at that school and agricultural college, you were motivated by racism, how would you defend yourself against such a charge? If such a charge were to be put against you, what would you say, how would you respond?

MR SNYDERS: I would not attach to racism solely, this was about two white groups who confronted each other with regard to the direction of certain policies. It was about what the Conservative Party advocated at that stage, but I was not an MP or a cabinet member of the Conservative Party, I was just a common person on the ground, and you know how people are incited in politics with regard to certain issues. So at that stage mixed schools were blown up as if it was the end of South Africa. So it was only politics. And if we look at the countries around ourselves today and how people are incited through politics, that is a daily occurrence.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Should I understand that to mean that you would not, for example today go and bomb a school only because this schools is integrated? You would not do that today I suppose.

MR SNYDERS: No, definitely not.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr Snyders.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Snyders, it would appear that you had contact with Mr Douw Steyn and he served as a type of channel as you comprehended the situation, with the Toekomsgesprek group, would that be correct?

MR SNYDERS: Commandant Douw Steyn was the Commander of the Toekomsgesprek group. As you would see in my application, Toekomsgesprek was divided into various interest groups, amongst others, Education interest group, Defence Interest Group, and Mr Douw Steyn was the leader of the Toekomsgesprek Defence Group. And the leader of each group had a direct channel with the leader of the party.

CHAIRPERSON: So you understood that the contact with Mr Douw Steyn was the channel to the Toekomsgesprek group.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, and also to the CP, because Toekomsgesprek was the CP, but this was just a secret group within the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: That is how you understood it?

MR SNYDERS: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You had no personal knowledge of the matters that this Toekomsgesprek group dealt with at their secret meetings and the decisions that they had taken.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, I did, I was a member of Toekomsgesprek, so I did attend meetings in this region, but Mr Douw Steyn served on the main Board.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is how I understood it. The chief or main Board would be the ultimate authority.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And as you understood it, the channel to the main Board was through Mr Steyn?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you accepted that the conveyances which he made to you was what the overhead group, these were decisions that were made by them?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not have any personal knowledge of such decisions, but you just followed what Mr Steyn told you.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You say that Mr Steyn had a personal interest in the Nelspruit High School, if I understand you correctly.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, Mr Douw Steyn was the Chairperson of the Management Board of the high school and they were in confrontation with Mr Kon Booyens who was the principal of that school, because of mixed sport there, and then his own son wrote graffiti on the walls of the school and some other members son's, and then Mr Kon Booyens expelled them from the school.

CHAIRPERSON: So he had a personal situation with regard to Mr Booyens, because his son was expelled by Mr Booyens because of something he wrote on the walls?

MR SNYDERS: I don't know whether one could attach it to the personal differences there, I think it is something that happened there. If it was anyone else's children, the same thing would have happened. Nelspruit High School is a leadership school, any action that is launched from there. And Mr Kon Booyens was a prominent figure in the National Party and in Education circles.

CHAIRPERSON: And was this after his son was expelled that Mr Steyn approached your group to ask you why are you not doing anything, why is nothing happening in Nelspruit, but in Western Transvaal all the bombs are exploding?

MR SNYDERS: No, when he approached me with regard to Nelspruit, that was with Lowveld High. That was during December and Nelspruit High School was much later thereafter.

CHAIRPERSON: So when he pressurised you, pressure was to attack which place?

MR SNYDERS: This was Lowveld High, where the mixed inter-school meeting would take place a few weeks later.

CHAIRPERSON: This Mr Steyn, where is he?

MR SNYDERS: He is in Nelspruit, he is the owner of Sasol Fertilisers.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think your attention was drawn to this letter of the Conservative Party, and he put it to you that it would appear that the Conservative Party distances itself from any unlawful activities. That's on page 70 of the documents.

MR SNYDERS: May I just refer you to another letter of the Conservative Party, it's on page 49, Annexure E1, where the Conservative Party sent me a personal letter and saying amongst others:

And that is where the structures met there and he invited me on behalf of the leader and the Board of the CP.

where he confirms that I am one of the limited leadership figures in the freedom struggle which was invited to this summit. So I entirely refute and reject that other document.

CHAIRPERSON: But that is the point that Mr van der Bank wanted to make to you, that is why he drew your attention to it. This invitation in 1990, this was written in 1997, where the Conservative Party specifically reacted to this application which serves before us, and they say that they did not undertake any planning outside the framework of the law. That is the important part of the letter which Mr van der Bank has put to you for your comment. But if I understand you correctly, Mr Douw Steyn is the channel who liaised with you on ground level and this overhead body which you understood to be the Conservative Party.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct. I would just like to tell you that Mr Douw Steyn is a prominent member in the Conservative Party, he himself was a policy-maker in the Conservative Party. So you have to accept that chiefly he knew what he was doing. He at a stage would have been chosen as the MP was for Nelspruit, but he was a highly recognised leadership figure and he formulated the Defence policy of the Conservative Party.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, I understand that that is the effect of your evidence, that you had this certain image of Mr Steyn.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, he's on his toes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smit?

MR SMIT: I have nothing further, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the case for Mr Snyders?

MR SMIT: That is the case for Mr Snyders, correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is our next witness Mr Kruger?

MR SMIT: That is correct, the next applicant would then be Mr Kruger.

MR SNYDERS: Chairperson, may I just ask, we have no further interest with the second and third applicants, may we be excused from the proceedings?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr van Wyk, we appreciate your help.

MR VAN WYK: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: We had indicated that because we are sitting longer than we would normally sit today we will take a very, very short adjournment after the first applicant. We'll take a 10 minute adjournment just to allow people to stretch their legs before we continue with the second applicant. So we'll stand down for 10 minutes.

APPLICATION NO: AM2734/96

---------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION

MR SMIT: As it pleases Mr Chairman, Learned Committee Members, the next applicant would then be Mr Jan Petrus Kruger.

Before he is sworn in, I would just like to put on record his application is in regards to a bombing at the Sabie Magistrates Court, the Lowveld High School, as well as certain weapons and ammunition that was found on his property, being a farm in this area. I can also mention, regarding the two bombings at the Magistrate's Court and the school, only the property was damaged, no-one was injured or died in these bombings. And after he's sworn in I will then quickly take him through his statements.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SMIT: If the Committee would just bear with us for a moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Are your full names Jan Petrus Kruger?

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR SMIT: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I will once again proceed in Afrikaans.

Mr Kruger, you have completed two affidavits with regard to your application for amnesty, the first appears on page 54 to 59 of the paginated documents and the following appears from page 123 to page 132 of the paginated documents. May I just hear from you, you have read these documents and you concur with the contents thereof.

MR KRUGER: That is correct.

MR SMIT: And on page 92 to 97 of the documents, or page 93, you have supplied further information to the Amnesty Committee. This was not attested to, this was just signed on the 30th November 1999, is that correct?

MR KRUGER: That is correct.

MR SMIT: This information can be accepted as evidence, is that correct?

MR KRUGER: That is correct.

MR SMIT: If I may quickly guide you through the affidavits. Firstly, the application with regard to three separate incidents, that is the bomb explosion at the Sabie Magistrate's Court, the explosion at the Lowveld High School, as well as what appears on page 31 to 40, is that correct?

MR KRUGER: That's correct.

MR SMIT: In order to save time, Annexures B1 to B10 deal with the fact that weapons and ammunition were found on your premises and you were arrested and charged for this.

MR KRUGER: That is correct.

MR SMIT: These charges as it appears from B1 to B10, you were charged and these matters are pending awaiting your amnesty application, is that correct?

MR KRUGER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR SMIT: May I just enquire from you, you were a member of Toekomsgesprek, is that correct?

MR KRUGER: That is correct.

MR SMIT: You were also a member of the Conservative Party.

MR KRUGER: That is correct.

MR SMIT: That is also confirmed in a certificate from the Conservative Party, which appears on page 67 where all your names appear.

MR KRUGER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR SMIT: For the sake of completion, your fellow applicant's name also appears here, he was also a member of the party.

MR KRUGER: Yes, that is correct.

MR SMIT: Was Mr Ras a member of Toekomsgesprek?

MR KRUGER: No, Mr Ras was not a member of Toekomsgesprek, although he was in the process of being accepted as a member.

MR SMIT: "In the process", are you saying this was at the stage when you were arrested?

MR KRUGER: Yes, that is correct.

MR SMIT: If you would please elaborate on the explosion firstly at Sabie Magistrate's Court, who placed the explosive device there?

MR KRUGER: It was the three accused, namely myself, Mr Ben Snyders and Mr Ras.

MR SMIT: And the three of you appeared as three accused, but here you will be the three applicants.

MR KRUGER: That is correct.

MR SMIT: The instruction for placing this device, where did you receive this instruction?

MR KRUGER: I received it from Mr Ben Snyders.

MR SMIT: Do you know where he received the instructions from?

MR KRUGER: He received his instructions from Mr Douw Steyn.

MR SMIT: And Mr Douw Steyn you have previously heard that Mr Snyders that he was the Chief of the Defence Group of Toekomsgesprek, do you agree?

MR KRUGER: Yes, that is entirely correct.

MR SMIT: For the sake of completion, was Mr Douw Steyn also a member of the Conservative Party?

MR KRUGER: Yes, he was a leadership figure in the CP.

MR SMIT: The Lowveld High School, who placed the explosive device there?

MR KRUGER: It was myself, along with the other two accused.

MR SMIT: Along with Messrs Ras and Snyders?

MR KRUGER: That is correct.

MR SMIT: All three of you were present there at Lowveld High.

MR KRUGER: That is correct.

MR SMIT: Where did you receive the instruction for blowing up those premises?

MR KRUGER: From Mr Snyders.

MR SMIT: And once again he told you to do it?

MR KRUGER: Yes, he said we should do it.

MR SMIT: And his instructions, where did he receive these instructions?

MR KRUGER: He received them directly from Douw Steyn.

MR SMIT: And before that explosion, did you have contact with Mr Douw Steyn?

MR KRUGER: On a few occasions, yes, I had contact with him. That is correct.

MR SMIT: Did he convey any instructions to you or tell you anything with regard to the places that had to be blown up, amongst others the Lowveld High School?

MR KRUGER: On occasion after a meeting he said to Messrs Ras, Snyders and myself that Lowveld High had to be "banged".

MR SMIT: The reason for this blowing up or the explosion at the Magistrate's Court, as well as Lowveld High School, what was it?

MR KRUGER: The reasons were, Chairperson, to render the country politically ungovernable and to develop a psychosis of fear with the public. That was the purpose.

MR SMIT: These statements that you are making now and the aims that you are putting forward here, were these ideas that you came up with yourself, or did this come from a higher authority?

MR KRUGER: Chairperson, it came from a higher authority. Somewhere in my amnesty application I mention, with the division of the various groups of Toekomsgesprek where Mr Douw Steyn was the Chief of the Defence Interest Group, that these leadership figures' purpose was to identify State targets and to convey that information to us so that we could blow it up.

MR SMIT: And you say by blowing up these institutions you would cause fear with the public.

MR KRUGER: That is correct.

MR SMIT: Would it be correct to say that this objective - was this discussed at meetings of the CP, or Toekomsgesprek, or where did this come from?

MR KRUGER: This was put to us during meetings of Toekomsgesprek, as well as where we received our training in the manufacturing of these explosives.

MR SMIT: You have now said that you received training in the manufacturing of explosives, was this a member of Toekomsgesprek and in the Defence Interest Group?

MR KRUGER: Yes, this was part of the group of Defence undergoing this training, and I was also recruited by Mr Douw Steyn.

MR SMIT: The last few acts for which you apply for amnesty is the storage of firearms and explosives on the ground where it was found. Who gave these explosives and arms to you?

MR KRUGER: Mr Snyders approached me and they requested if I could store, or had place to store these explosives and I told them yes.

MR SMIT: And the weapons which were stored at your place, who brought it to you?

MR KRUGER: Mr Ben Snyders.

MR SMIT: Was it only him?

MR KRUGER: That is correct.

MR SMIT: And the explosives, who brought this to you?

MR KRUGER: He did.

MR SMIT: And with the explosives, were you involved in the manufacturing thereof?

MR KRUGER: Yes, these were explosives that were manufactured elsewhere.

MR SMIT: With regard to the manufactured explosives, do you know where the resources came from?

MR KRUGER: This came from Sasol Fertilisers.

MR SMIT: And mention was made by Mr Snyders that Mr Douw Steyn was the owner of Sasol Fertilisers.

MR KRUGER: Yes, that is correct. The fertiliser concentrate was supplied by Sasol there, while the equipment was supplied to us by "Boere Krisis Aksie".

MR SMIT: On a few occasions you have said the instruction to cause these explosions you received from Mr Snyders, may I accept that you were under his command, or were you under Mr Steyn's command in the Defence Group of Toekomsgesprek?

MR KRUGER: No, I was under the command of Mr Snyders.

MR SMIT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Smit. Mr Morgan, any questions?

MR MORGAN: Mr Chairman, I am aware that the applicant, in respect of the indemnity seeking, no victims were involved, but I don't know whether it would be proper and whether the Committee would allow me to ask him certain questions because of his association with Mr Snyders, the first applicant. In relation to the Nelspruit High School bomb.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, of course, you're entitled to do that, Mr Morgan.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MORGAN: As it pleases the Committee.

Mr Kruger, the Nelspruit High School bombing, why were you not involved in that planting of the bomb there?

MR KRUGER: I was not aware of it, Chairperson.

MR MORGAN: You were aware of two other bombings that took place round about the same time and you were part of the group that Mr Snyders was in charge of, how is it that you were not aware of that bombing that took place at Nelspruit High School? Could you explain that.

MR KRUGER: Chairperson, the Defence Interest Group constituted several persons and each instruction which was given to a person, it was not necessary that the next person had to be aware of it. The instructions which we received were with regard to Lowveld High and the Magistrate's Court in Sabie, and those are the instructions which I received and I was not aware of any other instructions.

MR MORGAN: When did you become aware of the bombing at Nelspruit High School?

MR KRUGER: I became aware of it when it was published in the media, Chairperson.

MR MORGAN: Did Mr Snyders at any stage after the bombing took place, discuss the issue of the Nelspruit High School bombing with you?

MR KRUGER: I didn't hear the question properly, will you please repeat it. There is some disturbance in the microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think you must repeat your question, Mr Morgan.

MR MORGAN: When did Mr Snyders discuss the Nelspruit High School bombing with you? If at all.

MR KRUGER: He did not discuss it with me, Chairperson.

MR MORGAN: No further questions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Morgan. Mr van der Bank.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER BANK: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Kruger, the aims put forward with regard to the planting of these bombs, namely the bombs placed at Lowveld High School and the Magistrate's Court, who conveyed these aims to you with regard to the planting of these bombs?

MR KRUGER: It came from Toekomsgesprek, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER BANK: Would you be more specific, can you mention any person's names and the chain of command as it came through to you for the execution of these actions?

MR KRUGER: Chairperson, I was not aware of the command structure higher up in Toekomsgesprek hierarchy, I was only aware that from Douw Steyn, where the command came from, from Douw Steyn to Mr Ben Snyders, to us. At meetings that were held with regard to the Defence Interest Group, these targets were repeatedly identified to us by Mr Douw Steyn and that we had to continue and a date had to be determined, which would be given to us, with regard to this State property and these State targets. Post offices were mentioned, airports were also mentioned as possible targets. So these identifications of targets came exclusively from the command structure of TG.

MR VAN DER BANK: Were you actively involved in the building of these explosive devices?

MR KRUGER: Yes, we were involved.

MR VAN DER BANK: And what were your duties when it came to building these devices?

MR KRUGER: It was, amongst others, the welding to the bombs.

MR VAN DER BANK: And at a stage when you participated in the manufacturing of these explosive devices, did you know for which targets they would be used?

MR KRUGER: Not at that stage.

MR VAN DER BANK: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Bank. Ms Mtanga.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Thank you, Chairperson, I have one question.

Mr Kruger, what was the reason given to you for specifically choosing Sabie Magistrate's Court for this bombing? What was the reason?

MR KRUGER: The Magistrate's Court in Sabie was exclusively because it was State property, Chairperson.

MS MTANGA: I have no further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Mtanga. Panel?

ADV SANDI: Maybe just one.

Mr Kruger, did you at any stage recently speak with Mr Steyn?

MR KRUGER: The last that I had contact with Mr Steyn, Chairperson, was two years ago when I purchased my fertiliser at his depot at Nelspruit, and there Mr Douw Steyn told me that he had heard that this application would be concluded administratively, and that is the last time that I spoke to him.

ADV SANDI: Did he tell you who had told him that the application would concluded administratively, as you put it?

MR KRUGER: No, Chairperson, he only told me that he had heard that our applications would be dealt with administratively.

ADV SANDI: Did it appear to you that he was in support of your application?

MR KRUGER: My application for indemnity?

ADV SANDI: Sorry, let me put it this way. Did you engage with him in any further discussion pertaining to your application?

MR KRUGER: No, I never discussed my application with him, I only walked into his office because I saw him sitting there and I just went there to greet him, and that is when he mentioned this to me, that he heard that our applications would be dealt with administratively.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Mr Kruger. Thank you, Chair.

MR SIBANYONI: As a follow-up to my colleague's questions, Mr Kruger, what was his attitude towards the applications you have made?

MR KRUGER: Chairperson, right from the start, initially when these things happened, Toekomsgesprek supplied an attorney to us by the name of Mr Christo Smit. Mr Ras and I went to Mr Christo Smit and he handled our matter and right from the start Mr Christo Smit made us understand that nothing would come of this, and that is why it was not necessary to implicate unnecessary names in this whole matter. Mr Ras and I arrived at a stage where we felt that we were intimidated by Mr Smit, because it was said to us that when we mention a name, and some of these names were eventually mentioned, that he would withdraw himself from the matter.

I understood that this was the right of any legal representative, to withdraw or recuse himself from any matter. And later it was mentioned to us that these matters could not continue because it was costing them money and then eventually we would have to pay them for their services. And on occasion Mr Ras and I had an appointment with Mr Smit. We arrived earlier than what we should have and on that occasion Mr Douw Steyn walked out of Mr Smit's office and thereafter he also told us that when names were mentioned he would remove himself from the case.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you. Coming to your activities at Toekomsgesprek, did you have any connection with the top structure of the CP, or all your activities centred around Toekomsgesprek?

MR KRUGER: I had no insight into the top structure, I was only a common member of Toekomsgesprek. I was a member of the Defence Interest Group and I was in the Geographical Group of Paul Kruger. These were groups which were divided into geographical locations, and that is the extent of my involvement. But with regard to the higher top structure, I did not have any dealings with them.

MR SIBANYONI: So are you saying your activities were authorised by Toekomsgesprek, or by the Conservative Party?

MR KRUGER: Directly by Toekomsgesprek and indirectly by the Conservative Party. Chairperson, you will see in my application I stated that Toekomsgesprek was a vehicle that the CP used in order to further its policy at grassroots level. The Conservative Party would never have stated in public that it was busy placing any bombs anywhere and exclusively for that reason, Toekomsgesprek was founded and that is why it was a secret organisation. That is why his activities were not known to everyone and that is why these instructions came via the Conservative Party, but directly from Toekomsgesprek to us.

MR SIBANYONI: Are you saying these activities of Toekomsgesprek were even secret to the top structure of the CP?

MR KRUGER: I would not be able to answer you on that, Chairperson. With regard to the top structure I am not able to tell you who gave who instructions, but we were aware that top placed officials of the CP were involved with Toekomsgesprek, as well as the explosives training where I was present. I do not think you can blame us if we accept that the Conservative Party had given their approval to what Toekomsgesprek had said and the instructions that were received from the CP.

MR SIBANYONI: The problem we are saddled with, Mr Kruger, is that the Act envisages that people will be acting in authority of publicly known organisations or parties etcetera, now having a letter from the CP, which to an extent indicates that they never advocated a policy of, I would say, carrying out illegal activities. What is your comment about that?

MR KRUGER: Chairperson, the only comment which I can give to that is that somewhere in the chain a link is missing, information which came to the bottom, as it had the approval of the CP, it would appear that it did not have the approval of the CP, but that information was conveyed to us as if the information came directly from the Conservative Party. So whenever there was a break, it would have been somewhere in the top structure.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Sibanyoni.

To follow up on Mr Sibanyoni's point, you apparently say that you accepted that what you had done was upon instruction from Toekomsgesprek firstly, and the fact that Mr Ben Snyders mentioned to you that he received instructions from Douw Steyn, you just accepted it.

MR KRUGER: No, Chairperson, I did not just accept it in good faith, but the acceptance was easier after Mr Douw Steyn also informed us that the time has arrived that Lowveld High be "banged". And if I received an instruction afterwards from Mr Snyders, I would have believed that it was easy to accept that that instruction came from Mr Douw Steyn, because on previous occasions he had told us that the time had arrived that Lowveld High had to be "banged". And it was shortly afterwards that Mr Ben Snyders arrived and told us that we had to prepare to commit such an act.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. You see it would appear that the furthest you can take it is to Mr Douw Steyn, he told certain things to your group and you accepted that he spoke on behalf of Toekomsgesprek and you were under the impression that Toekomsgesprek spoke on behalf of the CP.

MR KRUGER: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So your actual link here and the actual party who had the answers to all your questions is Mr Steyn. He was notified of these proceedings and he indicated that he was not interested and apparently he is not present here.

MR KRUGER: Chairperson, we would have wanted Mr Douw Steyn to be present, so that our legal representative could cross-examine him, so that the truth could come out here. I have heard that Mr Steyn had received such notification of this amnesty application which is being heard today and that he said that he was not interested in attending.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he know when you spoke to him, when he told you that your application would dealt with administratively, did he know that you were incriminating him in this case?

MR KRUGER: Two years ago he did not know it. As I have said, at that stage we did not have legal representation after we left Mr Smit, we did not have any legal representation, it was only on a previous appearance before the Amnesty Committee where we received legal representation and only afterwards the process was picked up again. So there was a long lapse of time where we were alone, and on our previous appearance we appeared without any legal representation.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you infer from the discussion with Mr Smit, that if you would incriminate Mr Steyn, that he would have to remove himself from the case?

MR KRUGER: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And he earlier informed you that you did not have to mention any unnecessary names.

MR KRUGER: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Under the suggestion that you should not incriminate anyone else.

MR KRUGER: He said that it was not necessary to do so because this matter would be dealt with administratively.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kruger. Mr Smit, any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR SMIT: There are just two aspects that I'd like to take up with the witness.

The initial application of yours as it appears on page 54 to 59 of the documents, these are typed application and I see that Christ Smit Attorneys name appears on page 56. Were these the applications that he had drawn up on behalf of you and your fellow applicants?

MR KRUGER: That is correct.

MR SMIT: I have read through these - the second one is Mr Ras, but no names are mentioned in these applications, is that correct?

MR KRUGER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR SMIT: And it was upon his advice that no names appeared.

MR KRUGER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR SMIT: And then the letter which was attached later, but which was not attested to, this is on page 93, did you supply this on your own behalf?

MR KRUGER: Yes, this was my own attempt.

MR SMIT: This is the document that appears from page 93 to 97.

MR KRUGER: That is correct, yes.

MR SMIT: Chairperson, just another aspect.

You were asked if the instructions which you received were directly then from either from Mr Snyders, and this was confirmed by Mr Steyn, so these two persons were really the persons who said "Go and place bombs", and you accepted that they were authorised to give such instructions to you.

MR KRUGER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR SMIT: Mr Snyders gave evidence that at a stage during training, during explosives and arms training, that Mr Andries Beyers who was one of the chief figures in the Conservative Party, was present. Were you present then?

MR KRUGER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR SMIT: At that stage Mr Snyders said that he was the Secretary-General of the Conservative Party.

MR KRUGER: That is correct.

MR SMIT: Was he present where some of these bombs which were built were tested?

MR KRUGER: Yes, they were present.

MR SMIT: Did you at any stage hear from him - did he give his approval and did he participate in the planning of the actions of blowing up State premises?

MR KRUGER: We accepted, Chairperson, that his mere presence there and the fact that he did not say anything about these explosives, while we tested them, rendered his tacit approval for these actions.

MR SMIT: So at no stage did he make any speeches during these explosions, where these things were tested?

MR KRUGER: No, not that he made any speeches about it.

MR SMIT: Very well. And at that stage, was he there in his capacity as the Secretary-General of the CP, where you were testing these explosive devices? It was not as a member of Toekomsgesprek.

MR KRUGER: We accepted it as such, that he was there as a representative of CP and not of Toekomsgesprek.

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

MR SIBANYONI: Excuse me, Mr Kruger, I see on page 94 you mention the name of Christo Smit, is he the same person who was helping you to fill in the application form for amnesty? On page 94, number B.

MR KRUGER: Yes, that is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: So he was also part of the Paul Kruger group? Part of your group.

MR KRUGER: Yes, he was part of the Paul Kruger group.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

Mr Kruger you are excused, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Smit.

MR SMIT: That is the case for Mr Kruger, Mr Chairman. I would then call Mr Martinus Christoffel Ras, that is the third applicant.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Ras, please rise. You are Martinus Christoffel Ras, is that correct?

MARTINUS CHRISTOFFEL RAS: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please be seated. Mr Smit.

MR SMIT: I shall continue in Afrikaans. To commence may I just mention, to facilitate the proceedings, Chairperson, the applicant, Mr Ras' application is similarly based on the facts of the previous applicant, Mr Kruger. I shall quickly go through the documents in this regard. No persons were killed or injured, as at the time of Mr Kruger's deeds.

EXAMINATION BY MR SMIT Mr Ras, may I refer you to your supplementary statement. I shall commence with that. Before your application you completed two affidavits, the first is on page 57 to 59 of the bundle, and the second is a supplementary affidavit from page 133 to page 137 of the bundle, is that correct?

MR RAS: That's correct.

MR SMIT: And then you sent a letter to the Committee, which appears on page 98 to page 100, which was not attested to, it was just sent through. You have read it recently, do you confirm the contents of these three documents and that we may hand it up as evidence?

MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR SMIT: Mr Ras, your application as we have mentioned, is similar to that of Mr Kruger, you apply for two bomb explosions at the Lowveld High School, as well as at the Sabie Magistrate's Court, and offences for which you were charged with in the Regional Court, as appears from Annexures A1 to A10, page 31 to 39. This also includes the storage of explosives. Nowhere were any explosives stored on your premises, the possession is just that you had these explosives in your possession before they were planted at the school and at the court.

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: With regard to the explosions, as I had asked Mr Kruger, from whom did you receive your instructions to place these explosive devices at the court and at the school?

MR RAS: From Mr Ben Snyders.

MR SMIT: In both cases?

MR RAS: Yes.

MR SMIT: You were a member of the Conservative Party at the stage when these acts were committed for which you apply for amnesty.

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: Were you a member of the organisation Toekomsgesprek?

MR RAS: At that stage I was not a member.

MR SMIT: You were not a member. The membership was upon invitation only, is that correct?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR SMIT: Were you in the process of becoming a member, or what motivated you to become part of these actions?

MR RAS: I had already been approached by Mr Jan Kruger, because one had to be an invited person. I went to some meetings along with him.

MR SMIT: These are now Toekomsgesprek meetings?

MR RAS: That is correct, yes.

MR SMIT: Did you receive training in the manufacturing of explosive devices?

MR RAS: I did receive training, yes.

MR SMIT: From whom did you receive such training?

MR RAS: From Mr Jan Kruger.

MR SMIT: But this was not in Toekomsgesprek policy, this was separately that you received your instructions? This was in preparation for your membership.

MR RAS: That is correct, yes.

MR SMIT: The instructions which you received now from Mr Snyders to plant these bombs, did you accept these instructions in your capacity as a member of the Conservative Party, or in your personal capacity, because you were not a member of Toekomsgesprek?

MR RAS: I had already been invited to meetings held by Toekomsgesprek, of which Mr Douw Steyn was the speaker As Mr Jan Kruger said just now, when the meeting was already adjourned, Mr Douw Steyn approached us outside where Mr Ben Snyders, Mr Jan Kruger and I were standing, where he told us that Lowveld High was a problem and that a plan had to be made with the school. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR SMIT: Very well. And thereafter you were approached by Mr Snyders who said "Come along, we shall blow up the school".

MR RAS: Yes that is correct.

MR SMIT: Did he tell you where he received his instructions from?

MR RAS: Yes, from Douw Steyn.

MR SMIT: Just for the Committee's information, the Magistrate's Court and Lowveld High School, did you detonate these bombs by means of timing mechanisms?

MR RAS: No, we had delayed detonators. It is something that one had to light, so one was sure that it would explode.

MR SMIT: And can you recall at what time this was done?

MR RAS: This was approximately 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning.

MR SMIT: So you went at night when there were no people there?

MR RAS: Yes, we went when there were no people.

MR SMIT: The purpose, why did you accompany the other gentlemen and help with the collection and storage of firearms and explosives?

MR RAS: I can say that at that stage the country was in a war situation and one was incited by rightist movements, so much so that one would believe anything they would tell us, and that is why I decided that I would become a part of it, a part of this struggle against the them National Government.

MR SMIT: When you say you were incited, were you incited by person who delivered speeches at Toekomsgesprek meetings or at Conservative Party meetings?

MR RAS: Both.

MR SMIT: With CP meetings can you recall any names of persons who incited you, who made you feel that you needed to do something?

MR RAS: Also at Conservative Party meetings it was also Mr Douw Steyn who delivered speeches there, as well as Christo Smit, but these were just general political meetings.

MR SMIT: And did you receive instructions at the meeting or did they come afterwards? You now have said that Mr Douw Steyn approached you after the meeting and said that Lowveld High had to be blown up.

MR RAS: That was a Toekomsgesprek meeting.

MR SMIT: Not specifically a Conservative Party

meeting.

MR RAS: No, those are closed meetings.

MR SMIT: Very well. Evidence was given here by Mr Snyders as well as Mr Kruger that the Secretary-General, Mr Andries Beyers, the Secretary-General of the CP, was present when some of these explosive devices were tested. Were you present when this took place?

MR RAS: No, I was not there.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Morgan, questions?

MR MORGAN: None, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Bank.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER BANK: Mr Ras, at this stage do you know what the Chairperson of the CP at that stage, do you know what his political affiliation is at this stage?

MR RAS: No.

MR VAN DER BANK: I have no further questions, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Bank. Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: I have no questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Chair, I don't have questions.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Smit, anything further? Re-examination?

MR VAN DER BANK: I have nothing further to add, Mr Chairperson. That is the case for Mr Ras.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Morgan, are you tendering any evidence?

MR MORGAN: None, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Bank?

MR VAN DER BANK: None, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Smit, have you got any submissions on the merits of the applications.

MR SMIT IN ARGUMENT: Just a couple, Mr Chairperson. Might I from the outset state that I will deal with all three applicants as one.

First of all, I would submit that it is from the documents and the evidence, obvious that all three the applicants were members of the Conservative Party, two of them members of Toekomsgesprek, the organisation who acted in that capacity, and that they all acted at all times under instructions from their Commander, if one can put it that way. Therefore I would submit - and then the deeds that they are requesting amnesty for are obviously with the political objective of getting to the, at that stage, ruling party, being the National Party, to reconsider the transformation process 'cause the Conservative Party were at that stage fully convinced that that was not the right way to go, that the National Party was actually doing it to the detriment of the white South African.

Now it is obvious that they believed this, that this was said at the Toekomsgesprek meetings, that certain of the high - how could one put it, well even the Secretary-General, Mr Andries Beyers, was present at certain testings of explosives and did not disapprove of their plans to bomb certain government buildings.

Now what I would like to refer to and what I would submit is a very sightly document, appears on pages 106 to 110 of the documents, one by Adv Christian Daniel de Jager, who is implicated by Mr Snyders, stating that he was a member of the Conservative Party. What I would submit is that the statement by Mr Snyders is actually to the effect that Mr de Jager was in a legal advisory capacity at that stage, but affidavit filed by him, I would like to point out on page 107, paragraph (d) thereof, he says:

I would submit that is corroboration as can be, for the fact that the three applicants were actually convinced that Toekomsgesprek was part of the CP at that stage and that they acted in the course and scope of instructions from the Conservative Party, especially once again in the light of the fact that the Secretary-General personally writes Mr Snyders a letter and then attends meetings of Toekomsgesprek in his capacity as a Conservative Party member.

Therefore I would submit that amnesty should be granted with regards to all the incidents mentioned, to all there the applicants.

Just two other matters. The averments made by my colleague, Mr van Wyk, on behalf of Mr Louis Snyders, I would submit does not amount to much and should not be taken into consideration as - I think what he attempted to do was to point out that Mr Snyders contradicted himself or is not a witness that can be believed, but the fact remains that Mr Louis Snyders never came to testify, these statements were made vaguely by Mr van Wyk and they left. There was nothing more to it. If Mr Louis Snyders was serious, he would have come before this Committee to come and testify to the effect that he knows this and this and this, and this was not done. Therefore no cognisance can be taken of the averments made by them.

The last very important aspect is Mr Douw Steyn. He's implicated in several ways. He was given on two occasions notice of these hearings and not once - on the one instance he actually wrote on the notification that was given to him - if I may just point that out to the Learned Committee, that appears on page 112, he actually wrote on the Acknowledgement of Receipt that he - he says:

So he is in complete ignorance of these proceedings, he does not come and contradict what is said, so I would submit that it has to be accepted that the applicants are telling the truth, that they complied with all the provisions of the Act, and therefore should receive amnesty for these deeds as put before this Committee.

I have nothing further to add, unless there are questions from the Committee, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think the one difficulty that does arise in this application, and I think that has been referred to by Mr Sibanyoni, is that the applicants should establish that they were acting on behalf of a publicly known political organisation, in order to qualify. Now they have this situation that Mr Steyn, on page 112, in that Acknowledgement of Receipt, says that although the application he received was incomplete, he finds the allegations to be absurd and laughable "absurd en belaglik", as he puts it.

MR SMIT: Indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: And therefore he doesn't want to respond and then he writes this other note that you've referred to, that:

So those are his notes on this thing. And then there is this letter from the Conservative Party, on page 70. It says that they were given notice of these applications and they say no, they don't have any interest in this because they have never been involved at any stage in any planning or any activities outside the framework of lawful political activities.

Now the question arises, on whose behalf were your clients actually acting? And that's the one that we must be satisfied on, we must be satisfied that your clients have acted on behalf of a publicly known political organisation. And you might have some submissions on that.

MR SMIT: I do indeed. Mr Chairperson, if one looks at the evidence it seems like - well it is to the basis that Christo Smit and Douw Steyn were both leaders in the Conservative Party. These people were giving instructions to the three applicants. Andries Beyers was the Secretary-General, he was attending meetings in his capacity as Secretary-General of the CP, he was attending Toekomsgesprek meetings and condoning the acts performed there.

CHAIRPERSON: That is precisely the question. Two of the applicants, more of them, I'm not even sure now, but in any case they've referred to Beyers. The last applicant said that he accepted "Ek het aanvaar", he accepted that Mr Beyers was there in his capacity as the Secretary-General, after you had asked him about that. He says Mr Beyers said nothing for or against what he had seen. There is no indication whether Mr Beyers is under the impression that this could be training for defensive purposes, not necessarily sabotage or killing people. There's no clarity as to what the position of Mr Beyers is. We have this letter on page 70, indicating that the Conservative Party distanced itself from this. Now this the official version that is before us. Mr Steyn isn't here, he's not come to explain, he says he finds the allegations absurd and laughable.

MR SMIT: My submission would be it could be very easy for the Conservative Party to file a letter in this regard. No submission was made before this Commission, no representative from the Conservative Party, who has a real interest in this matter because it bears down directly on the Conservative Party's attitude at that stage during the time that these deeds were committed, no-one comes before this Committee to say but these people, it is denied that they were ever given instructions. It's just a letter, it's not under oath, it's written by a Mr Wouter Hoffman. He could have attended these meetings. That would be my submission. 'Cause the problem now is, we have applicants who at that stage acted on instructions, they were members of the Conservative Party and of Toekomsgesprek, they believed that all the instructions they received from people who were in high positions at the Conservative Party, the instructions given to them by those people were instructions from the Conservative Party, and they acted on those instructions because it was a political objective that had to be obtained. The National Party, the ruling party at that stage, had to be put in its place. Now a couple of years later these people have the problem, they are being blamed criminally for certain deeds that were done under instructions at that stage. If they look back and say well, we were given instructions by these people, everybody behind them who were above them suddenly says "We were not involved, we did not give instructions". How do they do that? The one, Mr Steyn, does not come to the Commission to say that, the Conservative Party writes a letter and says "We distance ourselves". Mr de Jager, who was high up in the Conservative Party, says it could quite have been possible that such an organisation existed. He did not have knowledge of it, but now in retrospect, it's obvious that something happened. And he says very importantly on page 109, he says:

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SMIT: So what he says is these guys on ground level who received the instructions, were absolutely under the impression that the instructions they were receiving were from the Conservative Party and were approved by them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, by necessary implication Mr de Jager is saying, his opinion that he's expressing here is that these people more than likely were, in good faith, under the impression that they were acting on behalf of the CP, but the implication of that is that that was not the official position of the CP. These people were bona fide under the impression, but it was not officially CP policy. So the question is, is that good enough for your clients, does that establish that they were acting on behalf of the Conservative Party?

MR SMIT: I would submit so. Objectively, if one looks at it now, eight years later, one could say that they were members of the CP, they were acting on instructions, they believed, subjectively they believed, but looking at it objectively, instructions they believed were real instructions from the Conservative Party and that certain measures were to be taken to go to a certain goal. And therefore, that makes them fall directly into the category of the Act.

In that instance I might mention to you, Mr Chairman, in Pretoria, Mr Koos Botha, who was a CP member of parliament, or he was at - no I think he was a member of parliament in Wonderboom, received amnesty for putting a bomb at the - I received a note, there was a bomb at one of the schools in Pretoria and he, on the same basis, received amnesty, stating that it was, according to him, instructions from the Conservative Party. He did it with the political objective to further their interests.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You see the first question that we must determine is whether your clients were executing the official policy of the Conservative Party, which is a politically known organisation, if not, have they acted under the bona fide belief that they were doing so, and if so, is that sufficient in terms of the law? Then it becomes a legal question, is it sufficient in terms of the law, to comply with requirements of Section 20.

So we - at the first stage, we're debating this first stage and the difficulty that we raise is, in the light of all of this - it is a letter as you rightly say, but no Conservative Party member on the other hand also, has come to support their application to say no, but these people they're known members and they were acting on our behalf. And then we have Mr Steyn who was their immediate channel to the Toekomsgesprek Chief Council, and as they believed, to the Conservative Party, and he seems to be distancing himself, he's not supporting the application. If anything he seems to be casting aspersions at the credibility of your clients, to say you know they're absurd, this is a laughable allegation that they're making. Now under those circumstances, is there sufficient before us to find as a fact that they were acting in execution of official Conservative Party policy. That's the first question. The other one is the legal one.

MR SMIT: Ja, that we can get to. My submission, to summarise would be, due to the fact that no other proper evidence is being put before this Committee, other than two letters, or one letter from the Conservative Party and one little by Mr Steyn, made on an acknowledgement, which I in his position would also have done, 'cause he's being blamed for a couple of things here that were not all above board, due to no other evidence before this Committee, therefore the version of the applicants should be accepted as being the correct one.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and that version as I understand it, is that they bona fide believed that they were acting on behalf of the Conservative Party.

MR SMIT: Ja, that the instructions came from the Conservative Party, because of the fact that first of all, Mr Christo Smit, as well as Mr Douw Steyn, were leader figures in the CP and these guys were giving instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: So, I mean the effect of that is that there is no evidence before us - let's leave aside for the moment the letter and what Mr Steyn wrote on the acknowledgement, there's no evidence before us that these acts in fact fell within the Conservative Party's policy ...(intervention)

MR SMIT: Or fell out of it.

CHAIRPERSON: ... the evidence that we do have is the applicants' evidence that they believed that to have been the case.

MR SMIT: They at meetings were told that this is the policy and therefore they acted on these instructions. That's what they testified.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes they believed that to have been the case.

MR SMIT: Ja, they were actually informed at meetings "This is the policy, this is what we have to do". They were under the impression that Toekomsgesprek was a body of the CP, and a legal body as far as I could establish from them, and therefore they were acting on instructions from the Conservative Party.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so on that scenario we have the belief of the applicants.

MR SMIT: That would be my submission, on that basis.

CHAIRPERSON: Now are you submitting that that belief is sufficient to comply with the requirements of the Act?

MR SMIT: I would submit so, yes, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. Which provision are you referring to?

MR SMIT: Mr Chairman, bear with me for a moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly, take your time.

MR SMIT: Mr Chairman, that would be Section 20(2)(f). Unfortunately I have the Afrikaans copy in my possession. That is the one dealing with the person who on reasonable grounds believed that he was acting within the scope and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Read it in Afrikaans, let's see what category of people that includes.

MR SMIT:

CHAIRPERSON: So with the course and scope of his duties or authority? "Bevoegdheid"

MR SMIT: Ja, authority.

CHAIRPERSON: Category (a).

MR SMIT: A would be:

Now I would submit that the liberation movement here would include Toekomsgesprek, being an organisation, an undercover organisation, if one would call it that, with the Conservative Party. Once again we have had no contrary evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but is your difficulty not there that Toekomsgesprek would not be a publicly known - it's a secret organisation, it's not a publicly known political organisation.

MR SMIT: Well it differentiates between a generally known political organisation, or a liberation movement, so the "or" would state that it could be any party then. But liberation movement could be an unknown movement as well, unknown organisation. And the qualification - my learned attorney is showing me now, the qualification is that:

So:

That includes the one in (a), I would submit to you, Mr Chairman.

The others, (b) deals with workers of the government or any previous government, or members of the Security Forces, as well as (c). (d) might also be applicable where it says:

That directly deals with the statements in - the setting our the liberation movement in (a) once again. That is Section 20(2)(d).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that might be a bit more problematic for you.

MR SMIT: Ja, that might be, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The reference to duties, that seems to suggest some or other situation, almost a contractual situation, where the person is under specific duties and he's executing those duties.

MR SMIT: I'm not relying on this, I'm just going through - 'cause I've mentioned (a), (b), (c) or (d), ...(indistinct) (f).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SMIT: But I would then submit that (f) would pertain to this matter as well where it states that on reasonable ground believed that he was acting in the scope and course of his duties. And it further says:

Now two of the applicants were members of Toekomsgesprek, they thought they had the duties of stopping the National Party, or getting them to call out a general election and therefore they acted in this way. That would be the second leg.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but you see that is the point, are you not - if you're in that sort of situation, now you're not talking about office bearers, are you? You're talking about people who have some clear duty that they have to perform within ...(intervention)

MR SMIT: I would submit they are under instructions. Under instructions, in this regard that it is obvious that certain "gesagstriktuur" existed within Toekomsgesprek, as Mr Snyders in his application points out, that it was very strict, first of all, there were certain rules to be followed, at meetings they suggested certain things should not be done because the ground troops, if one could it that, were not properly prepared yet. Therefore it was a military structure that was set up, which would then fall directly within the ambit of Section (f).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you see, if you refer to the concept "course and scope of duties", then in the normal legal understanding of that term you're talking about a situation, normally it's a situation of employment, but it could be, in this scenario, it could be an office holder, office bearer or an organisation and not necessarily (a), which seems to be the member himself or herself. It seems to be directly the member.

MR SMIT: Ja, it's directly and a subjective test that has to be applied, it's a member of an organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so it seems as if the other sub-sections seem to be the widening scope of that, to include say, office bearers and people who have some specific duty to perform on behalf of the organisation that they represent and so on.

MR SMIT: I would submit that in their instance they all received orders from a higher ranking officer, if one could put it that way, and that amounts to a duty one could argue. That would be my submission. But in terms of (a) I am completely with you, Mr Chairperson, that that should cover it, and therefore I would submit that they should get amnesty in terms of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Smit.

MR SMIT: As it pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Morgan.

MR MORGAN: None, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Morgan. Mr van der Bank.

MR VAN DER BANK: I have no submissions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Bank. Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: I have no submissions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Mtanga. Anything further that you wish to add?

MR SMIT: I have nothing to add, thank you Mr Chairman and Learned Committee Members.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

Well that concludes the proceedings, the formal proceedings. The Panel will take some time to consider the application, all of the documents that were placed before us, as well as the submissions, and will notify the parties as soon as the decision in this matter is available. So the decision would then be reserved.

Ms Mtanga, does that conclude our roll here?

MS MTANGA: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We would like to take the opportunity to thank the legal representatives, Mr Smit, your attorney, Mr Morgan, Mr van der Bank, Ms Mtanga, and in his absence, Mr van Wyk, for your assistance in this matter, we appreciate that very much.

We also would additionally thank all of those people who assist us in being able to hold hearings of this nature. We are thoroughly aware of the fact that there's a lot of effort that goes into having a hearing of this nature. We have our staff compliment that normally exert themselves to make it possible for us to have sessions like this. The members of the public who attend to witness to the process, which is very important. We are normally grateful to the proprietors, owners of the venues where we sit, for their willingness to accommodate us. It's not always a matter without risks sometimes. We wish to thank the interpreters for their assistance. To the police for their duties. And finally, my colleagues on the Panel with me, for their assistance. Thank you very much. We're adjourned.

----------------------