MS COLERIDGE: .... Simon Sithole and Gibson Hlatswayo. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could you provide us with a copy of all the victims' names, with their addresses if possible. Those you've got.

MS COLERIDGE: I will provide the Committee with that. Chairperson, then just in relation to all the implicated people, I'll just place their names on record, as to who we've notified. Ms Baker, Chairperson, which we're received a response from his attorneys, Julian Knight, I have forwarded a copy to all the legal representatives and if we could it Exhibit A, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Ms Coleridge. This is a letter we received this morning, it's dated the 7th of September, from Julian Knight and Associates Incorporated, in respect of Mr Baker. We'll call that Exhibit A. Does everybody have a copy of it?

MS COOK: Yes, Chairperson, but if I may be so bold as to ask you whether you wouldn't make that Exhibit D, Chairperson, because we've already got A, B, and C earmarked. If you don't mind.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to call it D?

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll call it Exhibit D, because we will be getting, in the near future, A, B and C, which have already been marked.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson. Sergeant Swanepoel, Mr Beyers, Capt Pretorius, Douw Willemse, Paul van Dyk, Beukes Mostert. Thank you, Chairperson. Sorry, there's an At van Niekerk. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Coleridge. Have the applicants sorted out the order in which they're going to testify?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson. We intend to start with your leave, with Gen Erasmus and then go to Gen du Toit, which will take care of my two applicants, Chairperson. Chairperson, may I commence? Chairperson, may we again ask you to receive Exhibit A, "Algemene Agtergrond tot Amnestie Aansoeke", the document which has now become fairly well-known to you, Chairperson, as Exhibit A. Gen Erasmus has made a statement and as has Gen du Toit, could we ask that Gen Erasmus' statement be marked Exhibit B. That is before you, Chairperson, and Gen du Toit's is also before you and that could be Exhibit C, with your leave Chairperson. I would then immediately call Gen Erasmus to give evidence. He wishes to give his evidence in Afrikaans and he has no objection to taking the prescribed oath.

GERHARD NICOLAAS ERASMUS: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: The application of Mr Erasmus appears on page 53 of volume 1.

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: General, you are in an applicant in this matter and you will shortly discuss what you are applying for amnesty for. Your application appears in bundle 1, page 53 to 64, do you confirm the correctness of your application which has been incorporated as such in the bundle?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, I confirm this.

MR VISSER: You have also studied Exhibit A, are you capable of confirming Exhibit A as your knowledge and experience during the struggle of the past?

MR ERASMUS: I can, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And do you request that the relevant sections thereof which pertain to this application, be incorporated with your evidence?

MR ERASMUS: Yes.

MR VISSER: Previously you have testified in the amnesty process, during the Mthimkhulu matter as well as the Kondile application, the Bopape matter and the Cosatu House matter, as well as the Khotso House matter and then the Mohale application, is that correct?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: The Committee is then also welcome to study that evidence if they wish to do so, and once again you confirm that evidence.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Your application on page 2 of Exhibit B, entails a request for amnesty for any offence, deed or omission committed by you before or during an incident during which the Why Not Club was damaged by an explosion on the 22nd of September 1988, and this includes transgressions of legislation pertaining to the handling, transportation, possession and application or usage of explosives, malicious damage to property at the Why Not Club, a squash club which was adjacent to the Why Not Club, and the business of McKenna's Gold, as well as defeating the ends of justice, in that you concealed the true facts. And during the explosion persons were also injured and consequently you request amnesty for attempted murder and assault, is that correct?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: From paragraph 2 onwards on page 2, would you address this document, Exhibit B, and just give the Committee a brief overview regarding the violence situation during those times.

MR ERASMUS:

MR VISSER: General, you state that you were in command in 1988, what was your status, position and rank?

MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, I was a Brigadier and I was the Head of the former Security Branch of the Witwatersrand. I was the Commander.

MR VISSER: Very well. Can you tell the Committee your recollection regarding the facts and circumstances of this particular incident.

MR ERASMUS:

MR VISSER: When you refer to these bomb incidents, what was the suspicion regarding who was responsible for these incidents?

MR ERASMUS: The suspicion was that the ANC was responsible for these bomb attacks.

MR VISSER: Very well, continue.

MR ERASMUS:

MR VISSER: However, later you recall that you added something which you said to Capt Zeelie. Could you tell the Committee.

MR ERASMUS: What I would like to add, because it has occurred to me subsequently, is that I told him furthermore that it wouldn't really help if we found such a place, to wait a month before taking action, because it would not have any effect.

MR VISSER: Very well. But is it your evidence that Capt Zeelie was justified in accepting that you were serious about such a counter-attack?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, that is correct, he would have accepted it as such and he would have understood it as such as well.

MR VISSER: Proceed.

MR ERASMUS:

MR VISSER: Didn't the PAC and the other liberation movements also plant bombs here in Johannesburg, in your experience?

MR ERASMUS: Not during that time, but during the '60s there were other organisations who planted bombs.

MR VISSER: If we would restrict ourselves to 1988, you would say that it was only the ANC which was planting bombs?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, according to our opinion.

MR VISSER: Proceed.

MR ERASMUS:

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, General, so you were expecting Capt Zeelie to come back to you and say "well look, I've done my reconnaissance or investigations, this is my suggestion" and then you give an order? Is that what you expected?

MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, that was the normal course of action. At that stage I thought that he would follow this method, but it never took place.

I think this should read 23 September, Chairperson. It's the day after the explosion, so it should be the 23rd of September.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll just amend in paragraph 18 of Exhibit B, 22nd September '88 to read 23rd September '88.

MR ERASMUS: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did it have the desired effect?

MR ERASMUS: At the moment I cannot recall, things were so confusing during those years and I no longer have documentation which would corroborate such a statement.

MR VISSER: Continue.

MR ERASMUS:

MR VISSER: Very well, on page 6 from paragraph 24 onwards, you've also dealt with certain evidence of the other applicants. Will you take us through that.

MR ERASMUS:

MR VISSER: In 1996?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Proceed.

MR ERASMUS:

Sorry, I'm a bit confused.

MR VISSER: Please proceed.

MR ERASMUS:

MR VISSER: Are you aware of an SAB bar, or should it instead be the SAP bar?

MR ERASMUS: SAB doesn't have a bar as such, sometimes they held functions, but I think that it would be the SAP bar.

MR VISSER: Well we will ask Mr Zeelie about that.

MR ERASMUS:

MR VISSER: Is that your recollection?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Do you have any recollection of a meeting with Gen du Toit, yourself, Mr Zeelie and/or Beyers and van Heerden, at a bar where targets were discussed?

MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, I do not recall this. I'm not saying that it is impossible, but I do not recall it.

MR VISSER: Proceed.

MR ERASMUS:

MR VISSER: Chairperson, perhaps I should refer you to that evidence. In bundle 1 you will at page 30, that is the application of Mr van Heerden, from the top, the second paragraph, this scenario refers to the Why Not Club and in that area after the explosion, and Mr van Heerden says:

well we know that that is so.

Now Chairperson, the relevance of this evidence of Gen Erasmus now, is that you will hear Gen du Toit denying that he ever said anything of the kind to Mr van Heerden, and it is against that background that Gen Erasmus now wants to tell you something that he remembers, Chairperson, and that is what he is busy with now at page 7 of Exhibit B, paragraph 30.

Could you just reiterate this.

MR ERASMUS:

MR VISSER: Now who was in your office with you on this day?

MR ERASMUS: It was Zeelie and van Heerden.

MR VISSER: And did you speak to both of them?

MR ERASMUS: I said to both of them, but I think that the major intention was that I wanted to convey this to Zeelie, because he visited all the scenes and it would have been easier for him to be identified as the man.

MR VISSER: Very well. Will you continue.

MR ERASMUS:

MR VISSER: We did not deal with this in Exhibit B, but did you know a Frans Malherbe?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, Chairperson, I know Frans Malherbe. At that time I think that he was the liaison officer for the Divisional Commissioner, or Commissar.

MR VISSER: Was he a member of the Security Branch?

MR ERASMUS: No.

MR VISSER: Did you ever discuss the Why Not Club prior to, during or after the time and did you disclose the police involvement in the matter?

MR ERASMUS: No.

MR VISSER: As far as you know, did he have any knowledge regarding the involvement of the police in this matter?

MR ERASMUS: No, Chairperson, I would not have discussed it with him, because this incident was a need-to-know incident, as I've stated in my evidence, and I stated that I expected that Capt Zeelie would most probably have executed this order on his own. Therefore, the need-to-know principle was very strong, because we needed to keep it secret.

MR VISSER: Very well, please proceed with paragraph 32.

MR ERASMUS:

MR VISSER: And these are documents which were received from the TRC?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Proceed.

MR ERASMUS:

...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Yes, in bundle 2 the case dossier was indeed included and there were also press reports, so we don't need to repeat this. Would you then conclude, please.

MR ERASMUS:

MR VISSER: You then request that amnesty be granted to you. General, you have made an amendment and with the exception of this, do you confirm according to your knowledge and insights, the truth and correctness of these pages here under oath?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, I do so.

MR VISSER: And to the best of your recollection, is this the full version of what you can recall regarding this incident?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, that is my recollection.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Mr Rossouw, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Yes thank you, I do Mr Chairman.

General, I want us to discuss the instruction or the way in which Zeelie understood it. Can I firstly go to your statement, Exhibit B. In paragraph 11 where you refer to the discussion that took place at the Vanderbijl bus terminus, you there talk about the discussion that you had with Capt Zeelie. Can you say if there were any other people present during this discussion?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, as far as I can recall we were alone at that stage, there could have been people in the area, but I think I spoke to him alone.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you recall if Mr van Heerden was present?

MR ERASMUS: I do not even know if, as I've already said in my evidence, if Mr van Heerden was at the scene. So I cannot say.

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry, General, what are you saying? Are you saying that it's possible that Mr van Heerden was present when you were having this discussion with Mr Zeelie?

MR ERASMUS: What I'm saying, Mr Chairperson, is that I cannot recall that he was in my immediate presence, but that he was at the scene is possibly true, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But if Mr van Heerden was present, would there have been any reason for you to speak secretly with Mr Zeelie and exclude Mr van Heerden from any discussion, or not?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, as I have already said, as far as I can recall I only spoke to Zeelie. If van Heerden was in the area and if he heard anything, I do not know.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Mr Rossouw?

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Chairperson.

General, the reason why I'm asking you this is that after a statement that was made by Mr van Heerden, that you will find on page 30 of volume 1, that is the first paragraph, you will see that he says that both you and Gen du Toit discussed this with Zeelie and himself, that an action had to be taken against the ANC.

MR VISSER: That's not entirely correct, he says "after that", Chairperson, he doesn't say at that scene, he says "after that".

CHAIRPERSON: He says:

Yes well that obviously, it didn't happen while the actual bomb was going off.

MR VISSER: Well it could refer to the scene, or it could refer to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It is a bit ambiguous, but let's hear what he says.

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry Mr Chairman, I don't agree that it's ambiguous. If you read the sentence it says that happened during the clearing "tydens die opruiming".

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no I think it's after the explosion at the scene basically.

MR ROSSOUW: It must be at the scene, Mr Chairman.

General, so I refer you to that statement of Mr van Heerden "on the scene during the cleanup", where he says that you had a discussion with him and Zeelie, and after what you just said, do you deny that it is possible that such a discussion could have taken place in which he was involved?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, I do not recall it, all that I can say is that I do know where Mr du Toit and myself stood and where Mr Zeelie was. It's not impossible that it could have happened, but I cannot recall it.

MR ROSSOUW: So you do not exclude the possibility?

MR ERASMUS: No, I do not. I'd say at this stage, this is 12 years ago, I cannot recall.

MR ROSSOUW: Then General, you say that your idea was that you were sick and tired of all the bomb explosions and all the scenes that you had to go and visit, the one after the other. My instructions are that you are not a man that, or you're a person who's very direct and would make it very clear about you feelings and how you felt about the situation, and my instructions are that you made it very clear and you said you were sick and tired of it.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, that's how I recalled it, I cannot recall the details of the discussions that took place, I can only recall the main points, or the core of the discussion and that is what I've said.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well. General, then you've now taken part in this discussion and you made it very clear, and please correct me if I place words in your mouth or if I misunderstood you, that in this discussion you made it very clear that the situation concerning the bomb planters is unacceptable and that something had to be done. Is that the first step? Do you agree with that?

MR ERASMUS: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Then in paragraph 12 on Exhibit B, you continue and say:

So this follows directly from the fact that you indicated that this action or these actions of the ANC, the bomb planting had to be stopped?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: So do you agree with me that from that you very clearly get the idea that there had to be a counter-action?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, I stated it as such.

MR ROSSOUW: And then you say that Mr Zeelie told you that yes, there were such places, why didn't you ask him then at the scene, "But where are these places, what are they called," because he now told you that there are such places?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, the reason why I did not do it at that stage, if I can recall correctly it's that he told me that he will investigate it further and that is the only reason that he could give.

MR ROSSOUW: We will now come back to this specific target that was chosen, but I would first like to continue with paragraph 13. You make use of the word "intention" and you said the intention was that something drastic had to be done and you make you make use of the word "drastic", can you tell us what would a drastic action be then? Taking into consideration your intention at that stage.

MR ERASMUS: A drastic action at that stage, the way in which I saw it, would be to counter-act.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well, but did you then consider the fact that they would place a limpet mine at an ANC gathering point?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, that an explosion had to take place.

CHAIRPERSON: So when you were talking about a counter-action, it was clear in your discussion with Mr Zeelie that you intended a counter-action of a similar nature, in other words, a bomb?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: So General, you then also say that you can recall, and it's something that you did not mention in this Exhibit B, that you also told Mr Zeelie that it will not help if such a place is identified and an action only follows a month later, it had to be an immediate action.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, otherwise it would not have any effect, we would have been unable to achieve anything.

MR ROSSOUW: General, if we look at all the steps that I went through with you now, and what conclusions or inferences one can draw from them, will you agree then that if you say on page 5, paragraph 20, in the second paragraph you say that your application must not be interpreted as a "denial of the fact that I gave the instruction which led to the action." I do agree with you that if you look at the discussion in the way in which you put it, it was an instruction.

MR ERASMUS: I do not deny at all that it was an instruction, it is just the place that I did not know of at that stage, that I could say that place specifically. Chairperson, but I do not deny the instruction. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR ROSSOUW: Just a minute, Mr Chairman.

General, and that will also be the evidence of Mr Zeelie, that he did receive an instruction from you to launch such a counter-attack, an explosion at a night-club.

JUDGE DE JAGER: The General said, what he said was that something had to be done immediately, they had to arrange for an explosion, a similar act that can be a reaction on the previous day's explosion. So I do know where the dispute is, except for the fact that he did not specifically provide them with a target and say "Go to the night-club."

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman. That is indeed the point, I was just putting it that the specific target was selected. That will be the evidence of Mr Zeelie.

General, that is indeed the evidence of Mr Zeelie, that the specific target was selected and was discussed with you, in that it would be the Why Not Club.

MR ERASMUS: Unfortunately I do not recall that and up till today I do not even know where the Why Not Club is. Zeelie and van Heerden were in my office the following day and they reported to me that there was an explosion that took place there and that they did it by means of a limpet mine.

MR ROSSOUW: General, if you say that you cannot recall it, is it possible that it could have happened, that it was mentioned to you in this discussion?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, it's possible, but as far as I can recall it's not likely that the Why Not was mentioned by me specifically, but as I've said it is a long time ago. I do not know the Why Not Club, I've never been there, I did not visit the scene, so for me it was an unfamiliar thing when I heard it the first time.

MR ROSSOUW: General, I do agree that you would have mentioned it, because the evidence of Mr Zeelie is that he chose or identified the target and disclosed it to you.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, I say that this explosion took place the same evening as the explosion that took place in the street. As far as my recollection goes, we then dispersed from, and I do not think we saw each other again on that day. I may be wrong if he remembers it differently.

MR ROSSOUW: General, I would just like for completion's sake to state to you that Mr Zeelie will testify about the place that was identified, the Why Not Club, and he will testify that that specific night-club was identified because it was a club from which an attack was launched on a restaurant, Cafe Zurich, which was opposite the Why Not Club and that attack was launched by Peter Dlamini, an ANC member. He will also testify that it was a handgrenade that was detonated by means of a limpet mine detonator in Cafe Zurich, by Peter Dlamini, and that was the attack on this cafe. Can you recall that incident?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, I can recall a handgrenade explosion that took place in a restaurant, I cannot recall the name, but I think I was also there and it's possible that I was there with them.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, Mr Zeelie will also testify this, that it is very clear in his recollection and you also mention the handgrenade, because it was an exceptional case, that most of the time they used limpet mines in such explosions, but in this attack on Cafe Zurich it was by means of a handgrenade and using a limpet mine detonator.

MR ERASMUS: Yes, I can recall that he found a piece of the handgrenade while we were at the scene.

MR ROSSOUW: And he will also testify that - can you recall if there was an investigation on Peter Dlamini who planted the handgrenade?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Rossouw, when was the investigation, that same afternoon, the next day or months later? When was Dlamini identified as the person and when was he arrested?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I'll just take an instruction if I ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, you put it as if it occurred that same afternoon, and that's how I understood your question.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I'm not putting it like that, I'm - let me just take an instruction. Mr Chairman, my instructions are that the identification of Mr Dlamini did not take place that afternoon, the incident at Cafe Zurich restaurant took place a while before the Why Not Night-club. I'm not in a position at this stage to give you an indication as to time ...

CHAIRPERSON: But it wasn't the same day?

MR ROSSOUW: It was not on the same day.

CHAIRPERSON: It was some time before.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, I was just putting this evidence to illustrate why the Why Not Night-club was selected.

General, then the other aspect that I'd like to deal with is the gathering point or place. You do know that Mr Zeelie says that you were at the SAB and that Gen du Toit was also there and that is where the discussion took place.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, SAB, that's Breweries?

MR ROSSOUW: SAB, not SAP, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, whereabouts is that, where they used to meet, the SAB?

MR ROSSOUW: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Whereabouts are those premises?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, my instructions are that the premises are in Denver, I don't exactly know where that is in Johannesburg.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but it's in Denver. And then what is it, a bar? A drinking place, a meeting place?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, it's not a bar in the sense of a licensed bar or ...

CHAIRPERSON: A canteen as such?

MR ROSSOUW: A canteen, it's not a bar.

CHAIRPERSON: Staff canteen type of thing.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, it might be a staff canteen, yes.

General, I would just like to put to you that insofar as there is a dispute about the place where this discussion took place and the target was selected, if it was at the South African Breweries or at the scene, Mr Zeelie will say that he was called to the SAB premises, he was alone and insofar as the annexure in his affidavit goes, he then stated it or amended it and said that the name had to be deleted and that he only went there alone.

Mr Chairman, you'll find that on page 15 of volume 1, paragraph 2.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is that where he says that he made a mistake when he mentioned Beyer's name?

MR ROSSOUW: That is indeed so, Mr Chairman. You'll find the correction of that on page 10, the top paragraph there where he says that the name Nanie Beyers in paragraph 2 should be deleted.

MR VISSER: I think my learned friend should just tell you also that he says that it should be replaced with Brood van Heerden. My learned friend doesn't say that.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, it might be that Mr Visser and I read the paragraph in a different light, but as I read it, it says that the name of Nanie Beyers in paragraph 2 should be deleted and in paragraph 5 it must be replaced with Dries van Heerden. But Mr Chairman, we'll clear that up in evidence. My instructions are, Mr van Heerden was not present at the meeting at the SA Breweries.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: General, the reason why Mr Zeelie in his application also referred to Mr Malherbe ...(intervention)

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, must I answer on this SAB question?

CHAIRPERSON: I think let Mr Rossouw just finalise what he wants to put to you. You're saying that Mr Zeelie was contacted alone to go to the SAB premises in Denver and to meet with Gen Erasmus and Gen du Toit. I think if you can answer that one, if you can react to that statement General.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, as far as it goes in paragraph 29 of my statement, I cannot recall that myself and Piet du Toit were at the SAB premises. Over the years we've been there a few times at the Breweries for a braai and usually over lunchtime, and as far as my recollection goes this explosion took place at approximately one or two in the afternoon, over lunchtime, so I would not have left the brewery to an explosion and then gone back. I've thought about it because while the legal representative asked me it, I again thought about it, if I can assist Zeelie in the statement, but I really do not recall it.

MR ROSSOUW: But General, if you say you do not recall it, are you saying that it did not take place or that you do not recall it, but it's possible?

MR ERASMUS: I do not recall that I called him to the SAB premises, because as far as my recollection is, this took place in the street and we dispersed from there. Like I said, it's 12 years ago, it's either me or him whose recollection is wrong.

MR ROSSOUW: So General, will you agree with me then that it is possible that either you or Mr Zeelie are mistaken?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, one of us is mistaken.

JUDGE DE JAGER: It is quite clear to me that one of the witnesses are mistaken.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, if you'd just give me a minute.

CHAIRPERSON: You said that in your view the bomb went off after lunch, in the afternoon, I'm just trying to find it here, but my impression was when I was reading the papers, it was late night.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, the explosion ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, at the Vanderbijl bus terminus?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, Sir.

MR ROSSOUW: General, then insofar as the indication was that Mr Zeelie will execute this alone - I do know that it is outside of normal actions, but would you then expect that a member would act alone or completely alone?

MR ERASMUS: I expected it because I wanted to keep it secret right from the beginning. If it was possible, I do not know.

MR ROSSOUW: Will you agree with me that one does get the impression that police members will usually in such a situation arrange for a backup?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, with the placing of something in a certain place I do not think that you need such a big backup. If you walk in in the ...(indistinct) and you leave it there and you walk out, I do not think it's necessary, I think the decision was his if he wanted a backup or not.

MR ROSSOUW: So those details you would have left to him?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson, he had to launch this action and if he felt that he couldn't do it alone and he had to get somebody to assist him, I've got no problem with that.

MR ROSSOUW: General, then concerning the report-back, my instructions are that Mr Zeelie will say that he did not come with Mr van Heerden to report back to you in your office, can you react to that?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, that I do recall very well because if I recall correctly, the one told me that the one carried the limpet mine and the one had the detonator somewhere in his underpants or something like that. That is what I can recall from the situation.

MR ROSSOUW: General, Mr Zeelie will testify that the next morning there was an officers meeting where he was present and you were also present, it was an officers meeting that took place daily at the John Vorster Square and that the incident was discussed there.

MR ERASMUS: No, Mr Chairperson, this incident would not have been discussed in public or at an officers meeting, because it was a secret operation that was executed. So it would not have been discussed in general.

MR ROSSOUW: My instructions are also that they did not discuss it at the officers meeting that Mr Zeelie planted a bomb or that Mr van Heerden was involved, but the fact that a bomb explosion took place in the Why Not, within your district.

MR ERASMUS: Yes, that is correct, all incidents were discussed at the meeting, all the explosions, the time in which they took place and other operations as well.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, if you'd just give me a minute.

CHAIRPERSON: I see it's ten past eleven, would this be a convenient time to take the short tea adjournment, then you can decide whether you have any further questions you wish to pursue.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll take the short tea adjournment now.

GERHARD NICOLAAS ERASMUS: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Mr Rossouw, do you have any further questions to put to the applicant?

MR ROSSOUW: No, Mr Chairman, I have nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Cornelius, do you have any questions you'd like to put to Gen Erasmus?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

General, no disciplinary steps were taken against the footsoldiers.

MR ERASMUS: No, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And you would agree with me that a footsoldier such as Mr van Heerden, would not have doubted that the action, that being the bomb attack, would have enjoyed the authorisation from the higher levels of authority.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Because that the necessary political motive was there by nature of the situation.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, it was not necessary to motivate politically.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And you've stated that there was a meeting in your office on the following morning, but that the merits of the attack were not discussed, is that correct? The actual who did it, the participation, that sort of thing was not discussed, is that correct?

MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, I responded to a meeting that was held there, I stated that Zeelie and van Heerden were in my office alone where they spoke to me.

MR CORNELIUS: I see. Because my mandate from Mr van Heerden is that he definitely was not with Mr Zeelie in your office.

MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, my recollection tells me that he was there and that he still showed me how he had walked into the club, like this, with something in his hands.

MR CORNELIUS: I see. I can understand that this was quite some time ago and that it is easy to be mistaken, is it possible that you may have forgotten this or that you may be confusing it with something else?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, it is probably possible, but as far as I can recall it took place as I have explained it to the Committee.

MR CORNELIUS: I see. Then just one final statement. My client, Mr van Heerden, states that he definitely spoke to Gen du Toit that evening, who told him to remain seated in the vehicle. You probably would not be able to comment on whether or not he was there?

MR ERASMUS: Unfortunately not, because I wasn't there.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Mr Nyawuza, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Yes, I do Chairperson.

General Erasmus, did you prior to this incident give any specific instructions to any of your subordinates to carry out bombings?

MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, this was the only one that I can recall.

MR NYAWUZA: So in essence, what you're telling this Committee is that you had not at any stage given instructions to any person to carry out this sort of an attack?

MR ERASMUS: Not that I can recall at this stage.

MR NYAWUZA: But if you had to give instructions for an attack of this nature, would you be specific or would you just be ambiguous?

MR ERASMUS: No, I would assume that I would be specific.

MR NYAWUZA: If I recollect your evidence correctly, the only time that you spoke about an attack on a place that is being frequented by ANC members, was on the day that you had attended to a bomb attack at Vanderbijl Square, is that so?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: And prior to this incident you had not at any stage spoken to any person about any attack at any place, is that so as well?

MR ERASMUS: I've stated that I cannot recall that I discussed bomb attacks, with the exception of the explosions at Khotso House and Cosatu House, regarding which we have already testified.

MR NYAWUZA: So your testimony as regards the incident at the Why Not Club, will I be correct in saying you were not part and parcel of the people that planned the attack at the Why Not Club, is that so?

MR ERASMUS: I stated not specifically a club, but the order was given by me to locate a place where an explosion could be launched, therefore I have to regard myself as part of the execution thereof.

MR NYAWUZA: General Erasmus, what you're saying is that you're applying for amnesty for having spoken to Capt Zeelie about an attack on a place that is frequented by the ANC, is that so?

MR ERASMUS: I am applying for that discussion and for the explosion which took place subsequently.

MR NYAWUZA: Were you aware that Capt Zeelie had anything in mind when you spoke to him about this?

MR ERASMUS: I don't believe that he had anything in mind at that point, he said that he would find out about it.

MR NYAWUZA: And your testimony is that he didn't come back to you as regards the reconnaissance?

MR ERASMUS: As far as I can recall we never had a discussion again before the explosion.

CHAIRPERSON: General Erasmus, your discussion is "Mr Zeelie, we can't tolerate these attacks on innocent people, we must make the ANC feel what it makes innocent people feel and do you have a specific place in your mind where we can have an attack?" And then Capt Zeelie says to you, "Okay, I'll go out and recognise and come back to you." Was that as far as you went in your discussion?

MR ERASMUS: I cannot recall that he said that he would get back to me, but the discussion was about a place where we could detonate a device.

MR NYAWUZA: And was your instruction "Go and do it now", or "Go and find out a place, come back to me and then I'll give full instructions that you should attack"? What was your instruction?

MR ERASMUS: I have stated in my evidence that I asked him whether or not there was such a place and he said that he would determine whether there was such a place. As I've stated, he did not get back to me, but furthermore I stated that it wouldn't really have helped if something happened a month after the discussion, because it would not have served any purpose.

MR NYAWUZA: So in essence, what you're saying is that you assume that the bomb blast at the Why Not Club occurred as a result of your discussion with Capt Zeelie, is that what I get from your testimony?

MR ERASMUS: Yes indeed, that is what happened.

MR NYAWUZA: So you deny that you gave specific instructions that Why Not Club should be attacked?

MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, what should be deduced from my discussion with him is that he would have understood it as an instruction to place a device in a place. What I'm saying is that I didn't know specifically about the Why Not Club, but he would have accepted it as an instruction to place a device in a place and as soon as possible.

MR NYAWUZA: General Erasmus, you know for want of a better word, would I be correct in assuming that you gave Capt Zeelie a blanket instruction?

MR ERASMUS: I didn't you correctly, could you please repeat your question.

MR NYAWUZA: I'm saying, for want of a better word I'm going to use blanket, will I be correct in saying you gave Capt Zeelie blanket instructions to go and attack a particular place where the ANC or its sympathisers or its supporters attended?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, I gave him such an instruction. The enemy had to be attacked.

MR NYAWUZA: Subsequent to the attack, as you state in your testimony now that the enemy had to be attacked, were you able to link the people that were injured at the Why Not Club, to the ANC?

MR ERASMUS: I didn't see them, I didn't know them.

MR NYAWUZA: And Capt Zeelie and Capt van Heerden, having had a discussion in your office the following day, as per your testimony, did they tell you that the people that were injured at the Why Not Club were ANC supporters or sympathisers or members? Did they tell you that?

MR ERASMUS: I'm assuming so.

MR NYAWUZA: You assumed they told you, you're not sure?

MR ERASMUS: At this point I cannot recall to what extent we discussed the whole affair in detail.

MR NYAWUZA: And you still maintain that the discussion happened at John Vorster Square in your office? Or in whose office did it happen? Let me rephrase my question. In whose office did the discussion take place, General Erasmus?

MR ERASMUS: In my office.

MR NYAWUZA: In your office. And it was yourself, Capt Zeelie and Mr van Heerden?

MR ERASMUS: As far as I can recall.

MR NYAWUZA: You've testified in your testimony that the ANC was the party that planted bombs during that period, what makes you so sure that other political parties were not involved in the planting of bombs at the time?

MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, the other political parties of which the PAC would probably have been the strongest, were committing other acts but they were not planting bombs as far as we know. Those who planted the most bombs were the ANC.

MR NYAWUZA: You are saying those who planted the most bombs were there ANC, so were there other parties that planted bombs?

MR ERASMUS: Not as far as I could determine, Chairperson. If we look at the Rivonia case, we can see that there were 188 cases of sabotage which were committed by the ANC. You see, there were parties such as the African Resistance Movement, who during the early '60's were planting bombs, but all of them were arrested.

MR NYAWUZA: But were all the members of PAC arrested when the ANC was planting bombs in 1998(sic)?

MR ERASMUS: I would go as far as saying that their organisation was quite mixed up.

MR NYAWUZA: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nyawuza. Ms Coleridge, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Yes, thank you Chairperson.

Can you just tell us again what you rank was in 1988, General?

MR ERASMUS: I was a Brigadier.

MS COLERIDGE: And who was your Commander at that time?

MR ERASMUS: At the moment I cannot recall, at Head Office.

MS COLERIDGE: You obviously had a Commander, General.

MR ERASMUS: Yes, there was a Head Office, but I was the Commander in Johannesburg.

MS COLERIDGE: You can think about it, I'll give you ...(intervention)

MR ERASMUS: I cannot recall the names, it could be Coetzee, Geldenhuys or one of those people.

MS COLERIDGE: And regarding this incident, did you discuss - seeing that these people, Zeelie and so forth, were part of your unit, did you discuss this incident with your Commander, whoever it might have been at the time?

MR ERASMUS: As I have testified, I did not report it at all and I did not discuss it with anyone.

MS COLERIDGE: Why didn't you discuss this with your Commander?

MR ERASMUS: Why didn't I?

MS COLERIDGE: Correct.

MR ERASMUS: Because this was an action that I had taken personally, I was the Commander here and it was my duty to ensure that matters in the Witwatersrand were in order.

MS COLERIDGE: But surely General, you knew that this was an illegal action, you knew that this action, this bomb attack was illegal, is that right?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, I stated that.

MS COLERIDGE: And still, because of the impact of this you didn't inform your Commander about it.

MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, to this very day I believe that Head Office thought that this bomb was planted by the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what was Gen du Toit's relationship to you? What was his position at that time?

MR ERASMUS: He was my second-in-command.

MS COLERIDGE: Let's just see who was part of your unit. Zeelie was part of your unit, was van Heerden part of your unit?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, he was on my staff.

MS COLERIDGE: And Vermeulen?

MR ERASMUS: Not at all.

MS COLERIDGE: Which unit did Vermeulen belong to?

MR ERASMUS: I cannot recall, I think he was a member of Vlakplaas.

MS COLERIDGE: Did you know that members of Vlakplaas were part of this operation?

MR ERASMUS: Not at all.

MS COLERIDGE: And when did you discover that they were part of the operation?

MR ERASMUS: With these hearings.

MS COLERIDGE: When did you find out about this incident, General, for the first time?

MR ERASMUS: The following morning.

MS COLERIDGE: Because I want to refer you to page 61 of your amnesty application, volume 1, it's the third paragraph, the second sentence.

CHAIRPERSON: What page is that?

MS COLERIDGE: It's page 61, volume 1, it's the third paragraph. I'll start reading - can you read that for us, General? Start with "hoewel".

MR ERASMUS:

MS COLERIDGE: So in your amnesty application made in 1996, you stated that you suspected that it was people, that it was policemen, is that correct?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, that is in terms of the discussion, Chairperson, between me and Zeelie, our discussion. That is why I composed it as such.

MS COLERIDGE: But surely, General, it's not a suspicion, it was a fact because they confirmed it to you in your office, not so?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, I know it to be so, that is why I have already stated that this application was very hastily completed and that is the reason why we have amended it. I knew that this explosion had been caused by them.

MS COLERIDGE: So would you say your application on page 61, paragraph 3, that is basically incorrect, you knew that the police were responsible for the attack?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, I knew. It isn't incorrect, I'm just saying that it was my suspicion that as a result of the discussion with Zeelie, this explosion took place.

MS COLERIDGE: The Vanderbijl "Plein" bombings, was anybody charged for that offence?

MR ERASMUS: I don't believe that the offender was ever traced as far as I can recall.

MS COLERIDGE: You couldn't say for sure who was responsible for that attack?

MR ERASMUS: Could you repeat?

MS COLERIDGE: So you would not be able to say who was responsible for that attack?

MR ERASMUS: Not at this point.

MS COLERIDGE: And then for the Cafe Zurich incident?

MR ERASMUS: I know that someone was arrested, but I can no longer recall the facts. I think that Capt Zeelie would be able to give better commentary on that than I.

MS COLERIDGE: And then General, just coming back to your meeting, or to Mr Zeelie's submissions that he indeed had the meeting with you and that you discussed the target and you approved the target, the Why Not Bar, what is your comment about that?

MR ERASMUS: I cannot comment any further than what I have already commented.

MS COLERIDGE: General, would you say that if one of your members in your unit would take on a task such as bombings, that there was a responsibility on their part to discuss the target with you?

MR ERASMUS: Yes and no. I will tell you that I had already given the instruction, the instruction existed. The fact that we didn't get together again after that is a question of circumstance.

MS COLERIDGE: But did you expect it to come back to you, General?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, I expected him to.

MS COLERIDGE: And when you found out about the bombings and that they were responsible ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, he didn't say he expected he should come back, he said "I thought" he would have come back, not that he expected him to come back.

MS COLERIDGE: And the next day, did you discipline Mr Zeelie for any of this incident, his activities and so forth?

MR ERASMUS: I could not discipline him, it was a secret operation. I did not discipline anyone.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Ms Coleridge - did you rebuke him at all? Did you take him to task about going ahead with the operation, putting a bomb in a public place without coming back to you? Did you ask him why, or query him at all?

MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, I did not.

MS COLERIDGE: I just want to come back to the meeting that Mr Zeelie referred to and that Mr du Toit was also there. Now we know Mr van Heerden stated that Mr du Toit was there at the scene of the incident that night. Do you agree with that, General?

MR ERASMUS: I don't know to which meeting you are referring, could you please be more specific regarding the meeting to which you have referred.

MS COLERIDGE: The meeting at the SAB, where you were present and Mr du Toit.

MR ERASMUS: I have already stated that I wasn't at the SAB, and that this discussion or meeting took place in the street.

MS COLERIDGE: Right General, but what I'm asking you is, were you aware of the fact that Mr du Toit went back to the scene of the incident that night, when the bomb went off?

MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, it was custom for a senior officer to visit scenes of explosions. In this case my second-in-command, the then Col du Toit, was contacted and he visited the scene. It was the custom for one of the senior officers to visit every scene.

MS COLERIDGE: So who would contact Mr du Toit?

MR ERASMUS: Whoever received the information of the explosion first.

MS COLERIDGE: Did anybody contact you?

MR ERASMUS: Nobody contacted me.

MS COLERIDGE: We know that Mr Zeelie always used disguises and that he wore a wig on that night, are you aware of that General?

MR ERASMUS: I not aware of it.

MS COLERIDGE: And Mr van Heerden, do you know if he had any disguises that night?

MR ERASMUS: Not at all, I didn't even know that he had been there until the following morning when I discovered it.

MS COLERIDGE: Because he states that Mr du Toit told him to basically disguise himself, to grow a beard or whatever.

MR ERASMUS: I cannot comment on that.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that was in case there had to be an identification parade or something, not for the actual operation.

MS COLERIDGE: Correct, correct.

CHAIRPERSON: My understand was, I might be wrong, but my understanding was that Gen du Toit said "Look, you better grow a beard in case there's an identification parade and then you'll look different", not to grow a beard to go into the club to ...

MS COLERIDGE: No, that is correct, Chairperson, basically for the ID parade. I'm indebted to you, Chairperson.

So it was clear that at that stage Mr du Toit obviously knew that the Security Force was responsible for the attack. What is your comment about that, General?

MR ERASMUS: As I have already stated, I cannot recall whether I discussed the matter with him on the day of the explosion at Vanderbijl Square. If I had discussed it with him he was already aware who was responsible, or at least he suspected who had planted the explosive device.

MS COLERIDGE: So are you saying it's possible that he could have been aware at the time when he went to the Why Not Bar that ...(intervention)

MR ERASMUS: Yes, it is possible. I cannot give any further commentary on that.

JUDGE DE JAGER: He spoke to van Heerden, according to what's been put to him, van Heerden, I suppose, would have told him.

MS COLERIDGE: That is possible, Judge, but I'm just checking, because in relation to the meeting it's possible that Mr Zeelie's version could be correct, in that there was a meeting and that Mr du Toit in fact knew about it that the incident was going to occur, and getting there, seeing Mr van Heerden in his normal attire and Zeelie in camouflage disguise, that he obviously alerted them. So that's ...

MS COLERIDGE: And then General, were you at the scene at the scene of the incident at the Cafe Zurich, where that bomb went off?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, I think I was there.

MS COLERIDGE: Do you know that the Why Not Club is just opposite Cafe Zurich?

MR ERASMUS: To tell the truth, I didn't even notice that, I was attending to that one explosion.

MS COLERIDGE: At your meetings, your officers meetings, who would be present there?

CHAIRPERSON: That's the daily meeting where the officers met.

MR ERASMUS: Usually the section heads of all the different divisions, the staff heads.

MS COLERIDGE: Who would that be, General? Can you mention some names for us?

MR ERASMUS: The head of the investigative staff, the head of trade unions and so forth.

MS COLERIDGE: But my question was, General, could you mention any names.

MR ERASMUS: It's a difficult question, Chairperson, I can no longer recall who was in command at that stage. I think one could have been an Oosthuizen, van Wyk, van Niekerk. I cannot recall everyone who was in charge of the different sections.

MS COLERIDGE: General, actually you've got a good memory of the meeting that occurred after the incident, can you just run that by us again, can you just tell us what happened that morning?

MR ERASMUS: As far as I can recall, Zeelie and van Heerden came to my office and they reported regarding this particular incident at the Why Not Club.

MS COLERIDGE: Do you know where Mr Zeelie got the limpet mines from?

MR ERASMUS: Not at all.

MS COLERIDGE: Was Mr Zeelie one of the heads that would meet at the officers meetings?

MR ERASMUS: He could possibly have been there because he was the head of the demolitions team.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Coleridge. Mr Visser, do you have any re-examination?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, one aspect yes, with your leave, but there's also on Exhibit B something I neglected to put. Chairperson, both the applicants, Du Toit and Erasmus had on previous occasions asked for an amendment of their paragraph 7(a) and (b), to reflect the fact that they were supporters of the National Party. I'm not sure whether it will be necessary to ask for such an amendment again, those amendments have been granted before. If that could be taken as read, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sure. Is there any objection to that?

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, yes we'll take that as being read.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Just one aspect. This is now back to the question about the words that you used and that you suspected that the police was involved. At this officers meeting to which you refer, can you recall today if the report-back of Zeelie or van Heerden was after or before that officers meeting?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, as far as I can recall it was early in the morning, it was before this meeting, before the officers meeting.

MR VISSER: When did you hear for the first time, or at what opportunity did you hear about the Why Not Club?

MR ERASMUS: It was that morning.

MR VISSER: And who told you this?

MR ERASMUS: Zeelie and van Heerden.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager, do you have any questions you'd like to put to General Erasmus? Advocate Sigodi, any questions you'd like to put?

General, when you heard that the target was the Why Not Club, had you in your capacity as the Commander of the Security Branch, ever heard of the Why Not Club, ever get any reports that the Why Not Club is a place where supporters of the ANC frequent, that sort of thing? Or was it a totally unknown club to you?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, I did not know the Why Not Club and up till today I still do not know it.

CHAIRPERSON: You said when you were giving evidence that you thought that Capt Zeelie would have come back to you after that discussion at Vanderbjil "Plein", because that would have been the normal procedure, to get a formal go-ahead and also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say that you could discuss about the way the operation should be carried out to minimise injuries and deaths?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you said that from the evidence after the fact, that you thought well that must have been taken into account because of the fact that nobody was killed and there were only two serious injuries.

MR ERASMUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I made the inference that he took all precautions as we usually do, or as I conveyed it to him. He did arrange to minimise all injuries or possible deaths.

CHAIRPERSON: If that is the case then can you think of any explanation why two landmines should be used rather than one?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, my recollection is that there was only mine used, one small limpet mine used.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know, I might be mistaken but from the documents my understanding is that there were two mines that were used which Mr van Heerden hid in his trousers to smuggle it into the club.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, I also heard that, but as far as I can recall they told me there was only one used.

CHAIRPERSON: If two were used then how would that fit in with the plan to minimise destruction?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, I think you can still prevent it in the placing of the device.

CHAIRPERSON: General, you've very often in your testimony, have said that as far as you can recall, you can't recall well, it was 12 years ago, we've also heard from what has been put to you by the representatives of other applicants, that other applicants are going to come and say different things in regard to certain aspects of the testimony, like where the meeting was held, who was present, whether the target was specifically mentioned before the explosion, in your presence. Are you saying that what they say or will say is possible that it could have happened, or are you adamant that the first time you heard - let's for instance just talk about the Why Not Bar as being the target, the first time you heard that was after the explosion, or is it possible that it was mentioned to you before?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, in this case I've got nothing to hide, I will say this is what I can recall, and as I've said this is 12 years ago. It is possible yes, that I could have heard something about it, but what I can recall is the way in which I put it to you. I do not want to testify to things that I did not know about or did not know about.

CHAIRPERSON: Is your vague recollection of this incident specific to this incident, or would you say that your memory is now beginning to fail you generally speaking?

MR ERASMUS: I would say I've got quite a good memory.

CHAIRPERSON: Would somebody like Mr Zeelie, would he have had access himself to landmines to use, or would he have to go to the Quartermaster or whoever it was and book it out, sign forms or anything like that?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, I cannot be very specific on this point, but it could be that there's a safe somewhere with a limpet mine, or he got it from another place.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you not have to be, in your capacity as Commander, have to sign for anything like that or give authority?

MR ERASMUS: No, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Visser, do you have any questions arising out of questions that have been put? Sorry, Judge de Jager wants to put a question.

General, when they reported back the next day, did you approve their actions?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, I did Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What was your attitude towards them, what did you tell them?

MR ERASMUS: The general discussion that took place, Mr Chairperson, I was very glad that they were safe, that they were not arrested and that they got out of this whole thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Visser, any questions arising?

MR VISSER: No thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw?

MR ROSSOUW: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza?

MR NYAWUZA: No questions, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge?

MS COLERIDGE: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, General, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down.

MR ERASMUS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, if I may be allowed to call Gen du Toit to give evidence. His statement that was drawn on his behalf setting out the facts and background, is Exhibit C before you. He is willing to take the oath, Chairperson, and prefers to give his evidence in Afrikaans.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------JUDGE DE JAGER: Your full names, General?

PETRUS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr du Toit, you are also an applicant in this matter. You have made an affidavit which is served in front of this Committee as Exhibit C. You also completed a written application that was submitted and it appears in bundle 1, from page 42 to 52.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: Do you confirm the contents of your written application as well as the contents of Exhibit C, serving in front of the Committee now?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR VISSER: You also have Exhibit A, the general background to the amnesty applications, did you go through that and are you able to confirm it as the truth?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I do confirm it.

MR VISSER: You also previously applied for an amendment to the amnesty application on page 43, paragraph 7(a) and (b), so that 7(a) reads "National Party" and 7(b) "Supporter", is that correct.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: You apply for amnesty for the same incident as Gen Erasmus. We are not going to go through it again, it's exactly the same.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: At this stage in 1988, were you then indeed the second-in-command of the Security Branch here in Johannesburg?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I had the rank of Colonel.

MR VISSER: You've got a very short statement, can you just inform the Committee, from paragraph 3, about your recollection of this incident.

MR DU TOIT:

MR VISSER: You'd also then like to add additional facts to this statement, can you just tell the Committee, your statement was very cryptic, what was the reason for this? This is now your amnesty statement or application. You deal with it in paragraph 6, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes. The reason why my amnesty application is not quite complete is because of the fact that when I submitted it with various factor, there was not a lot of time available for the cut-off date and because of the fact that I did not have the advantage of documents or any versions of other members of the Security Branch who were involved in this incident.

MR VISSER: You also then said that it happened a long time ago and you say that you would like to supplement your application.

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR VISSER: And after you submitted your application you had the opportunity to read the applications of other applicants and you also looked at the bundles or documents from the TRC, which was made available by them, and you also went through all of them and you were then able to test your recollection memory.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Can you just read then from paragraph 10.

MR DU TOIT:

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before you proceed there, you say that "as far as I can recall", paragraph 10:

Now you are saying that you did not speak to Gen Erasmus before the incident, so where did you get information about the incident?

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, as far as I can recall, it could have only been Gen Erasmus who told me about it.

CHAIRPERSON: So when would that have been? You weren't at Vanderbijl "Plein" and you knew that they were looking for a target before it happened.

MR DU TOIT: No, I was not at Vanderbijl "Plein", so how would you have known that they were looking for a target to blow up?

MR DU TOIT: I had to be that afternoon after the explosion at Vanderbijl "Plein" that Gen Erasmus informed me about it. I cannot specifically recall where and when.

MR VISSER: That is paragraph 11, Chairperson. Perhaps it's my fault, the confusion, perhaps I should make it clearer.

In the statement of Mr Zeelie, he said that you were present at a club that he refers to as the SAB club in Denver, where he was called to by Gen Erasmus and where this whole question surrounding the counter-attack on a place where ANC people gathered ... Do you know anything about that?

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, no, as far as I can recall I was not present at such a bar where something like this happened, I also wasn't present where Gen Erasmus spoke to Capt Zeelie about it.

MR VISSER: According to Zeelie he spoke to Zeelie about it on the scene at the Vanderbijl "Plein" bus terminus, or in that area, and you also say you were not present there?

MR DU TOIT: I wasn't.

MR VISSER: You did not visit that scene at all?

MR DU TOIT: No, as far as I can recall I wasn't there at all.

MR VISSER: Then you were at paragraph 13 where you now deal with the allegation of Mr Brood van Heerden, can you just inform us about that?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Before you get to that, did you and Gen Erasmus, during that time, discuss what you had to do about bomb plantings, attacks and what counter-measures you had to take and what the police had to do in such circumstances?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, we had various meetings about strategies and investigations.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was it ever discussed, as far as you can recall, that concerning the bomb explosions, that you had to counter with bomb attacks?

MR DU TOIT: No, Mr Chairperson, it was not discussed with me.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Then why do you then say in paragraph 10 you were aware of it, that Gen Erasmus gave somebody instructions?

MR DU TOIT: I was aware of that, but that was not discussed with me beforehand.

MR VISSER: General, Judge de Jager's question also goes a little bit further, was it a general practice that you would legally explode bombs at places where ANC people gathered, or where you thought they came together?

MR DU TOIT: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Was this an exception to the rule in your experience?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: So you did not have general discussions about counter-attacks?

MR DU TOIT: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: But your recollection as far as I can understand you, you were aware that Gen Erasmus - this was now before the explosion at the Why Not Club, that he was thinking about it at that stage.

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR VISSER: Mr Brood van Heerden says that at that scene at the Why Not Club, you were present.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I was at the scene.

MR VISSER: And you went to go and attend the scene as a senior officer and he then said that you told him to remain in the vehicle so that he will not be identified and that he had to grow a beard, to grow a beard or put a beard on to disguise himself. Did this happen?

MR DU TOIT: No, Mr Chairperson, I cannot recall something like that at all.

MR VISSER: That day when you were at the Why Not Club, did you then know that it was the, this was the case that Gen Erasmus had in mind, in that it was indeed an action of members of the Security Branch?

MR DU TOIT: I did not have the facts but I had a suspicion.

MR VISSER: Would you have known that van Heerden was involved, if it was such an action?

MR DU TOIT: No, I wouldn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr van Heerden at the scene when you were there?

MR DU TOIT: I cannot recall, there were various security members at the scene.

MR VISSER: Was Capt Zeelie there?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I can recall that he was there.

MR VISSER: You can recall him. And in bundle 2, there's a reference to diverse people who were there.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Incidentally, Chairperson, I would have mentioned that in argument, but I couldn't find any reference to Mr van Heerden, and the reason why I mention that now is - perhaps his legal representative can point out if I'm making a mistake, as a person who was on the scene.

I think then you dealt with paragraphs 13 and 14. When you now heard the next day - Gen Erasmus says it's the 23rd, but he said it was a mistake, it was the 22nd, that this explosion took place on the evening of the 21st/22nd.

MR DU TOIT: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And if he refers to the next day it would then be the morning of the 22nd?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: Did you then indeed realise what was going on and that it was the police who were responsible for this explosion? And by name, Capt Zeelie?

MR DU TOIT: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you associate yourself with the action, did you approve it?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR VISSER: Did you also think as Gen Erasmus, that it would have the effect that you wanted, that it would lessen bomb attacks and bomb explosions?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I thought so.

MR VISSER: (You then say in paragraph 15 that you believed that the enemy had to be shown that they could not just continue as they liked, that they should also be made to feel, is that correct?) ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR DU TOIT: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Was that the reason why you approved this action?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you reveal the true facts to anybody as you got to know about it on the 22nd of September?

MR DU TOIT: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: When you refer in paragraph 16 to instructions in your amnesty application that you received from Brig Erasmus, just in case there's some misunderstanding concerning this, you say that you there refer in general to it, because you were second-in-command and not that you had a specific instruction concerning the Why Not Club.

MR DU TOIT: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Can you just go to page 5. And in so many words you basically said the same as Gen Erasmus, and do you also confirm the contents of this page, about what your motivation was and how you executed your instructions during that time?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I do Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And do you then also ask for amnesty for any unlawful acts or delicts that may have been committed by you concerning this explosion, as well as damaging of property, as well as breaking of the Explosives Act, and any other delicts that may come from this?

MR DU TOIT: Correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR DU TOIT: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser.

General, just before I ask Mr Rossouw, had you prior to going to the scene of the explosion, ever heard of the Why Not Bar, ever heard of it being a place where persons who were suspected of being ANC supporters, went to?

MR DU TOIT: No, Mr Chairperson, I had no knowledge of the Why Not Club or what went on there.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you - when I say you, as a senior member of the Witwatersrand Security Branch, have knowledge of places where ANC supporters would visit? Hotspots?

MR DU TOIT: Not specifically, Mr Chairman, meetings were held and we were aware of those places, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Because it would seem just from the evidence, that from the discussion at Vanderbjilpark until the explosion, there couldn't have been any actual reconnaissance of the Why Not Club to establish that we've been there and that is a place where ANC supporters go, because it probably closed in the afternoon, for starters, and then the operation happens that very same evening, so any information that Capt Zeelie and van Heerden had must have been prior information, they couldn't have gone out and established that afternoon themselves with their own eyes, do you agree?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I would agree with you, Mr Chairperson, but if they had such information it was not conveyed to me. I don't not know about Gen Erasmus, but not to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Chairperson.

General, concerning that last point, can you recall if there was an investigation concerning the Cafe Zurich explosion?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I do know about it.

MR ROSSOUW: And did you visit that scene, the Cafe Zurich scene?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I was at that scene.

MR ROSSOUW: Are you aware of the fact that the Why Not Club is right, or opposite the Cafe Zurich?

MR DU TOIT: No, I was not aware of it during the stage of the explosion.

MR ROSSOUW: Capt Zeelie says that as a Commander, he would not necessarily know about the contents or the investigation concerning the Cafe Zurich explosion.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, we were not informed about the details.

MR ROSSOUW: So the investigative officer or the people who were involved in the investigation, would be the people who knew that the attack was launched by an ANC member from the Why Not Club. Would you have known about that?

MR DU TOIT: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Well General, if you go back to the instruction - you also described it as an instruction that Gen Erasmus gave, in paragraph 10 you refer to it, that you knew about it before, with what we have just said and what you have said about your knowledge concerning the Cafe Zurich incident and that the investigative officer would have this information, it would have been your discretion of an operator to then target such a premises or scene.

MR DU TOIT: I do not know what the instruction of Mr Erasmus was, but I believe that it would have been the operator who would then identify the place.

MR ROSSOUW: And General, if such a place was identified, would you not expect that the target that was now identified will be discussed with the top structure, they would have motivated it? Would you expect it?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I would.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well. You also heard that I put it to Gen Erasmus that Mr Zeelie will testify that that is what indeed happened.

MR DU TOIT: I'm not aware of it.

MR ROSSOUW: His evidence will furthermore be that you were present and that you knew about the specific target, the target that was identified.

MR DU TOIT: No, Mr Chairperson, I did not know about the target.

MR ROSSOUW: General, I see that you say that you were not at the bus terminus explosion scene and I will put that to you that Mr Zeelie's evidence will be there that you were present and that you were there when this discussion took place.

MR DU TOIT: I cannot recall that I was at that scene, and I was not present when Gen Erasmus spoke to Capt Zeelie concerning the target.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well. I'd just like to then refer you to a statement of Mr van Heerden on page 30, volume 1, the first paragraph. You will see there that he says that at the scene while they were cleaning up, Gen Erasmus and du Toit were present and they mentioned to Zeelie that they had to take action against the ANC.

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, I cannot recall that I was present.

JUDGE DE JAGER: General, you say that you cannot recall that you were present but on a previous question with the same idea, you say that you were not present when the instruction was given.

MR DU TOIT: I'm sure I was not there when it was given.

JUDGE DE JAGER: One part you cannot recall, but the second part you're quite certain about it.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well, General. In so far as the initial impression goes, I've listened to you and Gen Erasmus, but the initial impression that I got from your amnesty application and Gen Erasmus' application was that there was not a definite instruction given for this operation. I ask you today, if you look at it today with the knowledge that you had before the operation, would you say that an instruction was given by Gen Erasmus? Are you satisfied?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I am satisfied that he gave the instruction and I knew him as a person who would do such, or follow the ...

MR ROSSOUW: Would you say that Mr Zeelie would have gone on a frolic of his own to go and plant this bomb without him having received an instruction?

MR DU TOIT: No, I do not believe that he would have acted without an instruction.

MR ROSSOUW: I'm asking you this because this discussion about such bomb attacks was an exception to the rule, it was not something that happened in public or generally.

MR DU TOIT: I do not think it happened like that, as far as I can recall it was the only instance where it happened.

MR ROSSOUW: Then General, in conclusion, the place where the alleged discussion took place, I've heard what you said and Mr Zeelie said that it happened at some canteen of the South African Breweries, and you deny that.

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: You say that you were not present.

MR DU TOIT: As far as I can recall I was not present.

MR ROSSOUW: General, and then finally, I omitted to ask you the following. I heard you say that the incident took place quite some ago and you state in paragraph 7 of Exhibit B that your recollection of the incident is not that good any longer, but there is something that I would like to take up with you which appears in paragraph 18. You state in your application that you cannot recall whether any persons were injured and that it is only now after your research that your memory regarding this has been refreshed. These officers meetings which took place every morning, did you attend these meetings?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, usually.

MR ROSSOUW: Would the injury of persons at such a bomb scene not have been aspect for discussion?

MR DU TOIT: Usually mention would be made of the number of injuries or injured persons.

MR ROSSOUW: And this is information that the Security Branch had to send through to Pretoria Head Office, among others?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: This will be Mr Zeelie's evidence, that indeed there was a discussion regarding this.

Thank you Chairperson, I have nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: When you went to the scene that evening, did you see injured people yourself, with your own eyes?

MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, I was called away from home and I cannot recall that there were more injured persons at the scene. As far as I can recall they had already been removed from the scene.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr du Toit, when the incident occurred you had the rank of Colonel, isn't that correct?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And Mr Zeelie was a Lieutenant, or a Captain?

MR DU TOIT: I cannot recall his rank at that stage.

MR CORNELIUS: And my client, Mr van Heerden, was a Constable, can you recall this?

MR DU TOIT: I cannot recall.

MR CORNELIUS: When you were at the scene that night did you speak to Mr Zeelie?

MR DU TOIT: I believe that I spoke to him, although I cannot recall.

MR CORNELIUS: Is that when Mr van Heerden's involvement was discussed?

MR DU TOIT: Could you repeat?

MR CORNELIUS: Could it be that that was the time when he informed you of Mr van Heerden's involvement?

MR DU TOIT: It may be so, but I cannot recall.

MR CORNELIUS: You see because Mr van Heerden maintains that you spoke to him that night, that you told him to remain seated in the vehicle, as he sets out very thoroughly on page 30 of his application.

MR DU TOIT: I cannot recall that I had a discussion with Mr van Heerden.

MR CORNELIUS: I know this is a long time ago, but is it possible?

MR DU TOIT: It is possible.

MR CORNELIUS: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, if it's possible, why do you say that you don't think it happened and you didn't see him at the scene? I got the impression when you were giving your evidence-in-chief that you denied that you told Mr van Heerden to put on a beard and to stay in the car in case he's identified, now you say it's possible.

MR DU TOIT: It is possible that I spoke to him, but I cannot recall that I said anything to him regarding a disguise or a beard or anything like that. Usually there were many people on such a scene and the first person that one would speak to would be the demolitions expert, who in this case was Capt Zeelie, and subsequently it would be a question of co-ordination, one would speak to the leader of the investigative team, but whether anything was said to him, I cannot recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you think of any reason why Mr van Heerden should make up a story that you said, "Look stay in the car in case you're identified and you better grow a beard in case you're put before an identification parade"? If that didn't happen, why should he say that? Can you think of any reason?

MR DU TOIT: I cannot think of any reason.

MR CORNELIUS: Only one more question, thank you Mr Chair.

Did you know that Capt Zeelie was wearing a wig that night?

MR DU TOIT: No, I didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Capt Zeelie if one looks at him is, I don't know how he was in 1988, but as of now he's obviously bald, when you saw him at the scene what was he wearing, a cap or ...?

MR DU TOIT: No, Chairperson, he looked the way he looks now.

CHAIRPERSON: So he didn't have a wig on?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Cornelius, when did he wear the cap, when he placed the bomb or afterwards when he came to investigate the scene as a policeman?

MR CORNELIUS: With the placement of the bomb.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And when du Toit found him there while he was busy with the investigation, was he still wearing the cap?

MR CORNELIUS: I would have to take instruction on that. It is my instruction that he was not wearing a cap at that point.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You see it's confusing because you have distinguished in your cross-examination.

MR CORNELIUS: Then I will put it more clearly.

When you spoke to Mr Zeelie that night, did he tell you that he had been disguised when the bomb had been placed?

MR DU TOIT: No, Chairperson, not as far as I can recall.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza, do you have any questions you'd like to put?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Yes I do, Chairperson.

Mr du Toit, when you visited the scene after the bomb at the Why Not Club, were you aware of people that were involved in it? That were involved in the bombing of the Why Not Club?

MR DU TOIT: I was not aware. As I have testified, I had my suspicions.

MR NYAWUZA: And during your time at the scene, were you made aware to the people that were involved?

MR DU TOIT: No, Chairperson.

MR NYAWUZA: So will I be correct if I say there's absolutely no way that you could have told Mr van Heerden to grow a beard, because you didn't that he was involved?

MR DU TOIT: No, I didn't know, Chairperson.

MR NYAWUZA: My question is, would I be correct in saying you wouldn't have said to him he must grow a bear so that he should not be identified at an ID parade?

MR DU TOIT: I've already stated that I did not issue such an instruction to him.

MR NYAWUZA: Your amnesty application, does it relate to your knowledge of these instructions having been given? Are you applying for having kept mum of the incident?

MR DU TOIT: I don't understand.

MR NYAWUZA: I'm saying your application, is it in relation to you having defeated the ends of justice by keeping mum on the incident?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nyawuza. Ms Coleridge?

MS COLERIDGE: When did you find out that the Security Force was responsible for the bomb blast?

MR DU TOIT: On the following day I was practically aware that the Security Branch had been responsible.

MS COLERIDGE: And how did you become aware of this?

MR DU TOIT: I cannot recall specifically, but the only person who would have told me would have been Gen Erasmus.

MS COLERIDGE: And where would he tell you this, at his officer or ... do you have any recollection?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, our offices were next to each other and we communicated freely with each other and I believe that it took place that morning.

MS COLERIDGE: And did you see Mr Zeelie or Mr van Heerden in Gen Erasmus' office?

MR DU TOIT: I cannot recall seeing them there.

MS COLERIDGE: And were you also present at the officers meeting that morning?

MR DU TOIT: I would usually be present.

MS COLERIDGE: But obviously the specifics of this case wasn't discussed there, is that right?

MR DU TOIT: The evidence is that it was discussed, I can recall that it was discussed, but not the instruction and so forth.

MS COLERIDGE: Was it discussed that the Security Force branch was responsible for the bomb?

MR DU TOIT: No, it was only feedback regarding the explosion itself.

CHAIRPERSON: So an officer who was totally unaware of it, Oosthuizen or Van Wyk, one of the others, as far as he was concerned he would have thought that that bomb explosion was carried out, probably, by ANC or some other ...

MR DU TOIT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE: And then just my last question following on Mr Nyawuza's question, are you applying just for defeating the ends of justice? For amnesty.

MR VISSER: But Chairperson, I thought that the evidence was very clear.

and he said: "For keeping mum about the incident."

MR VISSER: I listened very carefully, with great respect, the question is:

and inter alia yes, Chairperson, but that's not the question put now.

CHAIRPERSON: Well maybe she can follow it up, ask what's being applied for.

MS COLERIDGE: Can you specifically tell us what you're applying for amnesty for?

MR DU TOIT: For defeating the ends justice, Chairperson, malicious damage to property, attempted murder, assault of unknown persons.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, just in relation to that, it just ...

But General, you're saying that you didn't conspire with Zeelie, you were not part of the planning of this operation, you never gave any orders for this operation, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct.

MS COLERIDGE: So then all that you're guilty of, one would say, is just the obstruction of justice, defeating the ends of justice, because you knew of this incident, you knew that the Security Branch was responsible for it, but you didn't do anything about it. Is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct, I associated myself with the instruction and/or other events emanating therefrom.

ADV SIGODI: How could you associate yourself with the instructions? How did you do that?

MR DU TOIT: Could you repeat please.

ADV SIGODI: I say, if you say you associated yourself with the instruction, how did you do that?

MR DU TOIT: Could you please repeat the question, I could not hear you.

ADV SIGODI: I said, if you say that you associated yourself with the instruction and if you were not part of the conspiracy, how did you do that, how did you associate yourself with that instruction if you're not part of it?

MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, I was second-in-command and I had experience of what was going on in the country at that stage, particularly in our division, and that is why as second-in-command and as a senior officer, I associated myself with the instructions that were issued.

ADV SIGODI: But you were not part of the conspiracy, were you?

MR DU TOIT: I wasn't part of the planning.

ADV SIGODI: You were not aware of it?

MR DU TOIT: At the point of issue I was not aware of it, but subsequently I was aware of it.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, but you were asked when did you become aware of it.

MR DU TOIT: In reality, I only received the factual information the following morning after the explosion.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, but you were not part of - maybe this will be a matter for your counsel to argue, but if you were not part of the conspiracy, you did not know about the planning and this was a secret operation, now how do you consider yourself to have been part of a conspiracy which you knew absolutely nothing of until afterwards?

MR DU TOIT: As I have already testified, I became aware of the fact that Gen Erasmus had issued such an order the following day.

ADV SIGODI: But insofar as your application for amnesty is concerned, all that you could possibly be guilty of would be the concealing of that fact when you should have reported it and that would be defeating the ends of justice, wouldn't it?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: ... deal with that incidentally, and we'll have to argue that, it's a matter of argument.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we can deal with this in argument.

ADV SIGODI: Okay.

MS COLERIDGE: I've got no further questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, any re-examination?

MR VISSER: None, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager, any questions?

JUDGE DE JAGER: You state that you were called from home to the scene at the Why Not.

MR DU TOIT: Correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: How far is your home from the scene?

MR DU TOIT: At that stage I was living in Alberton.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And how far is that approximately?

MR DU TOIT: I would say approximately 14 kilometres.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Sigodi, any questions?

ADV SIGODI: I've got no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: General, this canteen, this place at the breweries in Denver, did you used to frequent that at that period of time?

MR DU TOIT: No, Chairperson, we did not visit there regularly, as far as I can recall we had been there once or twice upon an invitation over a meal time, a meal or a barbecue, but we didn't visit that place frequently.

CHAIRPERSON: And when you say you went there, would that have included Capt Zeelie and Mr van Heerden, those people?

MR DU TOIT: The invitations that I had there were usually only for Gen Erasmus and myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Because Capt Zeelie says that you met at that place, how could he even suggest that if he had never been there, or as far as you know?

MR DU TOIT: I cannot explain it, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising?

MR VISSER: None, thank you Chairperson.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: I do, Chairperson, only a few.

Mr du Toit, in a question that you were asked by Judge de Jager as to how far were you there from the Why Not Club, you stated that it's about 14 kilometres, so how long in minutes or hours would it take you to drive from Alberton to the Why Not Club?

MR DU TOIT: I would say 20 minutes to a half an hour.

MR NYAWUZA: 20 to 30 minutes?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: And how long after the incident had taken place were you phoned? Perhaps if you know, if you don't know you just say I don't know.

MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, I cannot recall. The procedure was usually that as soon as such an explosion was reported, the Security Branch duty officer would be notified and he in turn would then notify me and other relevant persons. I cannot recall how long that took.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you remember at approximately what time you arrived at the scene, or if not, what time you left home?

MR DU TOIT: I'm sorry Chairperson, I cannot recall that.

MR NYAWUZA: And when you arrived at the scene I believe you walked into the Why Not Club and looked around, will I be correct in assuming that?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: And is it your testimony that when you arrived there no people were injured? Are you saying you didn't know that people were injured?

MR DU TOIT: No, I was aware of the fact that people had been injured, but I cannot recall whether they were still at the scene. As far as I knew they had been removed by ambulance from the scene.

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Thank you General, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down.

MR DU TOIT: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I see it's 1 o'clock or a couple of minutes before, would this be a convenient time to take - I think it would a convenient time, and then after lunch will Mr Zeelie be testifying? We resume with Mr Zeelie's evidence after lunch. We take the adjournment now, thanks.

MS COLERIDGE: All rise.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman. May I, with your leave Mr Chairman, hand you a document just setting out the background of Mr Zeelie. I promise you we won't go through it in detail and I can inform you that it's also been used in previous applications of Mr Zeelie. Can we mark that Exhibit E?

CHAIRPERSON: E. So this document, Mr Rossouw, it doesn't relate to the Why Not bombing incident?

MR ROSSOUW: Not at all, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, this document that's been handed in headed Charles Alfred Zeelie, consisting of 13 pages, will be Exhibit E, and it just relates to Mr Zeelie's career background and experience.

MR ROSSOUW: Indeed. Mr Chairman, I then call Mr Zeelie as an applicant and I ask that he be sworn in. He will give his evidence in Afrikaans.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Zeelie, Exhibit E in front of you explains your background, your career in the police, your promotion in the police and your involvement in different aspects of the police service, do you confirm the contents thereof?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Do you then request the Committee to read it as background to your application?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, just to highlight a few aspects concerning the political circumstances which is also relevant for the political objective of this application, I refer you to page 3 of Exhibit E, paragraph 3 thereof, you say that you as a Bomb Disposal Unit member, investigated various incidents including motor bomb attacks. Can you just in short explain to the Committee what was the extent of the experience that you had with bomb attacks, especially in this area.

MR ZEELIE: It is exactly as I put it in this document. I dealt with approximately 160 explosions and investigated some of them. If you read further in the document you will see the amount of weapons that we got back, that is on page 8, paragraph 5, and that is which I was involved in. And if you take into consideration that we were approximately eight bomb disposal operators in Johannesburg and some of them also visited the scenes and also seized weapons in which I was not involved, then you will realise the extent of it all.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before you proceed, just a small point, page 4 of your statement Mr Zeelie, there's a mistake, the first incident should be 5th September 1984, I take it?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I accept responsibility for that typing error.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes carry on.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Zeelie, we will come back later to place this in context. I now ask you to look at your application in volume 1, and your application appears on page 1, with the supplementary statement up until page 17, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It's page 6 of volume 1 - oh yes, page 1, the supplementary is page 6 onwards.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Zeelie, insofar as the official section of your application goes, that is now from page 1 to 5, do you confirm the contents thereof and do you also confirm that it is your signature on page 5?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Then you also supplemented your application that you find on page 7 up until page 14 in the bundle, do you also confirm your signature on page 14?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Do you also confirm the contents of the supplementary affidavit?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well, Mr Zeelie, I would now like to ask you that we begin at your annexure on page 5, supplemented to your application and I want you to tell the Committee in your own words how it happened that you became involved in this incident. Where were you?

CHAIRPERSON: It's page 8 actually, page 8 paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit. Page 8, volume 1.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I'm going to deal with the annexure to the supplementary affidavit, which is marked Annexure CAZ4 on page 15.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.

MR ZEELIE:

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, can you tell us where you were when you received this call.

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, I cannot exactly say where I was at that stage, but I was in radio contact because I always have my radio with me. It was switched on, and the fact of the matter was that I was Head of the Bomb Disposal Unit and if anything happened, I could be contacted.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, let us just go back to paragraph 2 on page 15. You mention there that you and Nanie Beyers were contacted, what is the correct position concerning Mr Nanie Beyers?

MR ZEELIE: At the stage when Gen Erasmus contacted me and told me that I had to go and see him concerning an action. I tried to contact Nanie Beyers, because I wanted him to be present with me.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you tell the Committee who Mr Nanie Beyers is, what his position was?

MR ZEELIE: He was a co-bomb disposal operator and he was one of the bomb disposal operators whom I worked closely with and I trusted him a lot.

MR ROSSOUW: You could not get hold of him, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: And you then went alone to the Brewery?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I went alone.

MR ROSSOUW: Where?

MR ZEELIE: Like I've already mentioned, I met Gen Erasmus, Du Toit and Gen Malherbe. Gen Erasmus ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Before you continue, you now mentioned Nanie Beyers and in the affidavit at a later stage you said that you made a mistake, he was not present.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Can you just explain to us how is it that you could have made such a mistake?

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, Nanie Beyers visited the scene that evening, he was the explosives backup and he visited the scene.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, but you say in your statement he was with you when you went to the Generals.

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct, Mr Chairperson, but as I have said, I can go further and say that when this whole amnesty application thing came up, we were told by our seniors that we are not supposed to say anything ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: I'm sorry, Mr Zeelie, this statement you made in 1995, this one to the Attorney-General, on the 10th of September 1995, that was before the amnesty Act.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, but there was talk, or we were told that we were not supposed to talk to anybody and then the bomb exploded and it was via my wife that I was told that I had to be at my house at a certain stage and then members of the Amnesty Committee, from the Investigative team from Pretoria, addressed me there and they presented certain facts to me and they told me I have to make certain statements. At that stage I told them I do not want to make any statements before I have not had a meeting with the Attorney-General himself. I then had a meeting with him and it is so that as Gen Erasmus testified earlier on, he just wanted to get rid of all these things, he wanted to - they asked me questions, names came up. I myself did not write the application ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Zeelie, I do not think we're understanding each other, you're talking about something else. In September 1995, none of the members of the Amnesty Committee could have visited you, they had not yet been appointed. It was a statement that you made to the Attorney-General before the Amnesty Committee was established. I'm talking about that statement.

MR ZEELIE: Yes, but this statement, Mr Chairperson, I made in relation to the visit from the Attorney-General's office. At that stage I accepted it was about the amnesty and before that we signed amnesty applications, all Security Police members signed a form and we all accepted that we will receive such amnesty, then these people came to see me and certain statements were made after they placed certain facts before me and we then decided to reveal certain things, get certain things off our chests and the fact that Nanie was with me that evening, I was confused with the names.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well, Mr Zeelie. Now you arrived at the premises of the South African Brewery, can you tell the Committee what discussions took place.

MR ZEELIE:

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Zeelie, so are you saying that you were involved in the investigation of the Cafe Zurich incident and that the perpetrators or a perpetrator was arrested and you learnt that they actually used the Why Not as a base to launch the attack? Was that person arrested before the Why Not explosion?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I keep interrupting you, when you were at the SA Breweries, when you went there what was happening there, was it like a party going on or was it a braai or ...? What was happening?

MR ZEELIE: No, Mr Chairperson, I cannot recall how many people were there, there could have been two or three other members present apart from the police members that I've mentioned. They were having a drink.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Mr Rossouw.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Zeelie, with that instruction what did you do, what steps did you take?

MR ZEELIE:

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, which four? Because you said there was Douw Willemse, Van Dyk, Vermeulen, yourself and Van Heerden, so which four of you went?

MR ZEELIE: If my recollection is correct it would have been myself, Mr van Heerden, Mr van Dyk and Mr Douw Willemse. They were the four that went in.

CHAIRPERSON: And what about Mr Vermeulen?

MR ZEELIE: He waited outside at the vehicle.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, can you just in short tell the Committee what were you wearing.

MR ZEELIE: Clothing-wise I cannot recall, but I did disguise myself, I put on a wig and once again to place cotton wool in my checks so that my face seems a big rounder. I then also wore glasses.

MR ROSSOUW: And the reason why you disguised yourself?

MR ZEELIE: The reason was so that people could not identify me in future.

MR ROSSOUW: And the other members, how were they disguised?

MR ZEELIE: No, not one of them was disguised, Mr Chairperson, because as said by the Chairperson earlier on, because I was easily identifiable.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, you also would then visit the scene later on.

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct. And the other reason was that I visit more-or-less all the explosive scenes and I give lectures to the public about bomb disposal and bomb devices and I was quite known in terms of giving evidence in acts of terror.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well, Mr Zeelie, can you tell the Committee - or before we get to that, can you tell the Committee, this specific explosive device that you used, the limpet mine, where did you get this from?

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, as I have referred to earlier on, or in the document, Exhibit E, we seized various weaponry and some of those weapons we kept with the intention to testify in court about the effects of certain explosives in buildings and we also used it in lectures and in training. We were authorised by Headquarters to keep a certain amount of explosives in our vehicles.

MR ROSSOUW: So these limpet mines you provided it?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I did. It was all kept at John Vorster Square in the parking lot or bay and the Commanders knew about it.

MR ROSSOUW: So it was not necessary for you to authorise this with a storeman or a higher command?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR ROSSOUW: You then went into the night-club, can you tell the Committee what happened then.

MR ZEELIE:

MR ROSSOUW: The detonator, who carried that?

MR ZEELIE: I carried the detonator myself.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you then go into the night-club again?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, we entered again and there were no problems, no problems with the searching. Mr van Heerden again spoke to the guard, the night guard, the night watchman. I went to go and sit down on the bench and I told Mr van Heerden ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, were you searched the second time going in, you yourself?

MR ZEELIE: If I can recall correctly Mr Chairperson, I think one or two of us were searched again, I cannot really recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Because my recollection of the statement on the document by the person who was guarding the door is that on the second entry he searched three of you, but then Mr van Heerden, you didn't mention his name, spoke to him in Tswana and ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: It is very possible, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ... and he went through without being searched because he chatted to him, but how big are these detonators? If you were searched why weren't the detonators found?

MR ZEELIE: It is about half of this pen, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You're just indicating a normal fountain pen size ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: I would say about 2½ inches, maybe 1½ centimetres across.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well Mr Zeelie, you were now searched, you now entered the night-club with the explosives, you said you went to go and sit down on a bench, what happened then?

MR ZEELIE:

...(intervention)

MR ROSSOUW: Do you know if Mr van Heerden is an explosive's expert?

MR ZEELIE: No, he's not an explosives expert at all, but as I've mentioned before he did operate with me at various previous opportunities and we did work together before and he has seen some of these explosive devices and he knew what it was and he sometimes knew what the safety requirements were.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well. So he did not want to do it and you then placed the detonator in the limpet mines.

MR ZEELIE: Yes, there where we sat I placed the detonator in the limpet placed the limpet mines under the bench against the wall, the wall that was facing to the front and the wall the top had narrow windows. The reason why I placed it there was because most of the explosive energy would be reflected outside or towards the outside and that was the reason why I placed it there, because it was a bit more quiet there and it was not directly next to the dance floor.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, in your supplementary statement on page 10 you say that you cannot say with certainty that you yourself placed the limpet mine under the bench or if Mr van Heerden did it, what is your recollection now after you consulted and read all the statements and your memory was refreshed?

MR ZEELIE: I did discuss this with Mr van Heerden because it was a point that bothered me. After we discussed it, I realised that I was the person who placed it under the bench.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, you said that additionally you told Mr van Heerden to place the detonators in the mine and take them and put them in the toilet.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what made you change your mind from putting the mines in the toilet, to placing them under the bench next to the wall?

MR ZEELIE: As I've said, Mr Chairperson, I did not want to move around, it could have attracted attention from the guard standing at the door and where we sat it was relatively dark and we then decided to place it there.

CHAIRPERSON: So you placed it actually where you were sitting or very close?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And this place, was it full, were there many people there? Was there much activity there at the time? Can you just describe what the set-up was at that time.

MR ZEELIE: At that stage there were not a lot of people in the club itself. I cannot recall if there were ten people.

CHAIRPERSON: About what time would you have placed the mine? More-or-less.

MR ZEELIE: I would say approximately 9 o'clock or rather, 12 o'clock, between 12 o'clock and 1 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: And the detonator, was it one of these ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: It works on an metal slate, it's a lead cord that is melted under the ...

CHAIRPERSON: What was the delay?

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, that is the one thing that you can never say specifically.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the delay meant to be, was it half an hour or five minutes or two hours?

MR ZEELIE: From approximately half an hour to an hour, depending on the weather conditions.

CHAIRPERSON: And is it correct there were two mines?

MR ZEELIE: Once again Mr Chairperson, I was under the impression that it was one but after I spoke to Mr van Heerden, I do accept that it was two, two that were placed next to each other and they were both ...

CHAIRPERSON: And what sort of limpet mines were they? I believe there's basically three types, the ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: It is the type 158 limpet mine, it's known as the mini-limpet mine. It is the small limpet mine.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, just insofar as your reference to supplementary affidavit goes, you were not quite sure who placed the limpet mine, I would like to refer to the statement of Mr van Heerden on page 28 of volume 1. There you will see in the middle paragraph, the fourth line from the bottom Mr van Heerden says that you placed the detonator and that he, Mr van Heerden, placed the limpet mine under the seat, did you see this statement before you made your own supplementary affidavit to your application?

MR ZEELIE: Before I did the first amnesty application?

MR ROSSOUW: Before you wrote your supplementary affidavit.

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I saw this before I made the supplementary affidavit.

MR ROSSOUW: Is it correct that maybe your confusion came from reading this?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, that is also why I said I clarified this with Mr van Heerden and that I placed it under the seat or bench.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, can you then tell the Committee, after you placed the mine what happened then, what was the further movements or actions?

MR ZEELIE:

MR ROSSOUW: Can you say if some of your Commanders were present?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, Mr Chairperson, Gen du Toit did arrive at the scene and some of the investigative officers also arrived at the scene and W/O Beyers was also informed and he also arrived at the scene, because he basically was on explosives call, that is why he visited the scene.

CHAIRPERSON: When you went back to the scene to investigate, when you were called, were the injured people still at the scene?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, there were still injured who had been removed from the premises, but at that stage it was light injuries, there were persons who had incurred burn injuries, I did see that. However, I did not see any person who, for example, had lost an arm or a leg. So according to me there were only light injuries.

I also took photos of the scene that night, because this was one of the things that I usually did at bomb explosion scenes, I often took my own photographs.

MR ROSSOUW: And Mr Zeelie, I'm assuming that with the regular procedure the disposal took place, and did you report this to anybody the following day?

MR ZEELIE: I must just state that due to the fact that the power had been cut, we couldn't really conduct a proper bomb disposal and we had guards placed there and the following morning early, probably at half past six to seven o'clock we returned to the scene and we continued with the cleanup action. Subsequently I returned to the office just on time to attend the officers meeting.

MR ROSSOUW: Was this incident discussed during the officers meeting?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, Chairperson, as was the regular custom whenever an explosion took place, the data and the information would be conveyed during the meeting and whenever there were injuries the number of injured persons would also be reported. If there were serious injuries or whether there were minor injuries, whether there were any fatalities, that would be the sort of information to be conveyed along with the possible type of bomb which was used and then a reasonable estimate of the damage.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Who conveyed that report?

MR ZEELIE: I myself conveyed that report at the officers meeting.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What did you say, how many injured persons were there, how many were seriously injured, how many injuries were minor?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I cannot really recall right now, but I think that there were 13 injured persons, if I recall correctly, however I did convey a thorough report along with which Mr Beyers - in the regular procedure, after such information had been conveyed we would have to send an official report to the bomb disposal section at Head Office and we would also have to send a report out on a national level to all the branches, and at that stage I don't believe that we were already using fax machines, it must have been by crypto or by telex. It would have been sent through to Head Office and the other major branches in the country.

MR ROSSOUW: With the exception of the officers meeting, did you report to your Commanders regarding your personal involvement in this explosion?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I accept that I may have discussed it personally with Mr Erasmus, however it would definitely not have been before the officers meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I can't understand what you're saying, Mr Zeelie, you say:

what are you saying, are you saying you can't remember whether you discussed it with Gen Erasmus, or that you accept that if you did, you don't deny it but you're not saying that it happened. In other words, you can't remember?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, what I'm trying to say is that it is possible, I cannot recall that I indeed discussed it with him. The reason why I said that if it was so, it would have been subsequent to the meeting, it would have been that he would have kept me behind and then discussed it with me, but I cannot recall that I discussed it with him at that stage.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, if I may be of assistance, I think - you'll recall the evidence by Gen Erasmus that the report-back occurred before the staff meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Zeelie, weren't you anxious to report back to the person who gave you the instruction, in order to tell him: "I carried out your instruction, this is what happened, this is how many people were injured, fortunately there were no casualties"?

MR ZEELIE: Gen du Toit visited the scene, so he himself had seen that the instruction had been executed. During the meeting the regular reporting of information pertaining to the scene was done, so in that sense it was already done.

CHAIRPERSON: But you can't recall - well I'm asking, can you recall having a meeting with Gen Erasmus at any stage about the Why Not bombing, in his office?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot recall it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Rossouw.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Zeelie, then I want to ask you if you would look at page 16, paragraph 8, there you state that you went home and that you visited the scene later, then you state that the investigating officer in the matter knew that it was an SAP action, is that a fact that you are putting there, or what is your position?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I accepted that in this case Gen Erasmus would have informed the then Col At van Niekerk, because this is how it would take place in the past with such actions, so that the investigation should be conducted to such an extent that the blame would not be pointed at the police.

MR ROSSOUW: So is it correct that you are making an inference, in other words?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct, I simply accepted that it would have been done.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well, Mr Zeelie. Could I ask you just to take a page back, in paragraph 3 you state that the Generals wanted to plant the bomb in the black night-club and that you suspected that it was a revenge attack due to the explosion which took place in the Wimpy.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson. As I have stated in my evidence-in-chief, there was a long development up to these events, due to a series of explosions which had taken place and when I made this statement, it was the Wimpy incident that occurred to me immediately. But indeed this is after my memory was refreshed that I realised that it was after the Vanderbijl Square terminus explosion.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well, Mr Zeelie. Specifically then with regard to that aspect and your political motive with regard to the counter-attack or the revenge attack, on page 11 of the statement I would just ask you to confirm that. Page 11, do you confirm this?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And then over onto page 12?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: You've also listened to the evidence given by the Generals regarding the political objective with the action, do you concur with it?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I concur entirely with it, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, did you receive any remuneration for this operation that you executed?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, I did not receive any remuneration.

MR ROSSOUW: With the exception of your regular salary?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And your action, was it motivated by any kind of personal malice towards the persons who visited the night-club?

MR ZEELIE: Not at all, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman, that's the evidence-in-chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Mr Visser, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Yes, I do, thank you Chairperson.

Mr Zeelie, the actual application as I have understood your affidavit, the actual amnesty application makes reference to an affidavit which you made to the Attorney-General, would that be this affidavit on page 15 to 17? Is that the affidavit?

MR ZEELIE: This affidavit was made to members of the A-G's office.

MR VISSER: And is that the basis of your application?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, at that stage there were certain things which were being investigated against us police members who were involved.

MR VISSER: I just want to know whether this was the initial basis?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I'm still answering your question. So I would accept this then as the foundation with regard to the amnesty application.

MR VISSER: And later you supplemented it with a supplementary affidavit.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: As Judge de Jager has indicated, this CAZ4 had already been deposed to by you in September 1995.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: I just want to discuss how this happened with you. When you made this affidavit, was there any fear in your mind that you could be charged of this offence regarding the explosion?

MR ZEELIE: I was not afraid that I would be charged, Chairperson, because at that stage I had already been to the A-G's offices.

MR VISSER: And what happened there that led you to believe that you would not be charged?

MR ZEELIE: The A-G told me that if we made the necessary affidavit and if we offered our assistance, there would be no reason for us to fear that any criminal action would be taken against us, because this would be submitted to an Amnesty Committee in the future.

MR VISSER: So we know that in 1995 there was no amnesty process under way, are you saying that the A-G did not have any intention to prosecute anybody, is that what you're saying?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, it could have been that he proposed a 204.

MR VISSER: Do you mean a Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act? That doesn't answer the question. Why was the A-G involved?

MR ZEELIE: I asked to speak to the A-G before I made any statements or affidavits.

MR VISSER: Did you think that there were a possibility that you could be charged?

MR ZEELIE: There may have been such an idea, but after I had visited the A-G, he gave me the assurance that I would not be charged.

MR VISSER: Didn't the A-G tell you that if there were prosecutions, if you made an affidavit they would consider using you as a State witness?

MR ZEELIE: He didn't say those words, but it is a possibility.

MR VISSER: Mr Zeelie, you were there, is that the understanding under which you made your affidavit?

MR ZEELIE: I've answered you, he did not say that to me. I have answered you.

MR VISSER: No, you did not answer me. Is that the understanding based upon which you made your affidavit?

MR ZEELIE: Would you reformulate your question.

MR VISSER: Did you make this affidavit with the expectation that if you did so, other persons would be charged and you would then be used as the State witness by the A-G?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, when I spoke to the A-G at that point, from the very beginning onwards I told him, because facts were put down next to me and statements were put down before me and I told the A-G that wherever I was incriminated and my name was mentioned, I would not run away from the deeds that were committed because I felt that I did not act incorrectly, I carried out orders. And I told him that wherever I would be incriminated I would provide the facts at my disposal.

MR VISSER: So is your answer then that you were prepared to incriminate yourself and to make a confession without expecting to draw any advantage from it?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Were you never asked, or wasn't it ever put to you that it was expected of you to give the names of your fellow criminals?

MR ZEELIE: I told the A-G at that stage that wherever I would be incriminated, I would place myself at the scene and I even went as far as telling him that wherever there would be new facts or whenever my memory was to be refreshed, I would confirm it and I told him unequivocally that it could not be expected of me to name any other names regarding facts that had not been put down before me, and the A-G accepted it as such, I made a cassette recording of that and it is a fact.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Visser, if I could just intervene.

This statement on page 15 - sorry, the Attorney-General, was that Mr D'Oliviera?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: This statement on page 15, CAZ4, only deals with the Why Not incident, it doesn't deal with your vast experience in the police which you've made reference to, we know there were a number of incidents you were involved in, this is specific.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you implicated in this, was somebody pointing a finger at you?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct, I was implicated in this.

CHAIRPERSON: And the Attorney-General's office was then following that up?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And so that's how it came about.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when you've been talking about amnesty in 1995, etcetera, we know that our Amnesty Act is number 34/95, so it was in existence. We also know that there was an Indemnity Act from before, was there any talk of amnesty or indemnity at the time of making this statement? Not necessarily in terms of this latest 1995 Act, but at the time we know that there were procedures for either indemnity and if that didn't apply, then people who applied for indemnity would then be referred to our Committee under the present Act.

MR ZEELIE: You see Chairperson, at that stage it was very confusing for us members, because at that point I could also not understand that there was an investigative team with D'Oliviera and another investigative team with the TRC, so it was somewhat confusing for me at that point.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, if I can just mention on page 81 of bundle 2 there is the talk of the indemnity in 1994.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Coleridge.

MS COLERIDGE: That is by the A-G's office.

CHAIRPERSON: 1994? Yes. Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

Just to follow up on what the Honourable Chairperson has put to you, previously there were indemnity Acts and the current TRC Act, the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation in terms of which amnesty is requested refers in Section 20(4) to that and those acts are specified and there was the Indemnity Act of 1994, the Indemnity Amendment Act of 1992 and the further Indemnity Act of 1992. The reason why I have put this to you is just to tell you that those indemnities were concluded by 1995 and would not have been of relevance any further if you had not applied in '92 for that indemnity. Would you agree with it?

MR ZEELIE: At a stage I only signed one indemnity form and among others, I also mentioned with regard to the indemnity form that I signed, that I did not commit any crime, that I acted under orders.

MR VISSER: Who implicated you in the Wimpy Bar matter, or rather, in the Why Not Club matter?

MR ZEELIE: I accept that Mr van Heerden implicated me. No names were ever mentioned to me, but later on there was information which came to light, based upon which I believe that Mr van Heerden implicated me.

MR VISSER: And you state that you then contacted the A-G and that the A-G did not contact you, is that what you are saying?

MR ZEELIE: Through members of the A-G's office, it was Adv Andre Steenkamp and the Investigating Officer was Blackie Swart. After they had visited my home, I told them that before I made any statements I would like to have an appointment with the A-G. They took various things into possession, they confiscated all my files as they searched my home. I always made photocopies of all the statements and affidavits that I had deposed, I even kept newspaper clippings which they confiscated. They went to Pretoria and contacted me later on and said that they had made an appointment for me with the A-G.

MR VISSER: You did not only make a statement to the A-G regarding the Why Not Club, there were diverse other matters regarding which you also made affidavits.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson. There were various instances upon which the investigating team to see me.

MR VISSER: You made a statement regarding the Stanza Bopape matter.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. It would have been approximately two years after I had been at the A-G's, because at that stage I told the A-G that if any facts were tabled, I would be incriminating myself, if there were any new facts on the table, then I would be incriminating myself again. And it happened only much later when the Stanza Bopape matter came to the fore.

MR VISSER: Did you also make a statement regarding the Cry Freedom matter?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And the Khotso House matter?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: While we are busy with that - coincidentally, in all those cases you gave contradictory evidence to the evidence of Gens Du Toit and Erasmus, do you agree with that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson. I can only state that while Mr Visser has just mentioned it now, that the primary reason for the clash in evidence was that there was confusion regarding Khotso House and Cosatu House, with regard to the facts that emanated from the evidence that was given, but my facts and my evidence were correct regarding the origin of the instruction and so forth. That was the biggest source of conflict with regard to that matter and it emanated in the hearing that there was a large measure of confusion between the two incidents.

MR VISSER: But isn't it so that with regard to the Khotso House matter, before the orders came from Head Office for the attack on Khotso House, you for example, involved members from Vlakplaas and it was your intention to go and blow up Khotso House?

MR ZEELIE: You are entirely incorrect, if you were to study those documents you would read that some of the demolitions members from Head Office stated clearly in evidence and in their applications, that they contacted the Vlakplaas members, I did not, I never contacted them. We can draw those files and those reports and corroborate this.

MR VISSER: I do not wish to re-examine the Khotso and Cosatu House matters.

MR ZEELIE: Yes please don't begin with that again.

MR VISSER: The fact remains that your evidence differed from Erasmus and Du Toit with regard to that matter.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, because mine was based on facts.

MR VISSER: Now I ask you again, were you invited by the A-G to implicate other persons, or were you not asked to do so?

MR ZEELIE: I was not asked to do so.

MR VISSER: May I just refer you to paragraph 8 on page 16. Your legal representative, Mr Rossouw, asked you that when you say that the investigating officer in the matter knew, was that an inference or was that your knowledge and you side-stepped the question quite neatly and you didn't answer it, would you care to answer it now please.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What are you referring to, which page?

MR VISSER: Page 16, paragraph 8, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR VISSER: There are two sections and I will put both to Mr Zeelie. The one has to do with At van Niekerk and the other has to do with the investigating officer, I am now dealing with the investigating officer.

Would you care to tell us who was the investigating officer?

MR ZEELIE: The investigating officer was Mr Mostert.

MR VISSER: Are you aware that he knew about the police's involvement in this action, or was it simply your suspicion?

MR ZEELIE: I believe to this very day that he did not know of the police's involvement in this matter.

MR VISSER: Then I would like to ask you please to explain the following to the Committee, and you did not amend this in your evidence, paragraph 8, these are the following words that I will read:

What did you mean to convey with that?

MR ZEELIE: As I've already stated, when this statement was made much pressure was exerted upon us, I know that the words are written as such on these pages, I did not write the statement in my own handwriting. If we return to the investigation you will see that the investigating officer who took the statement wrote these things down, I told him what had happened and I accept that it says that the investigating officer knew. I was under the impression all the time that another person was the investigating officer, but now I've seen here that Mr Mostert was actually the investigating officer. However, I will maintain my previous response that I am drawing the inference that it was possible that Mr At van Niekerk, who at that stage was the Head of our Investigating Unit, had knowledge of that.

MR VISSER: I am not with At van Niekerk yet, I'm still busy with Mostert. Are you saying that according to you he did not have any knowledge?

MR ZEELIE: As far as I knew he did not have any knowledge of the incident.

MR VISSER: Did you tell your legal representative this?

MR ZEELIE: Please repeat.

MR VISSER: Did you tell your legal representative this?

MR ZEELIE: No, I don't believe that I discussed it with him.

MR VISSER: I see. So you were more than prepared to let this statement stand in which an innocent person, according to your own knowledge, is being implicated in a serious offence in which he had absolutely no involvement, is that what you're telling us?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, that's why I have said that if these persons had been consulted they would have put their cases forward and he would have denied it. I did not mention Mr Mostert's name here. They would probably have gone to him, he would have made a statement and he stated that he was not aware of it.

MR VISSER: Is that the best answer that you have for my question?

MR ZEELIE: That is my answer.

MR VISSER: Very well. Let us come to Mr van Niekerk, why did you mention his name?

MR ZEELIE: I've already stated that he was our Commander with the Investigating Unit and if anybody had been consulted about it, it would automatically have been him.

MR VISSER: Why did you mention Gen Malherbe's name?

MR ZEELIE: Because at that stage he was also on the other side.

MR VISSER: Tell me Mr Zeelie, ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: Gen Malherbe, as I've already stated in my evidence-in-chief, did not participate in the planning. I've already stated in my evidence that he was there and that there were also other people there, but that Gen du Toit and Gen Erasmus called me to the side.

MR VISSER: But that was not your evidence from this morning.

MR ZEELIE: That is the evidence that I gave.

MR VISSER: Mr Zeelie, you testified today that Mr Erasmus took you aside to another room.

MR ZEELIE: No, I stated that Gen Erasmus and Gen du Toit did so.

MR VISSER: Well then I would like to put it to you that you stated pertinently that you were taken by Gen Erasmus to a separate room, and I made a note of this in my documents. Are you saying that I am wrong?

MR ZEELIE: I'm accepting that you are wrong, because ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: I would like to tell you that he is correct indeed Mr Zeelie, and you will have to accept that you could be mistaken, because you testified and you did not mention Mr du Toit's name.

CHAIRPERSON: We might have page back because - let me read what I've got. My note is:

there was an aside talking about Nanie Beyers.

etcetera, etcetera.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, with great respect to your note, it's wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, sorry.

MR VISSER: I was paying very acute attention to that part of the evidence, Chairperson, and unless I heard incorrectly, but as Gen Erasmus says, we can all make mistakes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, I think it might be wrongly interpreted because my note is clear there and I also made a mental note of: "Gen Erasmus roep my eenkant".

MR VISSER: That was the direct, that wasn't the translation that I'm talking about.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza wanted to say something.

MR NYAWUZA: My notes also say he was called by Du Toit and Erasmus.

MR VISSER: So it's that's the translation obviously.

MS COLERIDGE: Mine as well.

ADV SIGODI: Mine as well, I might confirm and I was listening to the translation, he mentioned Erasmus and Du Toit.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, maybe ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: That must be the translation.

MR ROSSOUW: Well Mr Chairman, then I suggest that we clear it up.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Visser's putting it to you that what you actually said in Afrikaans when you were giving your evidence-in-chief, you only mentioned that Gen Erasmus took you aside, not Gen du Toit.

MR ZEELIE: I am convinced that I said that Gen Erasmus and Gen du Toit called me aside.

MR VISSER: Very well, let us accept that for a moment. In other words, Gen Malherbe then did not accompany you to this room, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: Now I just want to read to you what the wording is of the amnesty form, in paragraph 11(a) as it appears on page 4 - yes Chairperson, I'm referring only to volume 1 all the time, page 4, 11(a) he mentions:

etcetera.

and then he says, (b):

Now I'd like to ask you to go to page 12 of volume 1, there's 11(a) and (b), can you see that? Can you see that on page 12? Mr Zeelie?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I can see that.

MR VISSER: (a) you say: "Yes", in other words it's an instruction that was executed on behalf of ... as we have read, and then (b), that is now if you did know who gave the instruction, who gave the approval for the instruction:

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, if I wanted to say that Gen Malherbe also gave instructions, I would have said that the instruction for this bomb attack was given by Gen Erasmus, Du Toit and Malherbe. What I meant here was that he was also present at the premises where the instruction was given.

MR VISSER: No, Mr Zeelie, life is not that simple. You are asked who gave the instruction for this attack and you say:

and that means only one thing, that there were Piet du Toit and Gerhard Erasmus gave you the instruction, Malherbe was present. Is that not what it means?

MR ZEELIE: That was not my intention, Mr Chairperson. If it was interpreted in a different way, I say that the instruction was given by Erasmus and Du Toit and my intention there was Malherbe was also present at the premises, then I have stated it wrongly.

CHAIRPERSON: What in your mind was the relevance of the presence of Gen Malherbe? If Gen Erasmus gave you that instruction in John Vorster Square, would you have gone and made a list of all the other policemen who were present, or Generals present at John Vorster Square, merely because they were in the same building?

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, that is why I said the reason why I mentioned that was because it was a premises away from John Vorster Square, it was a place where I was called to, what was discussed between them I do not know, and that is the only reason why I added here that Gen Malherbe was also present.

CHAIRPERSON: What was Gen Malherbe's position, what was his ...?

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, at that stage he was the liaison officer with the media and he was present at all the explosive scenes and he dealt with the media at all the scenes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he a Security Branch member, Witwatersrand division of the Security Branch or what ...?

MR ZEELIE: No, he was not part of the Security Branch, he served under the Section Commissioner.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: He was a liaisons officer.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You mentioned before that there were two or three other Security Police members at this club ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: No, I did not say that, I said that there were two or three other members. I accept that they were from the South African Police, personnel members.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Other members? You say there were other members.

MR ZEELIE: I said other persons, two or three others.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, but what did you just say, other members? 30 seconds ago.

MR ZEELIE: If I can then correct myself, Mr Chairperson, I will refer to my evidence-in-chief where I said there were two or three other people present.

MR VISSER: And in your evidence-in-chief you also referred to members, I will put it to you.

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, if I did mention members, members are also - there are 10 members in this room and we belong to different departments and organisations. If I wanted to refer to members, I would have said police members.

MR VISSER: So if you talk about members, we must not expect that they are police members.

MR ZEELIE: Except for the context to which it is referred to then.

MR VISSER: Sir, on page 15 you said that Gen Erasmus and Gen du Toit contacted you and Nanie Beyers, they were in the bar of the SAB - paragraph 2. The way in which you continue your application, it is very clear that you meant that Nanie Beyers was present there at the club. That is what you intended to say.

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, as Gen Erasmus and Du Toit testified, it was a very long time ago, my memory was not very good at that stage and after it was refreshed I corrected myself.

MR VISSER: You were willing to even implicate Nanie Beyers in the matter, but let us leave it. Then you say in paragraph 4, very specifically:

But let us deal with one aspect at a time. You say now, "Well no, sorry I made a mistake, Nanie Beyers was not with me." Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Nanie Beyers was not with me, no.

MR VISSER: Very well. I'd just like to then say to you that you said that: "We gave the Generals the names of the black clubs." Then I would like to refer you to page 10, paragraph 2, the top paragraph on page 10, and then I'd like to read to you what you say here - or let me just ask you this, this supplementary statement in which you make these amendments, is this now after you spoke to Brood van Heerden and got clarity about the facts?

MR ZEELIE: In what context are you asking this?

MR VISSER: I'm asking a very simple question, did you make this statement after you had a discussion with Mr van Heerden, to get clarity about the true facts?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Very well. And did you then mention this to your legal representative and say that? "Here are things that I have to amend in my statement" and you then decided on the supplementary affidavit?

MR ZEELIE: I accept so.

MR VISSER: Do not accept something, is it so or is it not so?

MR ZEELIE: It's for me the same thing.

MR VISSER: No, Sir, don't you want to compromise yourself here? Is it so or is it not so?

MR ZEELIE: I believe it is so.

MR VISSER: Very well. Let us look at page 10 then, the second sentence:

let us stop there. Now we do know how you involved Nanie Beyers and now what you are doing in simple Afrikaans, you replace Nanie Beyers with Van Heerden.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, yes, because Mr van Heerden was with me when we executed this instruction.

MR VISSER: No, Mr Zeelie, you are clever enough to know that I'm not talking about that, I am talking about someone who went with you to the SAB club, where instructions were given to you - just give me a chance, where instructions were given, according to your evidence, given to you by Erasmus and Du Toit and that is what I'm talking about. Am I correct if I say that in your supplementary affidavit, you replaced Nanie Beyers with Mr van Heerden?

MR ZEELIE: According to the statement it is mentioned like that, yes, but he was definitely not with me.

MR VISSER: Let us put it more specifically, your legal representative said that he did not agree with me, but let us read the following sentence:

but I do not want to deal with that, I'm talking specifically about paragraph 2:

and that makes it very clear, is that not true?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, but as I have said before, Van Heerden had to be replaced, that is where the instruction was executed, Nanie Beyers had to be taken out there because he did not accompany us.

MR VISSER: So you say that the reference to paragraph 2 is a mistake?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, it was only myself that went to the SAB.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is therefore a further mistake in paragraph 2, or is it only the name?

MR ZEELIE: Are you talking about the statement on page 15?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes.

MR ZEELIE: The words, the fact that:

you see, Mr Chairperson, as I've said before, this statement was written by the investigative officer.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, we do not want to deal with that, I'm just asking you if there's another mistake, I'm not asking who wrote it.

MR ZEELIE: I accept that there it says Gen du Toit and Erasmus and Erasmus contacted me via the radio, Du Toit did not contact me. And the Nanie Beyers as I've mentioned there, must be scratched out.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Just Gen Erasmus, if we then assume that Du Toit did not say anything, he did not contact you?

MR ZEELIE: It was Erasmus who contacted me and not Du Toit.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did Erasmus also contact Brood?

MR ZEELIE: No, he did not.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Because here you say that the two Generals contacted you and Van Heerden.

MR ZEELIE: That is why I say that they must just delete Nanie Beyers and it must not be replaced with Van Heerden, they must just scratch it out. And only in paragraph 5 must they replace Nanie with Van Heerden.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You see I've got something else that I can add here, here you say Erasmus and Du Toit contacted you and before you testified Erasmus and Du Toit gave you the instructions, now I'd like to hear, at the opportunity where they gave you the instructions, what was Du Toit's words to you, what instruction did he give and what instruction did Erasmus give?

MR ZEELIE: Du Toit did not give me an instruction himself, the reason why I put it like this was that they were together when Erasmus spoke to me.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Du Toit did not speak at all?

MR ZEELIE: No, he did not say anything, but I said it in the context because they were both my Commanders and they were together and that Gen Erasmus gave me the instructions.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But at the other one you said that Malherbe was also present, why didn't you say here that Erasmus gave the instruction and that Du Toit was present?

MR ZEELIE: The fact that Gen Erasmus and Du Toit accompanied me to the other room, that brought that division for me and that is why I accept that it came from both of them and they had to discuss it before.

MR VISSER: And why did you, for example, make mention Mr Zeelie, of the fact that you were taken to a different room at the SAB club? Was it not important?

MR ZEELIE: It was not important, it is a question that would have come to me.

MR VISSER: Very well. Why was it necessary to go to another room? Here is Erasmus, Du Toit and Malherbe and in your statement you said that they were all three present when the command was given, why is it now necessary to go to a different room?

MR ZEELIE: As I have said before, there were other people in the same room where I met them and Gen Erasmus and Du Toit left with me and went to another room.

MR VISSER: Were you scared that the other members, those who were not members of the police, would hear you?

MR ZEELIE: It was not for me to say that I was scared, the Generals told me to accompany them to a different office. I did not know at that stage what they wanted to say to me.

MR VISSER: But in your evidence-in-chief today you mentioned that there at the Vanderbijlpark bus terminus scene, Du Toit spoke to you.

MR ZEELIE: I said Erasmus said that he's sick and tired of all the explosions. I did not say Du Toit said it, I said he was also present.

MR VISSER: That is exactly Judge de Jager's question, why did you not then say the same thing for the incident at the SAB club?

MR ZEELIE: The fact of the matter was that we were again there together and there weren't other people around.

MR VISSER: That is not an answer to the question, you do realise this. The point that Judge de Jager wanted to make is, why didn't you say Erasmus gave you the instruction, Du Toit and/or Malherbe was present?

MR ZEELIE: I've already put it, made it very clear, Gen Erasmus gave me the instruction and the reason why I in my evidence-in-chief said, "Erasmus and Du Toit", was because both of them were my Commanders and they called me to the side.

MR VISSER: And at the scene there where the bomb exploded at the Vanderbijlpark bus terminus, there they were both your Commanders and they were also present, why do you make the distinction in your explanation about what happened there that you do not make at the SAB club?

MR ZEELIE: I do make a distinction, I do not understand why you say I make a distinction.

MR VISSER: Very well. Why did you not say anything or mention anything in your statement on page 15 or somewhere else, about this discussion at the scene or the premises at the Vanderbijlpark bus terminus? I'm sorry, I say Vanderbijlpark and I knew I was going to do this, I apologise, at the Vanderbijlpark bus terminus ...(intervention)

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry Mr Chairman, that's slightly misleading ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Vanderbijl Square.

MR VISSER: Square, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, that's slightly misleading, Mr Zeelie said in his supplementary affidavit that he's read the affidavit by Mr van Heerden and he confirms it as far as it relates to him. If you have a look at page 30 you will note that Mr van Heerden states that the discussion took place with Gens Erasmus, Du Toit, him and Mr Zeelie at Vanderbijl Square.

MR VISSER: Mr Visser, with great respect, that is as clear as mud, but be that as it may.

Let me just ask you a question after your legal representative wanted to clear it up, you say amongst others, paragraph 3 on page 10, it is now about who placed the limpet mine under the bench and you said in your statement on page 15, that you did it. Then Mr van Heerden came and he said he did it and then you say in paragraph 3 on page 10:

Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, but as I said, after this incident I did speak to Mr van Heerden because I mention it there and I mentioned it in my evidence-in-chief and I do admit that I did place it there, and these are the facts.

MR VISSER: Well your legal representative just said that you'd now agree with what Van Heerden said, is that correct? Now just look at what you say in your evidence today, you spoke to Van Heerden about it and "I placed it under the bench."

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, I can see what it states here, but that is why I said that I spoke to Mr van Heerden about this incident and the facts are that I placed it.

MR VISSER: In other words paragraph 1 is misleading, you do not make use of Mr van Heerden's statement, not in all aspects, is that correct?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Visser, these are matters that you can deal with in argument, I do not think that you will get anywhere.

MR VISSER: Yes, I just do feel that I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps the first question when Mr Rossouw came in, Mr Visser asked you why didn't you mention the discussion that took place at Vanderbijl Square, in your statement on page 15, because I get the impression, the distinct impression - well we've been told, it's not just a question of getting an impression, we've been told that the bomb at the Why Not was a counter-attack, it wasn't an attack that stands on its own, the main purpose of the bomb was to send a message to say: "Look, we are now counter-attacking, we are sending a message to the ANC", that's why it had to be done so promptly, etcetera, etcetera. But when one reads the statement on page 15, one doesn't get that impression at all, it's just, you know, out of the blue you get a radio call and you go there. So why wasn't that Vanderbijl, why didn't this aspect about it being the main reason, being a counter-attack, not mentioned in the statement of the 15th? - I mean, on page 15, the statement there.

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, as I've said, in one of my statements I mentioned Wimpy Bar, it was a very long run-up of explosions that took place, where Gen Erasmus at various opportunities expressed his disgust and said that we had to act in a hard way against the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you mention in paragraph 3:

But you didn't mention - had you forgotten about the Vanderbijl "Plein" incident, or what, when you did this?

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, as I have testified before, I dealt with about 160 incidents and visited 160 scenes and it can become a bit confusing.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

In how many cases of instances did you receive instructions from Erasmus or Du Toit or one of them to execute an act of revenge in another bomb attack?

MR ZEELIE: This specific instance and then also in the Khotso House incident where I also received instructions, where I went to go and discuss it with Gen Erasmus and made the suggestion to him.

MR VISSER: But Mr Zeelie, your evidence in the Khotso House incident was that this instruction came from Head Office.

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, in my evidence-in-chief there I said that I went to go and see Gen Erasmus about the incident and Gen Erasmus went to Head Office that same day and he came back and he told me that he spoke with Head Office and that myself and Nanie Beyers must accompany him to Head Office. From Head Office we went to the explosives Headquarters and there we did the planning. I therefore got the instructions directly from Erasmus.

MR VISSER: Then not from Head Office? Very well, if you want it that way. But now we've got two cases or instances where you got the instruction to illegally detonate certain bombs and you got these instructions from Gen Erasmus.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you truly saying to the Committee that you can recall that you got these instructions or this instruction from Gen Erasmus at the scene where a bomb exploded?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I have testified about it.

MR VISSER: Yes, well why didn't you mention it on page 15 and 16, did you forget about it?

MR ZEELIE: No, because I did not say that he gave me the instructions at the scene, I said he mentioned that he was sick and tired of the ANC's actions and that we also had to act against them. He did not at that stage say to me I had to go and plant a bomb somewhere.

MR VISSER: Well this an inference that I'm making now about what you just said, that Gen Erasmus at various opportunities told you that you had to act in revenge against the ANC.

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I did make use of the word revenge a few times.

MR VISSER: That was never put to him when he testified, did you tell this to your legal representative?

MR ZEELIE: No, I did not say it to him.

MR VISSER: I see. Well I will put it to you that you are wrong in your evidence and that this was the only instance where Gen Erasmus gave such an instruction.

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, I was present, Mr Visser was not present, so I can testify about it and Mr Visser cannot say to me that it wasn't true.

MR VISSER: Well I can say to you somebody else was also not there and that was Gen du Toit, that is now at the scene at the Vanderbijl bus terminus or Vanderbijl Square. So do you still say that he was there?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I do, but I also say that I cannot say that he was not there.

MR VISSER: In other words you're not willing to concede that you are mistaken, you do recall things in a certain way and those who recall it differently, they are mistaken?

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, I give the facts, something that I can recall for certain, I'll testify about, if there's a dispute I will say I'm not sure, but what I'm saying to you is a fact. I will not implicate a person if it's not so.

MR VISSER: Well Gen Erasmus testified in front of this Committee, and he does accept full responsibility for the giving of the instruction for this bomb explosion, and you heard him, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I heard him, Mr Chairperson, but he also basically said that he did not give a direct instruction, it was only after the explosion that he heard that I did it and he said that I had to go to places, according to his evidence, and investigate to find out where people gathered. According to his evidence he did not say: "Charles, go and look where there's a place and go and put a bomb there."

MR VISSER: Mr Zeelie, you give a lot of answers that have got nothing to do with the question, but I will come back to the question the whole time and you can be sure of it.

Gen Erasmus has accepted responsibility for the instruction for the bomb explosion in the Why Not Club, did you hear that?

MR ZEELIE: In conclusion he did indeed accept it.

MR VISSER: By what conclusion?

MR ZEELIE: In the conclusion of his evidence.

MR VISSER: I see. Very well. And he did this on the grounds of what he discussed with you at the Vanderbijl Square scene, according to his evidence. I beg your pardon, did you hear that?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, he himself testified that he did not give an order for me to set a bomb, he said that I should investigate places where ANC people met and then report back to him.

MR VISSER: Did he say that to you?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot recall precisely whether he said that at that stage, as far as I can recall, he only told me at that stage that he was sick and tired of all these actions of the ANC against our people and that we also had to take action against them.

MR VISSER: Yes, and he said that you should investigate and the supposition was clear that you were to report back to him. That was his evidence.

MR ZEELIE: He didn't say anything to me.

MR VISSER: No, that was just your evidence.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I said that's what he said.

MR VISSER: Now at that second, there at the Vanderbijl Square scene, you must have known of Cafe Zurich, because you had conducted that investigation along with Mr van Heerden, according to your evidence, isn't that so?

MR ZEELIE: I wasn't thinking of Cafe Zurich or any other place at that stage, there were many places. I had visited the scenes of 160 and more explosions.

MR VISSER: No, we are referring to this particular one, Mr Zeelie. In your affidavit you stated that you regarded it as an act of revenge ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Page 15, paragraph 3.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson. It's page 11, Chairperson, it's the passage I was looking for.

Just look at page 11: "Political Objective", paragraph 10(a):

and then you also describe the objective. This is what you state in your supplementary affidavit on page 11, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Then my question is simple, when you deposed the affidavit on page 15, you omitted this absolute reason why the Why Not Club was attacked, because you make it the only reason here.

MR ZEELIE: I don't understand what you mean by that.

MR VISSER: Very well. On page 15, did you forget to refer ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: In which paragraph?

MR VISSER: Page 15, 16 and 17. ... did you forget to refer to it as the reason why the Why Not Night-club had to be attacked?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I have already testified, at SA Breweries I mentioned the name Why Not to Gens du Toit and Erasmus, due to the fact that Cafe Zurich was situated directly opposite to the Why Not and the attack was launched from those premises.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not one. The speaker's microphone.

JUDGE DE JAGER: When you began you said - at which place, which place did you refer to it, where this was said?

MR ZEELIE: At Breweries.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I beg your pardon, thank you.

MR VISSER: Very well. There at Vanderbijl Square you had the information because you were an investigating officer, along with Van Heerden, in the Cafe Zurich bomb explosion, as a result of which Peter Dlamini was arrested, do you recall?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Then why didn't you just tell Erasmus there and then that you had the perfect place in mind?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I was on the scene as a demolitions expert, I had reasonably many tasks to perform there. Gen Erasmus said that he was sick and tired of the circumstances, I accepted what he said, I understood what he said and I continued with my work obligations.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What was Van Heerden doing at the scene? Did he also have something to do with demolitions?

MR ZEELIE: Van Heerden was a member of the investigating staff.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Which investigating staff?

MR ZEELIE: Security Branch investigating staff. He also worked specifically under me.

CHAIRPERSON: So Mr Zeelie, I'm just trying to clear this up, what you say is that at Vanderbijl "Plein" you were there bona fide on duty, examining an explosion, Gen Erasmus was there in his capacity as the Commander and at the scene Gen Erasmus expressed his displeasure and frustration with these continual bombings and said: "Look, I'm sick and tired of this, it's high time we took action", fullstop? It was like a statement?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't get the impression he was instructing you to do anything, either by inference or directly?

MR ZEELIE: Not at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: He just made a statement expressing his dismay and frustration.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And then the next step was you got the radio call, is that what you're saying?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And if Gen Erasmus' evidence were to be refused by this Committee, it would mean that with the exception of your evidence at the SAB club, it would indicated that you acted alone, because according to his understanding he accepted that you understood that he gave you an instruction.

MR ZEELIE: That is what it boils down to. If I have to refer to a previous hearing, specifically the Bopape hearing, Mr Visser in his argument or his address, also stated, and I have press clippings to prove it, if us at the lower ranks that the Generals are going to answer for us, then we are incorrect. I think that it boils down to what Mr Visser is saying now.

MR VISSER: But Mr Zeelie, I don't know what that has to do with this application, with the greatest respect, I challenge you to show me that evidence.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I will ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Can we just continue with this matter please. Why in paragraph 3 did you refer to the Wimpy Bar, when you made your statement before the A-G?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, it was one of the ugliest explosions which occurred to me directly.

MR VISSER: But you did not remember the Cafe Zurich or Vanderbijl Square explosions when you made this statement.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, Cafe Zurich only occurred as a result of the fact that Gen Erasmus asked me at the Breweries which places could be identified, so Cafe Zurich was not in direct relation to Vanderbijl Square. It was mentioned ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: But it was in direct relation to the explosion at Why Not.

MR ZEELIE: I'm trying to explain it to you, Chairperson. It occurred directly after Gen Erasmus gave an instruction for us to plant a bomb at a place and then Cafe Zurich was mentioned and it was determined that Why Not was directly opposite it.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But if you make a statement about Why Not and in this statement you deal only with Why Not, the Cafe Zurich incident must occur to you because the two are directly related, but here you refer to the Wimpy incident and that has absolutely nothing to do with Cafe Zurich or Why Not, which are directly opposite each other.

MR ZEELIE: But that is why I told you that the moment Gen Erasmus mentioned his idea, I thought about Cafe Zurich and realised that the planning could be conducted from Why Not.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But then you also stated under oath that you wish to state that after the long lapse of time since the incident, your memory is not that good any longer, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: It is possible, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, you have stated this under oath. Not everything can be answered in terms of possibilities, I'm asking you a direct question.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, due to the long lapse in time, my memory could fail me with regard to certain things.

MR VISSER: Such as, for example, the fact that Gen Piet du Toit was present at Vanderbijl Square.

MR ZEELIE: No, I am positive that he was indeed present, that is what I've already stated. If I doubt something I will say that it might not be that way, but if I'm certain of a fact, I will name the persons who are involved.

MR VISSER: I will be arguing this and that is why I'm going to give you the opportunity to respond to what I want to put to you. There is a more obvious reason why in your supplementary affidavit on page 11, you refer to Vanderbijl Square and that reason can be found on page 27 of volume 1, and that is the statement of Mr van Heerden. The final paragraph on that page. I beg you pardon, I have said that it was the last paragraph, it's actually the penultimate paragraph, the paragraph just below the heading at 9(a)(iv):

That is the reason why you changed your affidavit, isn't that so?

MR ZEELIE: No, as I have already stated, my recollection has indeed been refreshed with regard to the explosion which took place just before the Why Not.

MR VISSER: Then why did you drag Van Heerden into this whole thing, he was an investigative man?

MR ZEELIE: I've already explained, we had already been involved in a series of other incidents, I trusted him and I've already explained to the Committee that Van Heerden was highly proficient in black languages and it would have been much easier to infiltrate places.

MR VISSER: Did you tell Erasmus at the SAB club, that you were going to using Van Heerden in this operation?

MR ZEELIE: I don't recall telling him any thing like that.

MR VISSER: Did you tell him that you would be enlisting the efforts of Vlakplaas members for backup?

MR ZEELIE: I did not tell him at that stage.

MR VISSER: Why not?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, he issued an instruction to me and I executed it. Furthermore, he himself did not tell me to get such and such a person to assist me. He accepted, and I still believe this today, that I would be more than capable of obtaining the necessary persons to assist me, because such a task could certainly not be performed by a single person.

MR VISSER: But Mr Zeelie, the ANC cadres did so chronically, one person would go and plant a bomb and that's that, are you telling us that you couldn't do it alone?

MR ZEELIE: I definitely would not have done it by myself, that is why so many ANC people blew themselves up as well.

MR VISSER: Would you have blown yourself up if you had gone alone?

MR ZEELIE: There was a very strong possibility because if one is under pressure, one can easily make a mistake.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And if you took Van Heerden with you, you could blow him up as well?

MR ZEELIE: No, Sir, that is why I have already testified that Mr van Heerden's presence there made the whole affair far simpler and easier, because we could gain easier access and take the device inside.

MR VISSER: But what were the Vlakplaas people supposed to do there?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I have already stated, I decided within myself to see whether they could assist us in a backup capacity in the event of any problems, say for example the bouncer found something on us and we would have to defend ourselves, they would be able to assist us in escaping.

MR VISSER: What would you have done if Ngema had discovered the limpet mine on you, would you have shot him or what?

MR ZEELIE: I wouldn't have shot him, Chairperson, however he would have been on the floor, he would not have been able to get us that easily.

MR VISSER: Is that why you refer to this backup?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you are saying that without the necessary backup you would not have been able to tackle such a project?

MR ZEELIE: I would not have tackled such a project in any case. If we look at the history of the police, no such action was ever initiated by a single person, there was always an extra number of people to give assistance.

MR VISSER: But we have you and Van Heerden, so there's no question of a single person, I'm referring to the Vlakplaas people in this regard. Are you saying that you would not have planted this bomb without the involvement of Vlakplaas?

MR ZEELIE: If it boiled down to an inability to obtain their assistance for the operation we would have gone ahead on our own, but once there, if we had seen that circumstances would have created problems for us, we would have abandoned the plan.

MR VISSER: You see because as it was they didn't want to get involved because Eugene de Kock didn't give them the order for it.

MR ZEELIE: There was one member who didn't want to be involved.

MR VISSER: Were the other two involved? Paul van Dyk didn't want to get involved.

MR ZEELIE: And at the end of the day he did assist, he went in.

MR VISSER: According to Mr van Heerden all five of you entered the club, is he mistaken?

MR ZEELIE: When the bomb was placed? When the bomb was placed only four of us were inside, Mr Vermeulen was outside.

MR VISSER: What did the other two Vlakplaas members do regarding this operation, what were they supposed to do?

MR ZEELIE: They didn't do anything, they were there with us and as I've already testified, if there were any problems they would have assisted us.

MR VISSER: And you were disguised?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I was disguised.

MR VISSER: You wore a wig and cotton wool in your cheeks and so forth?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And this is because you knew that you would have to return to the scene later on, in order to investigate and then there would be the risk of your identification.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson. And as I have already stated in my evidence-in-chief, with the exception of this, I often visited many scenes and presented many lectures and I had testified in many cases which meant that I had appeared in the media.

MR VISSER: Yes, I recall your evidence very well, you don't have to repeat it. I just want to know whether it was important for you to disguise yourself in order to prevent any recognition should you return to the scene later.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Then what about Van Heerden, why did you take him back to the scene?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, that is why he did not enter the scene directly, he remained seated in the car. There were many people moving about there.

MR VISSER: And did you agree with him to remain in the car and not to go there from fear that he may be identified?

MR ZEELIE: That was the reason why he stayed in the car.

MR VISSER: I want to know whether you discussed it with him, Mr Zeelie.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: So it was you and not Du Toit who told him to remain in the car?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, long after Gen du Toit, or long before Gen du Toit arrived there, Van Heerden and I were already on the scene.

MR VISSER: And what of that?

MR ZEELIE: Du Toit didn't see Van Heerden walking about there and tell him to go and sit in the car so that no-one could recognise him, he was already seated in the car.

MR VISSER: So Du Toit arrived there, he saw Van Heerden seated in the car, walked over to him and said: "Sit in the car"?

MR ZEELIE: I believe he told him to remain seated in the car.

MR VISSER: Why would he have done that?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I accept because he wanted to be certain that Van Heerden would not disembark from the car and be identified.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But Mr Zeelie, how did he know that Mr van Heerden was involved?

MR ZEELIE: The vehicle in which he was seated was my vehicle, so I accept that after the order was issued and as I've already testified, I believe the Generals would have accepted that I would be involving people and seeing as he saw the man sitting in my car he must have accepted that he was involved.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you know what the General would have accepted? That there was a call that there was a bomb explosion and that you went to the scene to investigate in your car, because you were an expert and they knew that you would be there, but they didn't know that if Van Heerden went with you, that he would be participating in some bomb explosion, perhaps he was just assisting you with the investigation.

MR ZEELIE: I asked Van Heerden to remain in the car, I did not state that Gen du Toit told him to stay in the car.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, and you also never told Du Toit that Van Heerden had been with you before the time.

MR ZEELIE: No, I did not tell him prior that Van Heerden had been with.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So he didn't know that Van Heerden was involved in the placement of the bomb?

MR ZEELIE: Not prior to the incident.

MR VISSER: Because you see - and I would like to conclude on this point because it is almost 4 o'clock, you see your own evidence, according to your own evidence you received an order at SA Breweries bar or club and it is very clear from my questions to you that no-one gave you authorisation or that no-one was notified that you would be involving Van Heerden. Do you agree with this?

MR ZEELIE: I've already stated that the order was given to me and I accepted that Gen Erasmus and Du Toit would accept that I would be involving others.

MR VISSER: Would they necessarily have accepted, even if your evidence is acceptable, would they have accepted that you would be involving Van Heerden?

MR ZEELIE: I believe that they would also have accepted that, Chairperson, because as I have already stated, Van Heerden had been involved in various other matters with me. Mr van Heerden was involved with Vlakplaas, they knew Mr Van Heerden reasonably well in that regard.

MR VISSER: But you see Mr Zeelie - and with this I conclude for the afternoon, you have caught the tiger by the tail and you have a problem, because none of these Generals could have known that Van Heerden would have been involved and that is why there would have been no reason in the world for Gen du Toit to go and speak to him. And furthermore, why then are you trying to defend Van Heerden's evidence, and that is how it boils down to you.

MR ZEELIE: I don't understand what you mean, I gave my evidence and I said that Mr van Heerden was there, at no point in my evidence did I state that Gen du Toit went to Van Heerden. Furthermore, I did not defend it at all, so I don't know what you are basing this upon.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, would this be a convenient time to take your adjournment, but just before you do so, there's a special request of - I'm sorry, I thought that there was a problem with Gen du Toit, with his leg, but I just received a note that he will be here tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, this will be a convenient time to adjourn, will nine-thirty be convenient tomorrow morning?

MR VISSER: Oh there is a request, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza?

MR NYAWUZA: No, I withdraw my request, nine-thirty will be okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure? Okay, nine-thirty tomorrow mor-ning we'll continue with the evidence of Mr Zeelie. Thank you.

MS COLERIDGE: All rise.