TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION 

AMNESTY HEARING

DATE: 23 MARCH - 27 MARCH 1998

______________________________________________________CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. I would like to welcome everybody here to this hearing. I'd like to just start off by apologising for the late start. Unfortunately, my flight into Johannesburg International last night was cancelled due to inclement weather from where I was due to catch the plane so I could only catch this morning's flight which was also late, but I apologise for the late start.

Today we are dealing with the application of Mr Lottering. Mr Mostert, would you like to put yourself on record?

MR MOSTERT: I am Mr D A Mostert from Pretoria and I am representing Mr Lottering in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: I would also just like to introduce the panel that will be sitting at this hearing. On my right is Advocate Bosman, on my left is Advocate Gcabashe and on my far left Mr Moloi and I'm Selwyn Miller and the evidence leader is Mr André Steenkamp. Mr Mostert?

MR MOSTERT: Chairperson, honourable Members, we will begin by presenting the evidence of the applicant, if you require if it be necessary?

CORNELIUS JOHANNES LOTTERING (sworn states)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR MOSTERT: We have applied for the amnesty on the charge of murder, robbery and escape. In the first instance I would like to ask you and I submit to the Committee why you reckon that the actions which you committed were politically motivated. Begin with your chief motive and tell the Committee how it occurred that you committed these actions.

MR LOTTERING: My chief motive was for our nation, to achieve a Volkstaat for our nation and conduct a coup d'état for our own people.

MR MOSTERT: For which political organisations were you a member?

MR LOTTERING: AWB, The Order of Death and more recently the Order of the Boerevolk.

MR MOSTERT: When did you join the AWB?

MR LOTTERING: Approximately in 1986. The end of 1986, beginning of 1987.

MR MOSTERT: And your participation in the AWB - was that active?

MR LOTTERING: Yes I was an active member I was also part of their military wing.

MR MOSTERT: For how long were you a member of the AWB before you resigned?

MR LOTTERING: Approximately three years.

MR MOSTERT: And for how long were you a member of Aquillo?

MR LOTTERING: The same amount of time.

MR MOSTERT: Let us look at the offences which were committed. At the point when the offences were committed were you still a registered member of the AWB?

MR LOTTERING: How did it occur that you were not a member of the AWB at that point?

MR MOSTERT: When we began to establish underground cells of the AWB under The Order of Death, we all resigned from the AWB.

MR MOSTERT: Very well, I would just like you to tell the Committee point by point, in the first place - how it occurred that you went underground?

MR LOTTERING: I was recruited to Aquillo by Dawie de Beer who was the head of The Order of Death. He was also the administrative head of Aquillo.

MR MOSTERT: And why did you resign from the AWB?

MR LOTTERING: If we were caught doing illegal things that we would not be implicated with the AWB or that we would not draw them into trouble through this.

MR MOSTERT: Very well. So these offences were committed while you were a member, or an official member of The Order of Death? Did The Order of Death issue any kind of membership or how did it function?

MR LOTTERING: No it was an underground division of Aquillo.

MR MOSTERT: How did you operate, was it on a cell basis?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: Could you just provide more information for the Committee?

MR LOTTERING: In every town there were two or three people, or at least not in every town but in the towns where there were cells there were two or three people who belonged to a cell. It was due to circumstances that the cells would co- operate or hear from one another.

MR MOSTERT: As far as you know, what was the explicit purpose of The Order of Death?

MR LOTTERING: They decided that a large group of the National Party for example, Ministers, would be eliminated with the purpose of conducting a coup d'état in order to place enough pressure on the government so that they would grant us our Volkstaat.

MR MOSTERT: Was that The Order of Death's purpose at that point?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: On whose authority did The Order of Death function, do you know?

MR LOTTERING: Originally it was under Terre'blanche's authority, he was the head of the AWB.

MR MOSTERT: Who told you that?

MR LOTTERING: Dawie de Beer.

MR MOSTERT: Let us just get this straight, Dawie de Beer was the leader of The Order of Death?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: He was the administrative head of Aquillo and he also recruited members?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: With who else did Dawie de Beer liaise that you know of?

MR LOTTERING: With Mr Treurnicht who has subsequently passed away.

MR MOSTERT: And what exactly did Mr de Beer say to you when he recruited you? What was the objective of your recruitment?

MR LOTTERING: In order to initiate an underground movement which would execute political elimination with the objective of enforcing a Volkstaat.

MR MOSTERT: You have just testified that a coup d'état was planned by means of taking out prominent ministers of the former government. Did that remain the plan or did you deviate from that at any point?

MR LOTTERING: At a stage when the ANC became too strong and the CP began losing support, we made a couple of shifts so that we would concentrate more on the left wing leaders instead of the NP leaders.

MR MOSTERT: Alright, at this point in time, when the instructions and the plan were tabled that the NP leaders had to be eliminated, did you receive any orders to watch any ministers or do any groundwork?

MR LOTTERING: No, at that stage we had to gather as much information as possible about these prominent ministers and also by means of literature and newspapers we did this. Later we would monitor them in greater detail and watch their movements.

MR MOSTERT: Did you compile any reports regarding their movements?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: Could you just tell the Committee, among others?

MR LOTTERING: I had to attend a certain meeting to see how easy it would be to infiltrate the meeting of Adrian Vlok and I compiled a report about that and we sent it through.

MR MOSTERT: Who did you send it to?

MR LOTTERING: I believe that it was sent through to Eugene Terre'blanche. From two sources I received feedback that the reports had been received by him.

MR MOSTERT: But to who did you hand it over?

MR LOTTERING: Dawie de Beer.

MR MOSTERT: Did you hand it over personally to Mr Dawie de Beer?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: Did you take any further actions regarding the former National Party and compile any other reports?

MR LOTTERING: In the initial stages we also wrote threat letters to the government telling them that if they did not concede to our demand for a Volkstaat that we would go over into action.

MR MOSTERT: You must think clearly, at what point did these activities take place that you compiled the report about Vlok and so forth?

MR LOTTERING: I'm not entirely sure, it must have been at the beginning of 1989 or perhaps in 1988.

MR MOSTERT: Let us return to the planning of The Order of Death. When you were recruited were there certain requirements which you had to fulfil?

MR LOTTERING: Yes I was told that I had to commit murder on individuals as preparation for myself as form of initiation and of course to convince them that I was prepared to do the work.

MR MOSTERT: Who put it to you that way?

MR LOTTERING: Dawie de Beer.

MR MOSTERT: Did he ever give you any targets to attack?

MR LOTTERING: He did not point out specific targets.

MR MOSTERT: How did he give you instructions?

MR LOTTERING: He told me to kill a black man and he wasn't really interested in who it was or how I carried it out, I just had to carry out the task and report back to him.

MR MOSTERT: While we are at that point, he gave you instructions to kill a black man in order to determine whether or not you could do it? The other thing is did he give you any other instructions with regard to the carrying out of other actions?

MR LOTTERING: When we established the underground movement the most of us resigned or at least myself and a colleague resigned so that we could work fulltime. Money was promised to us, they promised to finance us in order to live and move but that was never realised and when it wasn't realised instructions were given in order to commit robbery so that we could finance it.

MR MOSTERT: So that brings us to the following point - the robbery - were specific instructions given to you to commit robbery and the escape?

MR LOTTERING: While I was in detention he told me that if I got the chance to walk I should take it and if the opportunity should present itself.

MR MOSTERT: And was he with you?

MR LOTTERING: No but only under Section 29 was he arrested with me, however, he was never in a prison.

MR MOSTERT: At which point did he tell you to walk if you got the chance?

MR LOTTERING: It was when I was awaiting trial.

MR MOSTERT: Did he visit you?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: Your instructions or at least there was a shift of emphasis with regards to The Order of the Death, initially the objective was to break up the National Party and then a shift in emphasis happened, why?

MR LOTTERING: That was in order to focus on the left wing leaders because they had become too strong at that point for the right wing. It had to operate or it was said to me that it was national law that said that if the government was in such chaos that it couldn't operate properly any more, the opposition had to take over and that is what our plan was.

MR MOSTERT: These offences that you committed, when you committed them would you regard yourself then as a full time operative or soldier of The Order of Death?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: At which point did you resign from your job?

MR LOTTERING: I think it might have been in August 1988.

MR MOSTERT: And when were these offences committed?

MR LOTTERING: I don't have the specific dates at my disposal but I think that some of these things could have been before my resignation and some of the after my resignation, I'm not entirely certain.

MR MOSTERT: The 29th August 1989 was the date when the murder was committed.

MR LOTTERING: I think that I had resigned by then already or wait a moment, I resigned at the end of July.

MR MOSTERT: Did you work out a month's worth of notice?

MR LOTTERING: No, I gave 24 hours notice.

MR MOSTERT: The reasons for your resignation, were there any personal reasons for your resignation or was it in order to participate in the struggle?

MR LOTTERING: No, if one had to undertake observations one couldn't only work at night because one would be placed under suspicion if one was walking around at night, everybody would be looking and you could just walk past a place and not really do anything more than that.

MR MOSTERT: I would just like to achieve a level of clarity for the Committee. At the point when these offences were committed, you had already resigned from the AWB, you were no longer a member?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: But you believe that you acted under the orders of the AWB and the CP as a member of The Order of Death?

MR LOTTERING: Yes, at a point we lost complete confidence in Terre'blanche, that was with the Jani Allen incident when he had a relationship with her and that was also one of my complaints that I had planted a bomb at Jani Allen's flat - wait a moment, I've just lost my thoughts here.

MR MOSTERT: At the point when you had committed the offences, you were no longer a member of the AWB and you were full time with The Order of Death?

MR LOTTERING: Yes that's correct. At that point when we made full decision that we would no longer have anything to do with the AWB, Aquillo also moved away from the AWB, that was after the time that the Wen Commandos and so forth were established, I was not involved with that.

MR MOSTERT: When you functioned as a member of The Order of Death did you still believe that your behaviour was under the orders of the AWB and the CP?

MR LOTTERING: At the end we did not act with the AWB because we had separated from them but we still acted under the orders of the AWB and The Order of Death.

MR MOSTERT: But these instructions which de Beer issued to you?

MR LOTTERING: He gave these orders under the authority under the AWB.

MR MOSTERT: How does the CP fit in with this?

MR LOTTERING: At a point Dawie de Beer held negotiations with an ex MP Treurnicht and during that time I don't know if they reached an agreement regarding the coup d'état or whatever, but the CP must definitely have assumed a leadership

position as soon as our military division had been finalised and the government was in such a state of chaos that the opposition could take over.

MR MOSTERT: Is that what Mr de Beer said to you?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: You were not at that meeting?

MR LOTTERING: No.

MR MOSTERT: Let us look at all three of the offences, the murder, the robbery and the escape. You have given the Committee the impression within which context you functioned and what your chief motive was - your motive with the murder -what was going through your head when you approached this? How did you think about it, please tell the Committee exactly what happened there?

MR LOTTERING: The decision making about who and what it would be was left up to me personally and I didn't want to simply just do anything, that is why I chose a Black taxi driver who transported white persons in his taxi. I basically chose him in order to protest against integration so that it would serve a dual purpose that I would not simply find someone on the street and kill him.

MR MOSTERT: Did you know this man?

MR LOTTERING: No. How it happened that it was specifically this man was that Goosen and myself were also both involved in the murder, he was my co-accused in this case. When we arrived at the taxi ranks in Johannesburg we took the back taxi so that front taxis could not see our faces and see who was climbing in with this particular taxi.

MR MOSTERT: And the purpose behind it, what did you want to achieve by murdering this person?

MR LOTTERING: Firstly I had to prepare myself emotionally to be a soldier in order to execute later tasks and it was also an order.

MR MOSTERT: That is the following issue - the order to which you are referring, who gave you the order?

MR LOTTERING: Dawie de Beer.

MR MOSTERT: Did he ever explain to you what his objective was with the order?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: Yes, he wasn't one hundred percent certain that I was a suitable person for that type of thing because normally I'm not a violent person.

MR MOSTERT: So what you are trying to tell the Committee then is that he basically wanted to test you in this exceptional manner?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: From this offence was their any personal gratification?

MR LOTTERING: No.

MR MOSTERT: And did you do this because you were angry with this specific taxi driver or because he was spiteful?

MR LOTTERING: No.

MR MOSTERT: The robbery - what was your motive behind the robbery?

MR LOTTERING: When the financial side of the matter was in trouble, seeing as they promised us...[intervention]

MR MOSTERT: Could you just stop there a moment. Who promised you financial backup?

MR LOTTERING: A project was launched in the AWB, the order of R1000, that a 1000 people would give a thousand rands and the million rands that would emanate from that would be applied for the establishment for underground movements and underground cells and this never realised.

MR MOSTERT: Very well, you can continue from where you paused.

MR LOTTERING: When we realised that nothing would be realised from this matter, he also gave me an order to commit a robbery in order to maintain ourselves.

MR MOSTERT: From the point that you resigned until you were arrested, how did you manage financially?

MR LOTTERING: I did odd jobs among others shortly before my arrest. I worked as a body guard for a person who had picked up problems with the black taxi movements, they had been threatening him with death. The person went to complain at members of our cell because he was experiencing these problems and they told me to serve that purpose. At that point we were waiting for weapons which were being repaired and which were being purchased.

MR MOSTERT: For how long were you without an income?

MR LOTTERING: I'm not certain, approximately for two or three months I was a body guard for this man but in the beginning of August I resigned from work at the Post Office and I was arrested in December.

MR MOSTERT: From this specific robbery, how much did you personally get?

MR LOTTERING: Approximately R900. But the robbery was also a trial run in order to see whether or not it would be possible to finance ourselves in that manner but the risks were simply too high and it wasn't worth it to carry out such actions.

MR MOSTERT: What did you do with the R900?

MR LOTTERING: We used it for petrol and ammunition which we needed at that point because we naturally had to do target shooting in order to keep our eyes in focus.

MR MOSTERT: You have testified regarding the objective, if you could just repeat for the sake of clarity what the objective was with this robbery specifically.

MR LOTTERING: We wanted to determine whether or not we could finance ourselves using that method.

MR MOSTERT: And did you regard this robbery as an act on order?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: And it was an order issued by Mr de Beer?

MR LOTTERING: Yes. The security police played a tape for me which was recorded at Dawie de Beer's house and that was when the orders were issued for us.

MR MOSTERT: What you must explain to the Committee on the basis of what you actually testified, was this done for personal gain or for with another objective in mind?

MR LOTTERING: No, if this had been for personal gain I would never have resigned from the Post Office. I had a good job.

MR MOSTERT: Were you spiteful or malicious regarding this murder when you executed or planned it?

MR LOTTERING: No. We weren't furnished with any details regarding precisely what type of robbery we should commit it was left to ourselves personally and I took it upon myself to choose such a target and a time at which there was the least possibility that the public would be involved. We committed the robbery at approximately eight o'clock in the morning.

MR MOSTERT: The murder, who was involved with you in that?

MR LOTTERING: Fanie Goosen.

MR MOSTERT: And with the robbery?

MR LOTTERING: Also Fanie Goosen and a third person who I knew only as Bruce, he was one of Fanie Goosen's friends - at that point he had joined our cell.

MR MOSTERT: The escape - who all escaped?

MR LOTTERING: Fanie Goosen and me.

MR MOSTERT: He was with you?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: Let's look at the escape. What was your personal motive.

MR LOTTERING: Well the struggle was continuing on the outside and I couldn't stay in jail if there was an opportunity for me to get out and participate in the struggle.

MR MOSTERT: Were there any specific instructions for you to escape?

MR LOTTERING: Just general instructions that I should look around and watch out to see if there was the opportunity for me to get out I should take it.

MR MOSTERT: After your escape did you make any further contribution to the struggle as you saw it?

MR LOTTERING: I planted two bombs for which I've already received exemption.

MR MOSTERT: I would like to refer you to the application form , that is page 2, if you will just look at item 10(b) the question is stated: "Your motivation for the deeds and offences?" and your answer is that "the murder on the person was simply an initiation with the objective to eliminating Black leaders later." What was your plan with the Black leaders which you have mentioned here? Just for greater clarity?

MR LOTTERING: We would have concentrated on the NP leaders initially but at a later stage we decided that the ANC leaders had more power at that point than the CP.

MR MOSTERT: Did you have any specific targets in mind, did you have any specific instructions with regard to Black political leaders?

MR LOTTERING: No at that point there were not specific orders, we were waiting for the correct weapons to come through.

MR MOSTERT: How long after the murder and the robbery were you arrested?

MR LOTTERING: I don't know. What was the last date regarding the deeds?

MR MOSTERT: The 19th September 1989 was the date of the robbery and the murder was the 29th August.

MR LOTTERING: I was arrested in December.

MR MOSTERT: Very well, from the date that you committed the murder until you were arrested, did you have any further liaison with Mr de Beer?

MR LOTTERING: Only indirectly.

MR MOSTERT: At that stage did you receive any further instructions from him with regard to any specific targets?

MR LOTTERING: No every time that we queried about targets and instructions we were sent a message to wait.

MR MOSTERT: In which way did you communicate with him?

MR LOTTERING: Through Mr Binneman who was also arrested with me in terms of Section 29.

MR MOSTERT: I have studied your report with you, page 5, regarding the Crime and Intelligence Service. They wrote a report regarding you actions. Did you co-operate with these persons at any point?

MR LOTTERING: No, I was being held under terms of Section 29 and I tried to resist them in any possible way.

MR MOSTERT: For how long were you detained?

MR LOTTERING: For two months.

MR MOSTERT: Was this specifically after the murder and robbery that you were detained under Section 29?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: At which point did you escape, was it after

detention?

MR LOTTERING: Yes after the detention for approximately a month or six weeks I was held in Diepkloof for awaiting trial and I escaped during that period.

MR MOSTERT: At that point who was your legal counsel while you were awaiting trial, who was your legal representation?

MR LOTTERING: It was a State Advocate, I cannot recall who he was.

MR MOSTERT: Were any applications made for bail at that point?

MR LOTTERING: No.

MR MOSTERT: Did he defend you throughout this entire matter?

MR LOTTERING: I only appeared on the day when I was charged. When I came out under Section 29 I said that I didn't have any money for an advocate and they said that they would assign someone who would defend me but before my escape I had not seen him yet.

MR MOSTERT: And after the escape who acted for you then as legal representation?

MR LOTTERING: Directly after my escape, I'm not certain, but I think it was the same State Advocate and three CP MP's came to us and offered to represent us at no charge. It was Advocate Prinsloo, Advocate Fanie Jacobs and I can't recall the third advocate's name but nonetheless the advocate was involved with the TRC - Chris de Jager is his name.

MR MOSTERT: How did they reach you, did they tell you?

MR LOTTERING: Apparently Mr Treurnicht sent them to us.

MR MOSTERT: When you refer to "we" is that you and Fanie Goosen?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: Did they represent you throughout?

MR LOTTERING: No, they represented us initially until we realised that there wasn't enough evidence to find Fanie guilty in the court case and they weren't certain that Fanie was actually involved with the murder because all the evidence pointed only at me - and Fanie - and I told them that I was involved alone in the action in order to protect him and the police caught him out so that he would say that he was involved and later he went back and said that he wasn't involved. I never made any statement in order to make him appear guilty or to indicate his involvement and they were doubtful as to his involvement and he had to change his plea and because he was changing his plea they could no longer represent us.

CHAIRPERSON: So you say, Mr Lottering, that Mr Treurnicht sent his advocates to you?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you referring to Mr Andries Treurnicht one of the founders of the Conservative Party, the former Cabinet Minister?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I said Mr - I think it was Dr Treurnicht.

MR MOSTERT: Chairperson, I would like to refer you to page 13 of the documents and that refers to a confession taken by a Magistrate Botha. One is a newspaper report which contains certain information which directly relates to information contained in the confession. Mr Lottering, you must please explain to the Committee very carefully what happened here. On 4th January, before Magistrate Botha in Johannesburg, you made a confession relating to the offences committed in which you stated that you admitted everything, everything which you had done and you said in respect of the murder and the other offences which you committed, said that it was done with political objective and you motivated that statement. But then you also said, relating to the robbery of the liquor store, you said it was the only illegal act, page 59 on top of the page: "It was the only illegal act which I committed for personal gain. I later obtained work as a body guard in Johannesburg and I was still employed there." Further on you said "under no circumstances was I prepared to talk about my previous acts because I saw what had happened to some of my trusted friends, I decided to say everything that I knew to expedite the matter. I only have remorse regarding to the robbery which I committed because that I committed for personal gain but I don't doubt that my political acts were done for the furtherance of my volk. I would appreciate it if my political acts were separated from the others so that my innocent friends not suffer as a result of my act and be treated on the same footing as me." Now here you've stated, unequivocally, that the robbery you committed as a purely criminal act for personal benefit?

MR LOTTERING: The statement was made whilst I was under Section 29 detention and that stage, before the statement was made, I was the only one of our group who refused to make any statements. The security police, Hennie Binneman, who was also arrested with us - they brought Hennie Binneman to me and asked me - actually commanded me - to make a statement and they wanted to charge our group jointly for all these offences and there were problems in that regard because he was in another cell, he wasn't in the same cell as I was and there were certain things which we did separately which he had no knowledge of and I was asked to make my statement in such a way that I could exculpate him completely and also that I could also exculpate those against whom there was no evidence.

MR MOSTERT: If you refer to a cell are you referring to a cell within Die Order Boerevolk?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: Die Order van die Dood?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: So what he asked you, was that you had to take the punch on behalf of the others for their sakes?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: Is that the exclusive reason why you made a statement to the effect that you regard it as a criminal act?

MR LOTTERING: Yes and he also heard about the robbery. He had never before heard about the robbery and he told me that I should say that that was exclusively criminally motivated and that is why I made that statement.

MR MOSTERT: Did you regard that as an order from Mr Binneman?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: In what position of authority was he versus of yourself?

MR LOTTERING: He was in a position of trust, he was a leadership figure and the orders were channelled from Mr de Beer via Mr Binneman.

MR MOSTERT: What was your position?

MR LOTTERING: I was just an ordinary troupe.

MR MOSTERT: You had no position of authority?

MR LOTTERING: No, I functioned to some extent as a secretary but that was actually just to store information which we thought we might need later on.

MR MOSTERT: I refer the honourable members to page 56. Here where you said, bottom of the page, "it was totally non-political and I would appreciate it if it was treated on that footing." What was the purpose of putting it like that, was it your purpose to mislead?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: Who did you want to mislead?

MR LOTTERING: The security police.

CHAIRPERSON: If that was the case Mr Lottering, why didn't you mislead them with regard to the murder, why didn't you say the murder was entirely personal or why admit the murder was political and the robbery personal, why not just say they were both personal if the order was to keep your comrades away from it as far as possible.

MR LOTTERING: That's how the instruction was relayed to me, I didn't ask any questions. I also mislead them in another context as far as the murder was concerned because I said it was done on my own initiative to take out left wing leaders, political leaders, I said that it was my own idea. I don't know exactly where that is stated.

ADV BOSMAN: May I interrupt here, what I have some difficulty here with Mr Lottering is this, were their any ranks in The Order of Death?

MR LOTTERING: No we had no ranks. The cells had virtually no contact with each other. Mr Binneman was from another cell in Johannesburg. It was only later that we had some contact with him. I knew that there were other cells in other towns but I never had contact with them.

ADV BOSMAN: But how did you identify the people who were leaders or who could give orders?

MR LOTTERING: All the orders came via Dawie de Beer and

when we moved underground and we couldn't have free access and contact with him then the orders started coming through Hennie Binneman.

ADV BOSMAN: And you simply accepted he had the necessary authority to give orders?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR MOSTERT: Mr Lottering, in you confession, you also said the following - that you had a 9 mm. weapon, page 54 at the bottom. Relating to the murder you said "I got a 9 mm. pistol, I pulled it out and I fired one shot in the direction of his body when he was three to four paces away from me, I aimed for the middle section of his body. The black man fell but just to make very sure I walked towards him and fired a shot into his head." If I remember correctly from the documents it seems that that was not the true position because in the explanation of plea included in the documents on page 29, accused no. 1 Fanie Goosen admits that he shot the deceased in the abdomen with a pistol. Please explain that to us.

MR LOTTERING: He was involved with me in this murder and he also fired that shot but under my Section 29 statement, in that statement I tried to make misrepresentations to try to exculpate them.

MR MOSTERT: So the exclusive purpose was to try and get Fanie Goosen out of trouble?

MR LOTTERING: When I testified in court I also said that, when I said in my personal evidence that I was involved by myself in the murder and I never pointed him out as having been involved with me in the murder.

MR MOSTERT: Did Mr Goosen plead guilty on this charge?

MR LOTTERING: Yes he originally pleaded guilty but later changed his plea and pleaded not guilty.

MR MOSTERT: And what was the judgement?

MR LOTTERING: He was acquitted.

MR MOSTERT: On the charge of murder?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: Were there any charges of attempted murder?

MR LOTTERING: No.

MR MOSTERT: This section 115 plea explanation, was that handed in at the Supreme Court?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: Very well, in the judgement of your particular Judge in your case, he found that the murder, that is page 37 for the Committee, that the murder or that your motive for the murder was based on political and religious grounds but later he said specifically relating to charge number 6 which was the robbery and charge 9 the escaping from custody, he said that he could find no grounds there or that those were not politically inspired. In the light of that would you like to make any comments, make any submission?

MR LOTTERING: It was definitely politically motivated and this was all in the course and scope and orders which I carried out.

MR MOSTERT: This confession which you made before Magistrate Botha was that used as evidence in the court case?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: Did you also testify in that case?

MR LOTTERING: Yes. I testified and I told them the truth except as far as it related to Goosen who is also involved in the murder.

MR MOSTERT: Your evidence in court did you not refer to the fact that Goosen fired the first shot?

MR LOTTERING: No.

MR MOSTERT: Very well.

MR LOTTERING: Because at that stage the people whom we wanted to exculpate, De Beer and Binneman, they were already sort of acquitted and they weren't charged with these things with which I had been charged so I had partly achieved my purpose at that stage but then I also told this further story to try and keep Goosen out of trouble.

MR MOSTERT: Chairperson, I would like a couple of moments for an adjournment if it's convenient?

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a short adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Mr Mostert?

MR MOSTERT: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lottering if I can just remind you that you're still under your former oath?

CORNELIUS JOHANNES LOTTERING: (s.u.o.)

EXAMINATION BY MR MOSTERT: (cont)

Mr Lottering how long have you been in prison now?

MR LOTTERING: I was sentenced to seven years and I have already served more than seven years.

MR MOSTERT: The total sentence that you have to serve?

MR LOTTERING: After all the amnesties which I have already received, I have to do twelve and a half years full time.

MR MOSTERT: Can you tell the Committee what contact you had with the CP or how you imagined the contact to be?

MR LOTTERING: We sometimes received instructions from them via Dawie de Beer sometimes for instance at some point when we broke away from Terre'blanche, Terre'blanche later opposed the CP in the elections and Dawie de Beer then had contact with Dr Treurnicht and Dr Treurnicht knew beforehand that we would plant a bomb at Jani Allen's house to prevent the AWB and CP opposing each other in the elections. They wanted to divide up the right wing vote.

MR MOSTERT: How do you feel about violence?

MR LOTTERING: Personally, I feel that violence in any form makes a worse person of you than you are and it was quite a struggle for me to indoctrinate myself in that way that I could actually go over to violence. It isn't something which is normally part of my character.

MR MOSTERT: If it wasn't for your political involvement would you ever have committed any of these offences?

MR LOTTERING: No. As I've said, I was a technician in the post office in Telecommunications, these days it's Telkom. I had a good job and I also bought a house through the Post Office and I've lost all of that, my car everything.

MR MOSTERT: How do you feel after all these years about the losses suffered as a result of your actions?

MR LOTTERING: It was definitely not worth while.

MR MOSTERT: Are you sorry about it?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOSTERT: Thank you Chairperson, that is all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mostert. Mr Steenkamp do you have any questions to put to the witness?

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, just a few questions.

Mr Lottering, can I refer to page 2 of your Amnesty Application, paragraph 10(b). Could you please explain to me what you mean or what you meant by the murder on the person was just initiation?

MR LOTTERING: That's how I had to justify for myself later on - that's what I thought they intended at that stage.

MR STEENKAMP: Initiation for what purpose?

MR LOTTERING: For this Order of Death movement, the underground organisation.

MR STEENKAMP: Would it mean that in future you would have to kill people again?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Was that your instruction?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: To return to The Order of Death, what exactly was their political objective?

MR LOTTERING: To obtain a Volkstaat, that was their ultimate objective, there were several options as to how we would achieve that for instance by exercising a coup or simply by committing so much violence that our demands would be met.

MR STEENKAMP: How would you achieve that? By killing of black people or how was it supposed to have happened?

MR LOTTERING: We were supposed to attack leaders only, political leaders.

MR STEENKAMP: Now the deceased in this matter was according to your evidence not a leader of any kind, he was an innocent person.

MR LOTTERING: Yes at that stage I was not allowed to take out a leader because there were too many of us initially, we didn't want to actually reveal our hand before we were really ready for the struggle.

MR STEENKAMP: How many members of The Order of Death have?

MR LOTTERING: I'm not sure exactly.

MR STEENKAMP: Do you know of any other members?

MR LOTTERING: Afterwards I found out about other members but we never had any contact with each other, it's only in extreme cases that two cells would have contact.

MR STEENKAMP: How many people in your cell?

MR LOTTERING: Two and later a third person joined.

MR STEENKAMP: If you had to give an estimate, how big was this organisation?

MR LOTTERING: I don't know, my force number was 31, I don't know how many were before me and how many after me.

MR STEENKAMP: You say that your purpose was to kill black political leaders and in your evidence you also said that you also planned leaders of the National Party. Is that correct?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Could you explain to me how that would have contributed to the achieving the aims and political objectives of The Order of Death, the killing of leaders of the National Party or the governing party as well as the ANC members?

MR LOTTERING: I grew up with the perception that for instance the ANC, if they committed lot's of violence, the government yielded to their demands and that if you were not prepared to commit violence then they simply ignored you.

MR STEENKAMP: The actual question is, how would the killing of a national leader, National Party or ANC leader, how would that achieve you objective in obtaining a Volkstaat?

MR LOTTERING: Well we would have placed them under political pressure to yield to our demands.

MR STEENKAMP: Did you consider any other options or was that the only option?

MR LOTTERING: I don't think there were any other options available at the time. As I've already said, my peoples ideals and striving for a Volkstaat, being suffocated and suppressed, it's only now in the '94 elections that some measure of consideration was given to an idea of a Volkstaat and how it was to be implemented but before that it was simply ignored and the National Party gave it no attention whatsoever.

MR STEENKAMP: Am I correct in saying that nobody supported you except for the members of The Order of Death itself, you didn't act of behalf of any other group?

MR LOTTERING: Yes we did.

MR STEENKAMP: Who were they?

MR LOTTERING: I said that our initiative was originally an AWB initiative from Terre'blanche and the CP were definitely involved as well, or that was the information conveyed to me.

MR STEENKAMP: What I don't understand is the fact that you've made this confession and there you say, or you say that this confession was incorrect?

MR LOTTERING: The Section 29 statement was to mislead as much as possible and to protect as many of my comrades as possible.

MR STEENKAMP: And the statement in your plea of guilty in court what about that?

MR LOTTERING: I am guilty.

MR STEENKAMP: Yes but is it the truth that what you said there?

MR LOTTERING: Yes except where I still tried to protect this Fanie Goosen person who was my co-accused. I was trying to help him to be acquitted in court.

MR STEENKAMP: In other words you didn't tell the full truth there?

MR LOTTERING: If you can look at the start of the court record the statement is made that we accept responsibility for certain acts and it is spelt out there that Fanie Goosen was involved in the murder. When we later realised there was a possibility that he would be acquitted I helped him to go free.

MR STEENKAMP: Am I understanding you correctly - the confession was a lie and your statement in court was also half truth?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: If you lied in your confession and to a certain extent lied to the court when you pleaded guilty, can I ask you why must we believe you today?

MR LOTTERING: Well I did it to protect my comrades and to let them go free because it was part of my duty to try to get as many of my comrades as possible to be acquitted, part of the struggle.

MR STEENKAMP: The point which I'm trying to make is - if you look at your Amnesty Application - it's interesting that you don't mention these people, you don't mention Goosen, you don't mention this Binneman person, are you - please give me a chance to finish - isn't it so that you, in your Amnesty Application, you're trying to protect these people once again? That's the impression I'm getting.

MR LOTTERING: I didn't mention their names, then I would have protected them but I am mentioning their names, I'm not protecting them any more.

MR STEENKAMP: No but I'm referring to your Amnesty Application itself, the written application form. Unless I'm mistaken, you nowhere refer to Goosen in your Amnesty Application?

MR LOTTERING: What I understood in terms of an Amnesty Application was that I had to ask for amnesty for the things which I did. It's only here that I'm obliged to actually mention names and who was involved in the finer details.

MR STEENKAMP: But would you agree that the impression that has been created or the impression that I'm getting is that by means of your Amnesty Application you're once again trying to protect certain people who were involved in these crimes?

MR LOTTERING: No, I'm not protecting anybody today.

MR STEENKAMP: What I also want to ask you is something which I find interesting - I'm a little a bit in the dark on one point. You were involved in four or five organisations, am I correct?

MR LOTTERING: Yes - or no. Yes you wanted to say?

MR STEENKAMP: Could you tell me, who did you regard as the leader who gave you your orders?

MR LOTTERING: Dawie de Beer.

MR STEENKAMP: What status did he have?

MR LOTTERING: He was the leader.

MR STEENKAMP: Of what?

MR LOTTERING: The Order of Death.

MR STEENKAMP: Did you know that?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Did you know him beforehand?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: How did you know him?

MR LOTTERING: I met him in the AWB. He was the administrative head of Aquillo.

MR STEENKAMP: In you confession you said and also in your Amnesty Application you said that you did not benefit from the robbery personally but today you say you did get money, R900?

MR LOTTERING: Well we used it for our expenses. If I wanted to make money, I would have committed many more robberies, I definitely wouldn't have resigned my job if money was my motivating factor.

MR STEENKAMP: Just to refresh your memory I would like to refer to page 3 paragraph (d) of your Amnesty Application. Please have a look at that. You say there "the robbery was to be committed to boost our organisation's finances."

MR LOTTERING: Well that is what it amounted to basically it's just a way to put it more officially.

MR STEENKAMP: The point I'm trying to make is, that you would agree with me, that that differs radically from what you said in your confession and also what you said to the court.

MR LOTTERING: What I said in my Section 29 statement it does differ from that radically, definitely.

MR STEENKAMP: The question is, that fact doesn't protect anybody, what you said in your confession, that does not protect anybody - why does that differ so radically from what you said today?

MR LOTTERING: What they wanted to do with Section 29 was in respect of the five of us who were all arrested together - they wanted to charge us jointly for all the things for which I'm now serving a sentence and then they came to me and said Binneman, specifically said, that we should not allow them to do it in this way and that the only way to prevent that happening so that we - and to minimise the number of people that were going to be convicted, was to just twist my statement in that way, to exculpate them.

MR STEENKAMP: Is that why you told that lie in your application?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: In your application - in the statement in the Section 29 statement that you made - in your evidence in chief you said in answer to a question by the Chairperson that you wanted to see if you could finance yourselves, is that correct?

MR LOTTERING: Yes because every cell, when the financial affairs were not going according to plan, they told us to finance ourselves so that we could continue in that way.

MR STEENKAMP: And did anybody tell you to go and commit a robbery?

MR LOTTERING: Yes, Dawie de Beer.

MS GCABASHE: Can I just ask at this point? If you were robbing so as to collect money for the organisation what were you living on.

MR LOTTERING: There were certain of these individuals who belonged to the cells who supported us. Other cells did not all resign but it's only us who lived in Vereeniging, myself and Fanie Goosen and then the third person who was added. We acted as representatives of the organisation because we were more prepared to do more than the others.

MS GCABASHE: So what allowance did you get. How did you sustain yourself?

MR LOTTERING: As I have already said we also did odd jobs. I was a bodyguard for another person for a short while, we also received funds from that. I sold small items in order to support myself until we had managed to establish ourselves.

MR STEENKAMP: With the plea of guilty you had ample opportunity to explain to the court how the political motive was involved and the court made certain remarks regarding that but nowhere in the documents at our disposal at any stage unless in an Amnesty Application did you say that the money was used to finance the organisation, would you agree?

MR LOTTERING: During the court trial I pertinently brought that out.

MR STEENKAMP: That the money from the robbery was used for the financing of the organisation?

MR LOTTERING: Yes and I told them exactly what had happened and I accepted that the court already had this information which came from my testimony in court at that time.

MR STEENKAMP: I cannot see this in the plea.

MR LOTTERING: It is so that my testimony from that time in court is not included but I assumed that you had this information available.

MR STEENKAMP: If you will look at page 7, Mr Chairman, it's marked page 7, basically the statement of the then security police. It's a handwritten copy from minutes, Mr Chairman, page 7. On the top there "Vertroulik/Confidential". If you'll just look at the last paragraph: "and that is why he has no remorse for his deeds and it is clear that the subject's deeds were criminally inspired and that his release would not achieve any reconciliation in the country." It is a commentary document compiled by the then security police.

MR LOTTERING: The security police tried to discredit me during the trial by means of their remarks and I believe it's definitely as a result of our immunity under Section 29 between me and them which then occurred. The part about the mud races I definitely said.

MR STEENKAMP: But the police were convinced that you were criminal.

MR LOTTERING: Then why did they arrest me under Section 29 -they should beyond any reasonable doubt be able to prove that I am a threat to state security before they arrest me under the terms of Section 29.

MR STEENKAMP: Do I understand you correctly that this piece was inserted because you had problems with them?

MR LOTTERING: Yes when I was under Section 29 I did everything in my power to oppose them and I believe it's a continuation thereof.

MR STEENKAMP: Just to bear with me a minute, Mr Chairman? The question that I would like to pose to you is that the killing of an innocent party in this case a black person, could you tell me how this would have promoted the political objectives or intentions of any party at that stage the CP or the AWB - are you telling me that was the AWB's political objective at that point? To kill black people in order to obtain a Volkstaat, is that what you're saying?

MR LOTTERING: Yes. You must remember that it was in the spirit of - at that stage there was a lot of violence happening in the country and basically it was regarded as a war situation.

MR STEENKAMP: I think that you are misunderstanding my question, I will pose it to you again, could you tell me whether it was the AWB's political objective among others to kill black people?

MR LOTTERING: Yes, I know of many cases apart from my own where the AWB leadership issued orders to commit murder.

MR STEENKAMP: To kill black people?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Can you name any examples?

MR LOTTERING: There were many people - do you remember the case of the road block near Ventersdorp where black people were shot? With that roadblock there's one person who is in jail at the moment who I was involved with at one point and he told me that that had been one of his orders.

MR STEENKAMP: And the CP? What do you think was their political objective? Did you understand their orders in that way?

MR LOTTERING: I never liaised with the CP leadership personally but the feedback which I received from De Beer was definitely that that was the case.

MR STEENKAMP: Did De Beer ever tell you that the AWB leadership had said that you should kill this person as part of your initiation process, this black person?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Why wouldn't you give this information in court or in your confession?

MR LOTTERING: I gave this information in court when I was convicted.

MR STEENKAMP: I don't see it in the record.

MR LOTTERING: Well there are a number of things which I see that are not here.

MR STEENKAMP: Is there anything else which you said in court?

MR LOTTERING: I don't know - it was so many years ago that you would have to ask me pertinently in order for me to be able to answer you.

MR STEENKAMP: My question to you in conclusion, is that if I look at what you pointed out, the officer wrote down twice that the person laughed twice regarding the identification of who was killed and stabbed with a knife. It was indicated that you showed no remorse. How do you feel today?

MR LOTTERING: Might I just explain the laughing issue to you. At that point in time it was not my manner to talk about violence in front of women and the person who took me for the identification was a woman and I was uncomfortable and that is why I gave such strange funny answers to her at certain points because I do not like to discuss violence with women.

MR STEENKAMP: Then perhaps the last question which I would like to ask - if you will look at page 56 of your record. The last paragraph, you state there that your actions were not political by nature and later you also said that you would like for your criminal actions and your political actions to be separated, is that so?

MR LOTTERING: Yes, I stated that statement exactly in terms of the order coming through to me to make the statement like that because it was a Section 29 statement.

MR STEENKAMP: Were you told to make the statement like that?

MR LOTTERING: Yes, what happened was that I refused to make any statements in terms of Section 29 and then the security police brought in Binneman to me and he then told me about his wife and children who didn't have any food on the outside and other men and their wives who were suffering because they were being held under Section 29 and at that point we had already been under Section 29 for a month and he then asked me to make a statement and he also showed certain things to me in terms of making the statement in such and such a way. I believe that that discussion between me and him is definitely on tape somewhere in the security police, I'm sure that it must be available somewhere.

MR STEENKAMP: What you are saying now in terms of being told what to say in your statement, unless I understood you incorrectly, you never disclosed to the Committee - it doesn't appear anywhere in your amnesty application. Don't you think that it would have been important to bring this fact to the attention of the Committee?

MR MOSTERT: If I might just intervene here, I would like to state it pertinently that I asked the applicant about it and he said that he had received his instructions from Hennie Binneman to protect the others and that is why he made the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you're free to ask questions about the circumstances of Minister Binneman's statement if you wish.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman. A final statement that I want to put to you is that today you've had the opportunity and also when you completed your Amnesty Application, you had the opportunity to play open cards with the Committee, is that so?

MR LOTTERING: I did.

MR STEENKAMP: And the fact that certain information is not contained within your Amnesty Application, what is the reason for that?

MR LOTTERING: I've conveyed all the information today which is at my disposal.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moloi do you have any questions you'd like to ask the witness?

MR MOLOI: Thank you Mr Chairman, just briefly.

Mr Lottering, did you draw any distinction between the politics and racism at the time?

MR LOTTERING: No, politics was my objective. In the South African context it was coincidental that the black people and white people were struggling with each other for years. If it was the English who were threatening the freedom of my people I would have acted in exactly the same way towards them and fought against them.

MR MOLOI: Besides now your desire to have a Volkstaat was there any other motivation upon which you acted?

MR LOTTERING: No.

MR MOLOI: In which respects does the confession you made to the Magistrate differ from the actuality about which you're testifying today? Which aspects of the confession are incorrect in other words?

MR LOTTERING: I went through the entire document along with my attorney and we tried in as much as possible to highlight the facts which were incorrect.

MR MOLOI: Yes, can you highlight those aspects which are not correct?

MR LOTTERING: It would be problematic to go through the entire statement again.

MS GCABASHE: I actually want to ask him questions on that that might assist him, so we'll hear the answers from him if that's okay with you. Let me assist you, we should go right to the beginning of that confession of yours, what you're calling the Section 29 hearing. You go through a whole religious background, the grounding of your beliefs, now just start there, you haven't said anything to us at all today about how religion influenced your thinking. You talk about the black people, white people, purity, your natural enemies, now is that correct, is that incorrect? Just to start off, you know, just to assist you in answering Mr Moloi's question.

MR LOTTERING: Regarding enmity between white people and black people, this is a reality throughout the world. My quest for a Volkstaat was the primary manner in which we could solve the struggle between white people and black people. If white people and black people are kept separately and can then contact each other naturally then it would work peacefully but as long as white and black are forced to integrate, their will be war and that is the reality all of the world, it has nothing to do with racism - it simply indicates upon the differences which are too much such there are differences between French people and English people and that they live in different countries.

MS GCABASHE: Now, you know I refer you specifically to page 50 of that confession, just to assist you because you haven't answered my question. You talk about line 6, "it is also stated that David blushed and the only nation" etc etc. You talk about white people can, black people can - kaffirs - actually are referred to here - "en 'n kaffir kan nie bloos nie". Then you go on to talk about the pure whites who came along with Jan van Riebeek. The simple question is, how much of this is still part of what you believe in, I mean how much of this is incorrect, how much of it is correct? What do you believe in here?

MR LOTTERING: The issue of religion as I have explained it here is approximately the same way that I feel today, that from the time of Adam and Eve there have been different racial groups on earth and these races have never managed to live peacefully with one another and that is a reality that we cannot lose sight of. Never in my life have I treated black people badly because they were black, the way that I became involved in politics was when my nation was being attacked chiefly by black people, by the ANC and so forth and I could not longer envisage a future for my nation if things continued in that way.

MS GCABASHE: Now if this process is part of a reconciliation process, the amnesty process is part of that grand process, why are you applying for amnesty?

MR LOTTERING: In order to go home. However, as a result of many electoral promises and agreements which are being achieved by the ANC with the Boerevolk, I can see that we have a much better chance at a peaceful existence as what we had underneath the NP government.

MR MOLOI: Thank you. Do I understand you correctly, your religious views have not changed till today.

MR LOTTERING: Not drastically.

MR MOLOI: Your political activism, was it mainly induced by your religious considerations?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOLOI: As a matter of fact you - that was the main objective, your religious beliefs - just a minute - so the political actions were just a vehicle to what's reaching your ultimate objective?

MR LOTTERING: No religion definitely played a part of it but at the end of the day or at that stage I could not envisage that my nation would survive in the political dispensation.

MR MOLOI: You engaged therefore in politics for an objective of saving your purist race?

MR LOTTERING: No it's about my nation's survival.

MR MOLOI: The robbery, you say you were ordered to commit robbery in order to raise funds for the organisation? Purely that?

MR LOTTERING: It was also to attempt at addressing our current expenses.

MR MOLOI: It had nothing with personal interest or personal financial commitments?

MR LOTTERING: No as I have said I would not have resigned from a good job in order to become a robber.

MR MOLOI: In the affidavit, in the confession rather, you made to the Magistrate, I refer to page 56. You refer - let me take a piece out of this confession, the second line from the top - "the following day me and two other persons committed an act because we were in financial dire straits but it held no political objectives or consequences. We were in great financial trouble and my bank manager as well as the bank where my car was on hire purchase gave me a deadline to solve my financial problems."

MR LOTTERING: That is the Hennie Binneman who came to me and told me to make such a type of statement and what happened was that he told me this on a Friday and I had all the time until Monday to think of a good story in order to give a bit more detail to it and I simply made up a whole lot of things in order to construct an acceptable story for the security police. What also happened was that at that stage we had already heard that the security police was looking for us and I would not have been worried about a car which would have been repossessed if I was running away from the security police.

MR MOLOI: Do I understand you correctly to mean that you are capable of making up a story and make it look real even if it's not?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOLOI: As regards to the content of the instruction to murder - what exactly did it contain, what was said to you about the murder?

MR LOTTERING: He specifically said that I should kill a black person in order to prepare myself for the struggle which we still had to wage, that was to take out political leaders and this person knew me enough to know that murder or violence was not a characteristic with me, it was not something I would easily do that is why he gave me that task as part of my initiation.

MR MOLOI: So at the end of the day you had to prove to whoever gave you the instruction that you have carried out the instruction didn't you?

MR LOTTERING: I had to tell him verbally, he would have believed me no matter what I had said. If I had said that I had done it then he would have believed me.

MS GCABASHE: So it is therefore correct to say that that instruction was just to enable you to prove yourself to the organisation, it had nothing to do with any political objective? Because the political objective was to get rid of NP cabinet ministers and ministers at that time?

MR LOTTERING: Yes but they couldn't trust me with the task of shooting a minister if I couldn't prove myself and I would not have committed such an act if it was not for the objective, the ultimate objective that we had. If anybody has said to me under other circumstances to shoot someone, I would have laughed at him but in terms of the significance of the background, it was definitely political.

MR MOLOI: Did I understand you correctly to say even the word of mouth would suffice that you had carried out the murder as instructed?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOLOI: Why did you kill?

MR LOTTERING: We didn't have any other option at that point, we didn't believe that there was any other option for the survival of our nation.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the question was if all you had to satisfy Mr de Beer that you had carried out his instructions was to tell him that you had done so, why did you actually go and kill somebody, why not just go to him two weeks later and say well I've killed somebody here, I've now qualified?

MR LOTTERING: In terms of that framework, living in an underground movement, every person had to be able to trust everybody with his or her life and if I had just gone and told a number of stories it would have meant that I would be lying and I couldn't lie and said that I had done when in fact I hadn't done it because in the first place if I could not have committed that murder, it would later have surfaced where I would not only be placing myself in danger but everybody else around me.

MR MOLOI: So in the killing, actually your objective was to make yourself acceptable to the "order van die dood"?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MR MOLOI: That was the main objective? Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Gcabashe do you have any questions you would like to ask the witness?

MS GCABASHE: Yes, I do. When exactly did you act as a bodyguard to this unknown person you've referred to?

MR LOTTERING: Just before my arrest for approximately two to three months I'm not entirely sure of the time period.

MS GCABASHE: Was this before the murder or after the murder?

MR LOTTERING: After because at that point we were waiting for certain weapons to be conveyed to us.

MS GCABASHE: Now another little bit that's not too clear to me - you referred to a security police tape of a conversation between I think yourself and De Beer or it could possibly be Binneman, I actually have De Beer in my notes but the Judge has just said that also Binneman, which is correct. Which of the two, is it both are there two different tapes or one tape?

MR LOTTERING: Two different tapes, I had listened to a number of tapes from the security police under Section 29 which they had made in our home and I suspected that there was a tape with Binneman and that's just suspicion because it was practice to tape every conversation wherever possible in the security police.

MS GCABASHE: Now alright, now I'm really interested in the conversation between, that was taped between yourself and De Beer. There is such a tape do you think?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MS GCABASHE: What were you discussing?

MR LOTTERING: He gave us an order to commit murder, robbery when the financial side of the organisation was experiencing problems.

MS GCABASHE: Sorry, I'm not sure if it's murder, robbery or both. What was the order?

MR LOTTERING: That was with the robbery, I don't believe that there is a tape regarding the robbery because I've never heard of anything like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry let me, if I may just intervene, you say Mr Lottering, that there is a tape about the instructions given regarding the robbery. Do you know that there's a tape or do you think there's a tape?

MR LOTTERING: Yes I definitely listened to such tapes under Section 29 when we discussed the matter. Why they didn't use the tape I don't know, I only said later on for myself that there was an informer in our group, the third person who I mentioned, that came along with me and Goosen, he was a security police informer and they didn't want to expose him and that is the same person who committed the robbery with us at the bottle store.

MS GCABASHE: Now, again in my notes, another aspect I'm not too clear about - you talked about what you are going to do as an order was to kill NP leaders and ANC leaders - am I right, have I written this thing correctly?

MR LOTTERING: Yes, originally we would have focused on NP leaders but as I have mentioned the shift of emphasis went over to ANC leaders because at that point the CP had lost a great deal of support and we weren't certain that a coup d'état would have been executed, a political coup d'état.

MS GCABASHE: Now you talk of "we" what was your input in these discussions? You specifically?

MR LOTTERING: For instance certain instructions were received from above and then we had to go and look at the feasibility of those orders, could they be carried out for instance, whether it was a high risk operation or whether it was quite feasible to carry out and then I would have gone back to those people and I would have given them feedback.

MS GCABASHE: I am here specifically asking you to focus on the discussion on the ANC leaders, just as one example, the ANC leaders, you said "we" discussed this and decided we should shift a little and also deal with ANC leaders?

MR LOTTERING: Possibly I used the term "we" simply because such a lot of time has elapsed since that time until now therefore I stand to be corrected when I say "we". A lot of things that were told to me as an instruction at the time or over time it actually becomes vague and then you forget how it actually was conveyed to you etc. You must remember these were discussions which took place eight to ten years ago and to now recall specific details and what my input was, it's too long ago for me to remember that.

MS GCABASHE: Are you able to recall which particular ANC leaders who happened to be discussing on that day?

MR LOTTERING: No, no names were mentioned at that stage.

MS GCABASHE: ...[inaudible] at that time it was before Nelson Mandela was released so you really weren't talking ANC leaders you're talking the UDF people?

MR LOTTERING: To tell you the truth the word left wing leaders, that was mentioned, we never actually discussed in much more detail.

MS GCABASHE: And again, just focusing on this particular discussion, who was there? You were there as part of the cell, De Beer - I'm not so sure he was there as the person who gave the instructions, yes?

MR LOTTERING: No, at that stage I think it was only De Beer and myself who had this discussion. You must remember when I became involved in the underground cell I spent a lot of time in De Beer's house, he also lived in Vereeniging and we had a lot of discussions.

MS GCABASHE: What was De Beer's reaction when you told that you had killed a person?

MR LOTTERING: He said well I'm glad.

MS GCABASHE: He didn't ask for any verification for what you had done?

MR LOTTERING: No he trusted me enough to know that I was telling the truth.

MS GCABASHE: Now focusing on that specific killing again - your objective was to prove to yourself and your organisation that you could kill a person, yes?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

MS GCABASHE: You had a knife and you had a firearm. Is there any particular reason why you used your knife first to stab your victim in the back and then up the throat so that you could reach the brain if possible as opposed to taking your firearm, shooting him, which I presume is what you would do if you were trying eliminate a cabinet minister?

MR LOTTERING: I tried to go to a quiet place where the firearm would not be heard and I couldn't actually find a place that suited my needs so I stopped at this place where we left this person and I stabbed him with a knife to try and kill him as quietly as possible - but when I saw that that was not going to work, I immediately abandoned the knife and then I told Goosen who was with me to shoot him.

MS GCABASHE: And then very briefly on Goosen, having mentioned Goosen just now, am I correct in understanding you that you in fact assisted Goosen in getting an acquittal on the murder charge because you were dishonest?

MR LOTTERING: Yes. You see if I'd made statements at that stage to implicate Goosen and he should go to prison then myself and the people with me would have regarded that as treason, it would have been seen as implicating him an actually doing the work of the security police because there was a general perception, or not a perception but a general standing rule that if you can help your comrades to go free then it's your duty, it's not only a requirement, it's actually your duty but at this late stage I see absolutely no reasons to protect him any longer.

MS GCABASHE: Yes, you see the difficulty that one has however is as pointed out by Mr Steenkamp that you took the oath when you made that Section 29 confession, you took the oath when you gave evidence in court and you swore to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. This morning you took the oath and because we are looking to having full disclosure made, ones difficulty is, how much of the truth are we getting and are we in fact getting full disclosure here? But more the truth of what really happened.

MR LOTTERING: You must remember, at the stage when I made those statements, we were still regarding ourselves in a state of war and if you look at the violence which was still happening at that stage in the country, there was actually a war in progress so in those circumstances you can't actually commit yourself by speaking the whole truth towards a government that you in any event trying to overthrow. But the war has now become a thing of the past so there's now nothing to keep me back from speaking the truth.

MS GCABASHE: No further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman would you have any questions?

ADV. BOSMAN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Lottering, this morning in your evidence you said that there was no specific motive why you looked to Mr Makgalamele as a victim.

MR LOTTERING: No the instruction was that I could choose anybody as a victim.

ADV. BOSMAN: Yes, I just want to take it a little bit further - you said that "we simply took the taxi right at the back" and afterwards you said "I wasn't angry" but if I can refer you to page 14 of the document, you are there quoted in the second paragraph as having said that you were aggrieved because white girls drove around in black taxis, is that a bit of a contradiction?

MR LOTTERING: Yes that was part of the misleading which I was endeavouring to do in terms of Section 29. I would never have seen this person driving around with white girls in his car because I had never seen him before in my life.

ADV. BOSMAN: Well can you then explain to us why you went about this sort of misleading, what were you actually trying to achieve?

MR LOTTERING: The whole statement was made in such a way that I was trying to prove that I did everything on my own initiative without any orders from above.

ADV. BOSMAN: Something else which is a bit confusing is this - you say that you had to prepare yourself to become a soldier, maybe I'm making a glib assumption, but don't you have military training?

MR LOTTERING: No, I was in the Post Office.

ADV. BOSMAN: Did that give you an indemnity from the Defence Force?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

ADV. BOSMAN: And you were a member of Aquillo, you were a member of the military wing of the AWB?

MR LOTTERING: Yes.

ADV. BOSMAN: Now, does that not contain a military training component?

MR LOTTERING: No, the AWB training was of very low standard and it was more sort of VIP protection training rather than anything else, that's the formal training which we received in the AWB and that is the purpose of actually establishing underground cells.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] Mr Lottering, in your statement, your confession that was made on the 4th January which you have referred to as your Section 29 statement, you set out a political background, your political background, your placing of the bomb at Jani Allen's place, your disillusionment with Eugene Terre'blanche because of his his association with Ms Allen and you link in that statement the murder to this political background of yours and your political beliefs is that not so? But yet in that statement you don't say that you received an order to go and kill a man to prove to yourself and to your leader that you are capable of killing. In fact if I refer you to page 53 of the papers, you say the following: "I prepared myself to prepare these acts in various ways, however there was one thing which bothered me -I was not a hundred percent sure whether I would be able to carry out my task. It would have been fatal to get cold feet if I for instance had a leadership figure in my sights, therefore I believed that with the killing of my natural enemy who is a non-white, I could therefore, by doing that, decide that issue for myself and that would then satisfy me that I had the courage and the determination to continue with my proposed scheme." ...[inaudible] saying there in that extract which I've read, it seems to be more of a subjective decision, that you were worried within yourself that you couldn't carry out the order and you might get cold feet immediately before, well, killing a leader and no mentions made of receiving an order. Why did you not, even without mentioning De Beer's name, say that the killing was on orders?

MR LOTTERING: We, five of us, were all being detained under Section 29...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Could we just have cell phones cut down to a

minimum please or to an absolute..thanks.

MR LOTTERING: At that stage I received the order that I should make the statement in that particular way to exonerate those other people. It was the security police's objective to charge us, the five of us, as a group jointly for this incident such as for instance that happened in the case of Clive Derby-Lewis, he was also convicted. It was that kind of thing which I was supposed to prevent by making this statement and that is why I actually sucked these long stories out of my thumb. But for instance this reference to cold feet, when I received the order, it was basically the idiom that was being used to say that I should actually prepare myself in that way that they will not accept me getting cold feet at a crucial point. It was half truth and half lies, I actually concocted the whole story like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mostert, do you have any questions arising out of questions that have been put by Mr Steenkamp and members of the panel?

MR MOSTERT: No questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you Mr Lottering.

MR MOSTERT: Chairperson, we would like to call on behalf of the applicant the following people: Mr Barend Strijdom.

BAREND STRIJDOM (sworn states)

MR MOSTERT: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Strijdom, do you know the applicant, Mr Lottering?

MR STRIJDOM: Yes, I've known Corrie for quite some time. Before I was arrested we were both members of the AWB for quite a few years. We visited my parent's home on a couple of occasions and we also went to certain functions, meetings etc. of the AWB and other occasions.

MR MOSTERT: So you can confirm to the Committee that he was a member of the AWB and that he fought for the cause of a Volk?

MR STRIJDOM: That's correct. We also had many discussions regarding why we were members of the AWB, I think it's important perhaps to state that. Why we became members of the AWB at that particular time although we were still quite young, many things happened in this country's history and the purpose of the AWB was to try and stabilise or correct the situation as we saw it. Our objective was to achieve a Volkstaat and I think we in the AWB tried everything to achieve that, we tried everything to try and achieve a Volkstaat.

MR MOSTERT: The way you know Mr Lottering, would you say that if it hadn't been for politics he would still have committed these acts of which he was convicted?

MR STRIJDOM: I must refer the Committee to the fact that these things happened before, or that I knew Mr Lottering before 15th November and that stage when I knew Mr Lottering, he was a relatively gentle person. He was involved in the AWB and was not involved in any of the acts which at that stage had been imputed to the AWB for instance the tarring and feathering of Mr Vloors van Jaarsveld because he showed contempt for the Day of the Vow etc.

MR MOSTERT: Mr Dawie de Beer, do you know him?

MR STRIJDOM: We were friends, yes. We lived in Vereeniging and we have come a long way together. He also came to visit me in prison a couple of times after I was arrested and locked up.

MR MOSTERT: Was he a member of the AWB?

MR STRIJDOM: Yes he was. He was also the Secretary of Aquillo and that could be regarded as the armed wing or the military wing of the AWB at that stage.

MR MOSTERT: Are you aware of the fact that Mr Lottering and Mr de Beer had contact with each other?

MR STRIJDOM: Mr Lottering and Mr de Beer definitely had contact at that time already.

MR MOSTERT: Did you know Mr Hennie Binneman?

MR STRIJDOM: I knew Mr Binneman, not as well as I knew Mr de Beer, but yes I knew him.

MR MOSTERT: Do you know whether he was a member of the AWB?

MR STRIJDOM: As far as I know yes.

MR MOSTERT: Thank you, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Steenkamp do you have any questions you would like to ask the witness?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, just two or three questions.

Mr Strijdom, do you know what the AWB's policy was?

MR STRIJDOM: Yes - I will try and put it very briefly - after the Anglo Boer War we as the Boer people lost our freedom after 26 000 women and children were killed in a brutal way by the English. After that there was a peace treaty...[intervention]

MR STEENKAMP: I beg your pardon, the question was do you know what the policy was?

MR STRIJDOM: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Now would the AWB ever have given an instruction as Mr Lottering testified by Mr de Beer, or otherwise, that black people should be killed?

MR STRIJDOM: Let me answer it in this way - I attended many, many AWB meetings where there were calls made to act, to make war. At the time of this specific act that Mr Lottering committed, I was already in prison and I think in the intervening years some things happened which had influenced the enthusiasm of the Volk and people were turning to acts of resistance more and more.

MR STEENKAMP: My question is this and perhaps you could just answer with a yes or no, did the AWB ever give any orders that black people should be killed by it's members? As far as you know, as Mr Lottering testified?

MR STRIJDOM: Yes there are AWB members who have said that.

MR STEENKAMP: Was it AWB policy?

MR STRIJDOM: Just as the ANC would never openly admit to such a policy, I think it could bring about a civil litigation for an organisation to admit that.

MR STEENKAMP: Did you know about the existence of "Die Order van die Dood"?

MR STRIJDOM: I knew about it yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Did you know who the chairperson was?

MR STRIJDOM: I didn't know everything about The Order of Death because I was in prison for part of the time but people tried to convey certain information to me and it must also be considered that the discussions in prison were taped so people couldn't actually give me all the facts, but yes, I knew he was in a controlling position in this organisation.

MR STEENKAMP: So you knew Mr Dawie de Beer, do you know what his position was in The Order of Death?

MR STRIJDOM: I knew he was a leader in this organisation with Mr Binneman, according to my information.

MR STEENKAMP: You say he was also a member or a leader of The Order of Death? The question I want to ask is this, how would you regard Mr Lottering's evidence where he said that the purpose was to not only to eliminate ANC leaders and National Party leaders, was that also the purpose and objective of the AWB?

MR STRIJDOM: I beg your pardon, could you repeat the question?

MR STEENKAMP: I'll repeat it. Was it the purpose, the political objective of the AWB to kill National Party leaders and ANC leaders at that stage? Are you aware of any such policies as Mr Lottering testified today?

MR STRIJDOM: I'll put it to you like this, I will accept from the AWB and perhaps we can even speak about it in broader terms, in a national context we had a special patriotic feeling which was closely interwoven, politics, religion was all closely interwoven and from this very specific situation it happens that one identifies a lot of enemies, in other words people who weren't with us were against us, that was the basic point of view. So seen from that perspective it's no surprise to me that that could have been the non-official policy of the movement such as the AWB.

MR STEENKAMP: So what you're trying to say, I think, is that Mr Makgalamele, a taxi driver, was also seen as an enemy of the Volk?

MR STRIJDOM: That's correct.

MR STEENKAMP: And according to AWB policy he had to be killed, that was what it amounted to in brief?

MR STRIJDOM: Yes.

MS GCABASHE: Chair, if I can just, just a quick follow-up on that? Mr Makgalamele was seen as an enemy of the Volk you say, what you've just said, is that what you said?

MR STRIJDOM: ...[inaudible]

MS GCABASHE: In that context. So any black person was therefore perceived as an enemy of the Volk because he was a nobody?

MR STRIJDOM: As I've said earlier, everybody who did not support our ideals was seen as enemies of the Volk, of the people. In the AWB what was important was promoting the cause of the Boerevolk and I don't think it was purely on a racial basis although that is also the case.

MS GCABASHE: If that is so can you distinguish for me a racially supremacist motivation in a killing like this as opposed to a political motivation in a killing such as this? Just from your own context and background.

MR STRIJDOM: From the way his name and surname is pronounced it's clear to me that this person is not a Boer and cannot be one and on that basis I think one should actually look at the situation.

MS GCABASHE: Sorry, I'm just asking you to distinguish between racism and a political act, you known in the context of what we're talking about today, the killing of Makgalamele. How would you distinguish that just from your own learnings and teachings because you say you were in the same organisation, you learned the same things, you know Mr Lottering, just to help me understand the difference between the two from your point of view.

MR STRIJDOM: One should also look at the situation in view of the fact that we grew up in South Africa during years when there was a great difference between Black and White, we went to White schools and what also happened was that we also didn't mix with English children at school. The Boer people were separate in their schools and the English speakers were separate in their schools and it was often used by party political leaders in those days that they used the racial basis.

MS GCABASHE: ...[inaudible] actually not related to racism at all. In your evidence you said that De Beer and applicant had contact, to your knowledge they had contact. How did you know this?

MR STRIJDOM: People who came to visit me like Mr de Beer, they came to visit me in prison and I can also go and check the visitors book in prison to prove that.

MS GCABASHE: ...[inaudible] heard about this, you didn't really observe anything, you weren't there when they had meetings? It's all hearsay?

MR STRIJDOM: I'm speaking specifically of this situation - before the time we talked about general matters regarding the AWB and the struggle of our Volk.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moloi, do you have any questions you would like to ask?

MR MOLOI: Thank you Mr Chairman, briefly.

Mr Strijdom, you don't know much about Die Order van die Dood, is that correct?

MR STRIJDOM: Yes, what I know about The Order of Death is what was conveyed to me while I was in prison.

MR MOLOI: ...[inaudible] about it. You say you and Mr Lottering whilst members of the AWB attended meetings together. Is that correct?

MR STRIJDOM: That's correct.

MR MOLOI: At these meetings you discussed what you say is the policy of the AWB namely to apply violence in order to achieve it's objectives?

MR STRIJDOM: I don't think that that was the only policy of the AWB but that was part of their policy.

MR MOLOI: ...[inaudible] violence was the method to be used in order to achieve it's objectives?

MR STRIJDOM: I think that the leader of the AWB, Mr Eugene Terre'blanche has been placed on record a number of times where he has said during public platforms.

MR MOLOI: When Mr Lottering broke away from the AWB according to his evidence, he then joined this other organisation "Order van die Dood"?

MR STRIJDOM: Yes.

MR MOLOI: Will you agree with me then that Order van die Dood as the name implies is even more radical than what the AWB preached as their policy? It's not only violence here it's also murder, killing.

MR STRIJDOM: I think it depends upon how one would view the situation. There are a great deal of splinter groups which emanated from the AWB and this was for various reasons but also as a result of another reason within the AWB where people received specific instructions within the AWB as what happened with The Order of Death later.

MR MOLOI: ...[inaudible] qualify anybody associating himself or herself with an organisation that preaches death to be a soft person, can you?

MR STRIJDOM: I think that one must also consider the broader South African context and some of the National Party's government officials and ex-military chiefs and cabinet ministers within the current government on the right side, I should think that one could say that.

MR MOLOI: ...[inaudible] the soft person as you want to portray Mr Lottering, to be a person that will associate himself with violence, attend meetings where violence and the killings are talked about and being an integral part of that body and execute the killings? The softness?

MR STRIJDOM: I think that all the things that we heard within the AWB, all the bomb explosions which occurred during that time period which were allegedly planted by the ANC or related organisations led to tempers flaring and people had to start doing something and I think that this quest and desire for freedom made a gentle person like Corrie Lottering commit such acts.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman, do you have any questions you would like to ask the witness?

ADV. BOSMAN: Mr Strijdom, you have mentioned the military wings specifically you used the word military, that is the military wing Aquillo, how do you understand the word military?

MR STRIJDOM: That at least depending upon whether it's peace time or war time, that among our ranks a war situation was spoken of and at that point, national service was in practice in South Africa which was of application to all White men of South Africa.

ADV. BOSMAN: Perhaps I could shorten it, do you mean military in terms of the soldiers wing of the AWB?

MR STRIJDOM: Yes.

ADV. BOSMAN: And the training, was there training for soldiers?

ADV. BOSMAN: There were various forms of training that were given at various times and there were also different sections of Aquillo and I think that depending upon who received which training, they differed ever so slightly from one another. It is as Mr Lottering testified that many or much of the training was about the protection of, or VIP's is the word that he used, very important persons.

ADV. BOSMAN: You were asked to make a distinction between racism and political objectives.

MR STRIJDOM: Pardon, that is as far as I know there was also a time period in which all of these things occurred that is when I was arrested and before the actions of Mr Lottering and the AWB's attitude could possibly have become more serious or have weakened but the National Party was making more and more concessions and that is why the AWB emerged more strongly in a military fashion.

ADV. BOSMAN: You were asked to distinguish between racism and political objectives, may I put it to you in this way, let us assume that Mr Makgalamele was a very strong supporter of Mr Mangope and we know that the AWB came to the assistance of Mr Mangope. Would he also have been regarded as an enemy of the Volk if you had known that Mr Makgalamele was a supporter of Mr Mangope and promoted the idea of separation of population groups, would you have said that he was an enemy of the Volk?

MR STRIJDOM: I will put it to you in the following way - one should also remember that it was indeed so that the AWB assisted Mr Mangope and in the given situation which is quite a difficult situation for me to expand upon because I don't have all the details.

ADV. BOSMAN: But we are just speaking on the basis of principle. Would you say that the - or let us assume that Mr Mandela would announce today that tomorrow you would be receiving your Volkstaat, would you regard him as an enemy of the Volk?

MR STRIJDOM: On this basis I would regard him as a sometime enemy or perhaps an opponent but perhaps in this given situation I think that because he isn't a member of the Boerevolk, I think we should move the emphasis to what is important for the Boerevolk and because he is not a member of the Boerevolk there could be some things regarding which one could have agreement with the ANC but that does not necessarily indicate a complete agreement with the ANC.

ADV. BOSMAN: Well aren't you indicating pure racism if you cannot establish a proper distinction? Isn't that purely racist?

MR STRIJDOM: I would not view it that way.

ADV. BOSMAN: Well I don't wish to take the point too far, but if Mr Makgalamele had been a supporter of Mr Mangope's government and he had been murdered and you had just come to hear of this, would you say that an enemy of the Volk had been murdered?

MR STRIJDOM: Conversely, one could look at it and think what did Mr Mangope do in order to support the cause of the Boerevolk in order to help us obtain the Boere Republiek and within that given situation, it is not only about Mr Mangope but for all other purposes - everybody who is not a member of the Volk in South Africa, it would then be so that the majority of the population is black in South Africa and therefore one would have the tendency to regard blacks as an enemy of the Volk and that would be racism.

ADV. BOSMAN: Well will you not concede that there was a measure of discrimination in the killing of Mr Makgalamele because nobody knew really who and what he was?

MR LOTTERING: I think that there might have been the situation that there was an aspect of propaganda to this issue as I understand these things about Mr de Beer, that acts were committed sometimes in order to indicate how serious they were.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions from arising from questions that have been put?

MR MOSTERT: No Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Strijdom.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mostert?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

ANDRE STEPHANUS KRIEL (sworn states)

MR MOSTERT: Chairperson, this is Andre Stephanus Kriel.

Mr Kriel do you know the applicant Mr Lottering?

MR KRIEL: Yes I do. I met him years ago while I was in the AWB.

MR MOSTERT: Were you a member of the AWB at any stage, registered and sworn in?

MR KRIEL: Yes for a number of the AWB, I had met Mr Terre'blanche in 1979. Shortly after the establishment of the AWB I became a member and later I obtained the rank of Brigadier and I was part of the top structure of the AWB.

MR MOSTERT: Was Mr Lottering a member of the AWB?

MR KRIEL: Yes he was a member and later he was selected to be a member of the Aquillos.

MR MOSTERT: I would like you to specifically inform the Committee regarding firstly the AWB policy.

MR KRIEL: For those of us here who did not live with the AWB for a number of years it would be difficult to understand exactly how things functioned there. I do not wish to take up too much of the Committee's time but I would just like to sketch a picture for you. Over the years there was a number of increasingly confusing statements made by the AWB. At one stage, Mr Terre'blanche would say "destroy all the blacks" and the next day he would say something completely different and we reached the stage in approximately 1988/89 when the Aquillos were established and I was a Commander of a region and we encouraged people to establish cells and to devolve from other organisations because we had security problems in the AWB. Pardon me for speaking too long but I must indicate that the Commanders of that time saw the ANC as a complete enemy, it was the order of the day within the AWB that the ANC was regarded as an enemy and we all had consensus with one another that the ANC members should be killed. We had no doubts about that, that was what the AWB was about, there was an enemy, the enemy had to be eliminated. I must say that I am grateful that we could attend the Amnesty Committee meeting today because I myself have a conscience which I must cleanse and the Amnesty Committee is granting us the opportunity to do this. If it was not for this Committee we would still be involved in a struggle and I would like to say that there are young men who have ended up in prison as a result of people such as me and Mr Terre'blanche who gave orders and the true people who are behind these matters, we encouraged people from platforms at that time. We encouraged them, we told them that there was an enemy out there who had to be eliminated and I must say to you today that I regret it. We expected that the day that the ANC took over government that there would be a great witch hunt on our nation. It did not happen, in other words we were part of a big mistake. In fact the government of the day established a Volkstaat's Council which the former regime never granted us and we realised that we were wrong and that what we did was wrong. I had much to do with Mr Lottering in prison, we visited him, Dr Rubin Riches was with me, Professor Piet Meiring also accompanied me. Professor Meiring pertinently asked the question, would these people be willing to participate in a reconciliation programme and Mr Lottering was one of the first who said yes, that he would participate in a reconciliation programme. But today we have a different context in a different time context - if it wasn't for this Amnesty Committee, there would definitely have been an even further loss of blood. I would just like to request today as a former Commander of that time, I feel that those who ended up in prison, I would like to offer my apologies for the trauma which I caused as a Commander and a Commanding Officer of the AWB.

MR MOSTERT: Within the context of your senior membership in the AWB, Mr Lottering testified that although he received his instructions from Mr de Beer, he was under the fixed impression that his instructions came from the AWB and the CP. In terms of what you have just said, is it acceptable that he could have believed that his instructions were originally from the AWB?

MR KRIEL: Yes, that is completely acceptable because at that stage there were various factions within the AWB and we as Commanders of a right wing organisation which housed activists supported them. I would like to say that the Aquillos were selected by or, according to the criteria of persons who would carry out instructions almost immediately - if I might say that they were people who could be manipulated, that you could give them instructions and no matter what the instructions were, they would have carried them out immediately and those sort of people were taken up in the Aquillo - among others Mr Lottering.

MR MOSTERT: Could you inform us with regard to the origin and the establishment of underground organisations and the splinter groups how it functioned? Was it with the approval of the movement or was it inspired by the AWB? How did this happen?

MR KRIEL: My viewpoint, as well as that of Mr Terre'blanche was that it was acceptable and good if there were people who were carrying out instructions who were not directly connected to the AWB, in other words, if such a person were to be caught as a result of a murder or a robbery then it would not have left tracks which would lead to the AWB. Actually, as Commanders, we were given instructions by Mr Terre'blanche to operate in such a way and that is why it is very difficult for certain people who appear before this Committee today to prove who gave the instructions because the actual people who gave the instructions are actually in some ways too cowardly to appear here and support those who are now in prison as a result of instructions that were given. I would also like to add, Chairperson, that at that time when people struggled with the collection of finances and funds they were constantly told that if they did not have money to continue that they should not come to us and ask for money, they should commit robbery.

MR MOSTERT: ...[inaudible] escape?

MR KRIEL: Regarding escapes, we told the people prior to the fact that - and we also this to them when we visited them in prison, we told them that if they could escape and if we could help them escape we should do it immediately so that we could continue with the struggle. That was also a general order which was issued. I would just like to say that the situation changed in terms of the Amnesty Committee, there is renewed hope for the people and it is no longer that way but that is how it used to be.

MR MOSTERT: Mr Dawie de Beer - could you confirm for the Committee that he was a member of the AWB?

MR KRIEL: Yes, Mr Dawie de Beer was a member of the AWB, he was also the administrative head of Aquillo.

MR MOSTERT: Do you know from whom he received instructions to do recruitment for The Order of Death?

MR KRIEL: Unfortunately I don't know where he received those instructions or from whom.

MR MOSTERT: No further questions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp do you have any questions you would like to ask the witness?

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, just a few questions.

You have said that the struggle wasn't about innocent women and children it was against the ANC? It was a struggle of terrorism irrespective of who it was?

MR KRIEL: I'll say it again today that it was aimed at placing pressure on the struggle. If I had planted a bomb at that point I wouldn't have asked who was there irrespective of whether it would have been a white or black or an English person or a farmer, it wasn't about that, it was about placing the attention upon our freedom struggle.

MR STEENKAMP: Well briefly the question is that you have testified that the instruction was to destroy the ANC people or the enemy as you refer to it.

MR KRIEL: This Mr Makgalamele, we don't know who he was, he was simply driving in his vehicle, he was attacked and killed.

MR STEENKAMP: What I want to know is would the AWB at

that stage have approved of this action?

MR KRIEL: Yes, definitely, the AWB would have approved of it. I know about instructions which were issued to plant bombs when it was pertinently stated that it was within the interest of focusing attention on our freedom struggle.

MR STEENKAMP: Do you know that there were cases or a specific case where an instruction was issued, according to the applicant's version, that part of the AWB initiation was to commit a test murder. Was that the policy of the AWB?

MR KRIEL: Yes it was. I would like to say that these young men grew up under good circumstances and they were not a accustomed to killing and they had to learn how to kill. Unfortunately this is true.

MR STEENKAMP: And today, if I might ask you, it might not be relevant however, would you still or it would appear to me that the AWB behaved purely in a racist fashion involving the killing of black people, there were no political undertones?

MR KRIEL: There were also white people, if we had the opportunity to kill Pik Botha or F.W. de Klerk or even P.W. Botha in their time we would have tried but they were too closely guarded and we couldn't get close enough.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Steenkamp, Mr Moloi do you have any questions?

MR MOLOI: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Kriel, you were not a member of Order van die Dood?

MR KRIEL: No.

MR MOLOI: Order van die Dood as I understand it from Mr Lottering's evidence was a splinter group, a breakaway group from the AWB?

MR KRIEL: Yes, you could say that. I would just like to add that in the inner circles we encouraged this happening because people like Mr Lottering were easily manipulated and ...[intervention]

MR MOLOI: Was that Order van die Dood a breakaway group from the AWB?

MR KRIEL: Yes it was a breakaway group. However, we approved it as such and we allowed it to function in that way because we didn't want any tracks leading to the AWB.

MR MOLOI: ...[inaudible] involved in the strategy of the Order van die Dood? You were not involved in their meetings and then how they planned and executed their plans?

MR KRIEL: One could manipulate people to commit certain deeds so that it wouldn't point at you directly. That breakaway action was regarded as such by the AWB. We knew that these people were capable of killing and that they would kill and we subtly encouraged it.

MR MOLOI: ...[inaudible] involved with the planning of their policy and so on?

MR KRIEL: No, I was not a part of the planning but I was part of the encouragement and upsweeping of the people when they received their training for Aquillo by telling them that they must kill the enemy and these were young men and they took it up quite literally so.

MR MOLOI: [inaudible] these offences were committed by Mr Lottering, he was no longer a member of the AWB about which you testified today?

MR KRIEL: Yes, although he was no longer a member of the AWB officially, we saw each other regularly, we talked to each other regularly and there were other factions. There were people who were experiencing problems with the leader of the AWB but that did not mean that they lived in enmity with the officers of the AWB and as the officers of the AWB, we encouraged the establishment of cells and other groups.

MR MOLOI: When you identified the ANC as the total enemy in the AWB, did you define what the ANC was?

MR KRIEL: Yes, within the context of that time, we saw the ANC as an enemy because there were bomb attacks on our people in the first place for example the Church Street bombing and we also regarded the ANC as such as a result of our education, we grew up differently, we grew up during a time of Apartheid and we were taught that we should be separate and we were also taught that if there was resistance as such that was carried out by the ANC we were taught to fight back. I would just like to remind you that we are talking of that time, that's not today, things of changed.

MR MOLOI: ...[inaudible] time, what was the ANC to you, was it any black person, even your gardener? If he was black, your helper in the house, if she was black was that part of the ANC - automatically? Simply because of being black?

MR KRIEL: Yes it also went broader than the ANC, the National Party was just as great an enemy to us as what the ANC was.

MR MOLOI: ...[inaudible] your evidence you say you had identified the ANC as your total enemy. Now I want to know what was the ANC in your definition? Would an innocent person like Mr Makgalamele also have constituted ANC?

MR KRIEL: The ANC was our enemy.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kriel, what I think Mr Moloi is trying to get at is, what is your - that is the AWB's perception of who the ANC - who were the members of the ANC at that time? How did you define the ANC? He's saying, he's asking you was any black person in your eyes a member of the ANC?

MR KRIEL: I would just like to describe that in two parts -the ANC was naturally regarded as a great enemy by us, that is very true, we wanted to eliminate them but regarding the terror struggle - with regard to that we said that okay, if a bomb would be planted it would be unfortunately so that if there were people who had to die even people who were actually innocent in order to focus the attention on our struggle for freedom it would unfortunately have to be that way.

MR MOLOI: ...[inaudible] broad outline is that you saw any black person in terms of your policy as a threat and had to deal with him accordingly?

MR KRIEL: That is not entirely correct. There were many white persons such as Pik Botha and F.W. de Klerk who we also regarded as an enemy within the same context.

MR MOLOI: And what about the ordinary black walking in the street?

MR KRIEL: Yes bombs were planted and unfortunately it also meant that white persons could have died in those bomb attacks so unfortunately innocent people would have died and that was part of the struggle.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Gcabashe, any questions?

MS GCABASHE: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman?

ADV. BOSMAN: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kriel are you still a member of the AWB?

MR KRIEL: No, in November of last year I left the AWB.

I can give the reason as well. I had a feeling that the AWB leaders should stand up and come and give evidence on behalf of those in prison and we had a difference of opinion on that point and that was one of the main reasons.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] politics now, did you join one of the groups, the splinter groups?

MR KRIEL: The moment we succeeded in once I've achieved what I've wanted to achieve with the people who are still in prison, I want nothing to do with politics ever again.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Kriel, the splinter groups such as Die Order van die Dood, I don't know the names of other ones - Aquillo - well that's not really a splinter group - but do they still exist?

MR KRIEL: No. Aquillo does not exist any longer, what does exist is the so called "Wen Commando". The Order of Dood or of Death has been suspended after the elections in 1994 when the Volkstaat Raad was established which gave my leaders the opportunity to motivate a Volkstaat. All acts of terror were abandoned and suspended. We have found that the new government, because they were born from a liberation struggle have more respect for us and therefore there have been no further acts of violence and terror. We have a far better discussions with the new government than with the previous regime.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mostert do you have any questions arising out of any of the questions that have been put?

MR MOSTERT: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kriel.

MR MOSTERT: Chairperson, I have one problem - I would very much like to try and get hold of Mr Binneman to come and testify but we haven't yet been able to trace him so may I ask that the case stand down until tomorrow morning to give me the opportunity to get hold of him?

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] do you have no other witnesses to call besides, if you find him, Mr Binneman?

MR MOSTERT: Binneman and I want to see if I can get Mr Eugene Terre'blanche to come and testify, it will be his decision whether he wants to or not.

CHAIRPERSON: This matter was set down for today and tomorrow and seeing that there's no witnesses available today to proceed with, we'll adjourn to tomorrow. But Mr Mostert I'd like to stress that we'd very much appreciate it if this matter or the leading of the evidence of this matter could be finalised tomorrow because we have a very tight schedule.

MR MOSTERT: I assure you we will finish tomorrow, you can leave it to me.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until tomorrow, 24th March. 1

MR MOSTERT: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. Proceeding now with the application of Mr Lottering. Mr Mostert?

MR MOSTERT: Chairperson, thank you. At this stage I could tell the Committee that we've tried to get Mr de Beer, Mr Binneman and Mr Terre'blanche to come here to testify today. They couldn't be here today or are not interested in being here, they all have apologies and excuses so we're now going to close the applicant's case.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mostert. Mr Steenkamp, we've heard from the evidence yesterday that Mr Dawid de Beer has been implicated as has the AWB and also Mr Fanie Goosen. Reference has also been made to the Conservative Party but I believe that was just purely hearsay evidence, the implication of the CP. Were those persons, De Beer and Goosen, given notice of the hearings?

MR STEENKAMP: Yes Mr Chairman, I can maybe just put on record that I firstly spoke to Mr Dawid de Beer numerous times, actually I think three times. He was officially notified, I did sent him a fax to through his employer which he indicated to me is the way he would like to receive his notice. This was done on the 3rd January 1998, Mr Chairman, to his employer Mr Rootenberg. I've got a copy of the documents in front of me. That is Mr Dawid de Beer. The question of Mr Goosen, I received a report from the Investigation Unit in December, I've asked them to do more efforts to see if they can find Mr Goosen. I personally spoke to Mr Goosen's mother. She was reluctant and she also indicated she doesn't know where Mr Goosen was. My report from the Investigation Unit is that they also couldn't trace Mr Goosen at this stage so he couldn't be traced sir. Just for record purposes, sir, I can just put on record that the AWB was officially notified also on the 30th January 1998 via the offices of Mr Eugene Terre'blanche in Roth Street No 23 of Ventersdorp and the victim in this case or victims in this case, Mr Makgalamele could not be traced as well. We did however trace his previous employer which indicated to us that she didn't know where Mr Makgalamele or his family could be traced. I personally then traced Mrs Fereshina Pita.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the complainant in the robbery?

MR STEENKAMP: Yes sir. She was officially notified also on the 30th January 1998. I spoke to her recently, 10 days ago, she's still ill and she indicated to me and I also spoke to her attorney last Friday, that she's not willing to attend this hearing at all because of her medical condition but she doesn't want to have any interest in this hearing at all. So except maybe for the CP sir, which we didn't know of, all other relevant parties were notified.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well I think with regard to the CP the evidence implicating them was clearly hearsay evidence.

MR STEENKAMP: Yes sir.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if we will really rely on that.

MR STEENKAMP: Yes sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp is there going to any other evidence?

MR STEENKAMP: No sir, I'm not calling any witnesses at this stage from my side. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mostert, are you in a position to address the panel now or would you need some time to prepare yourself?

MR MOSTERT: I would like to request that I be given some time to prepare myself in writing and I would also request a copy of the record. Is that possible?

CHAIRPERSON: Would it be possible Mr Mostert to submit your heads or your submissions by Friday this week? Why I say that is that this panel is here, scheduled to be here until Friday, we are commencing with another application tomorrow which unfortunately we were not in a position or it's not possible to bring it forward to today but you will expected to be here until Friday.

MR MOSTERT: I can do that, I'll burn a few candles, no problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much and if you have any difficulty if you can just keep in touch with Mr Steenkamp. Would you be wanting to - if it's on Friday - backup your written submissions with oral submissions or not?

MR MOSTERT: No I don't think that it will be necessary, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well as I have mentioned earlier we were not in a position to bring forward tomorrow's application to today for various reasons beyond our control and because there's no further evidence in this application and because Mr Mostert has asked for time to submit his written argument or submissions which will be submitted by Friday, we have to adjourn and we accordingly adjourn until tomorrow. What time, Mr Steenkamp, would you be ready to start tomorrow morning?

MR STEENKAMP: Sir, if I'm not mistaken the notices is indicating 9 o'clock sir, I think the official time is 9 o'clock, sir. That's the normal time to start sir, if there's any other difficulties, but I've arranged with the attorneys to be here a bit earlier, but the normal time is arranged for 9 o'clock sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think then from the public's point of view it will be probably - we'd probably start the hearing at about half past nine because we normally have a discussion with the legal representatives prior to a hearing just to see if there's any difficulties or to try to expedite the matter. But I think we will then adjourn let's say until 9 o'clock although we might well only start at half past nine.

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

AMNESTY HEARING

DATE: 25TH - 27TH MARCH 1998

HELD AT: PRETORIA

NAME: JAMES WHEELER

DAY: 2

______________________________________________________

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody, welcome to the hearing. Mr Steenkamp, is everybody here now?

MR STEENKAMP: Yes Mr Chairman, I can confirm everybody is here and present.

CHAIRPERSON: I wonder if the legal representatives could please place themselves on record?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, Honourable Members of the Committee, I am J J S Prinsloo for the first applicant, Mr James Wheeler.

MR DE KONING: I am L.V. De Koning for the second applicant, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, Members of the Committee, I am Neil Pretorius, I'm the attorney for the second applicant.

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, I am Wentzel Botha the attorney on behalf of the victims, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Could I take the opportunity of introducing the panel. On my right is Advocate Francis Bosman, my left is Advocate Leah Gcabashe, on my far left is Mr Jake Moloi and I'm Selwyn Miller and the evidence leader is Advocate Andre Steenkamp. Are there any preliminaries or can we start straight off with the hearing?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, we can start immediately.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, Honourable Members of the Committee, as I have already indicated I am representing Mr James Wheeler who is the first applicant in this Application for Amnesty. We are as the legal team in possession of the pieces which have been submitted to the Committee today and I would like to commence by asking your leave for regard to the application of Mr Wheeler to lead the evidence. Firstly I would like to request for leave to lead the evidence of this applicant myself. At this point I would like to indicate to you that an affidavit has been prepared on behalf of the applicant and when I say leading evidence, I would ask for leave to distribute copies of the affidavit after it has been confirmed if it would meet with your approval?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, Advocate Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson. I ask then for leave to serve the affidavits to you.

CHAIRPERSON: We will receive this affidavit as EXHIBIT A.

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Wheeler is it correct that you are one of the applicants in this case?

MR WHEELER: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I think if he can be sworn in, I'll just ask Advocate Bosman to do it?

JAMES WHEELER: (sworn states)

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Wheeler you are one of two applicants in this Application for Amnesty is that correct?

MR WHEELER: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you were born on 18th February 1967 and you are currently in the Krugersdorp prison.

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: I will now show a document to you. You see the document which I am showing to you, do you recognise it?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: What is it?

MR WHEELER: It is the affidavit which I compiled.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you confirm that the content of this affidavit is true and correct?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson I ask for the leave that this statement be read into the record by the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes certainly he can proceed.

MR PRINSLOO: Will you read in the statement for us?

MR WHEELER: "I am the applicant in this Application for Amnesty in terms of the Truth and Reconciliation Act of 1995. The facts contained in this statement are within my own personal knowledge and unless otherwise mentioned or....[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Wheeler, if you could just go a little bit slower because of the interpreters, need time to think. I notice that a number of people that are attending do not have these earphones, I'm sure that if they want earphones.

MR WHEELER:

MR PRINSLOO: That is the statement Chairperson. The original is in the possession of the applicant and I request permission to hand that in for purposes of the record.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: Yes I have thank you. Thank you Chairperson. Mr Wheeler you are applying for amnesty in this application is that correct?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And the evidence which you've just given, do you want that to be taken into account for the purposes of this application?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: That is all we have, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Koning have you any questions you would like to put to the witness?

MR DE KONING: Mr Chairman, if I may request that Mr Botha who I believe is opposing the application might first cross-examine, I think it might save us some time in as much as there might be matters which emanate from his cross-examination that I would like to deal with and further since a client arrived here shortly before, minutes before, we commenced there are a few minor aspects which I might just need to obtain an instruction on if it pleases you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any objection to that Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: No, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any questions you would like to put to the witness?

MR BOTHA: Yes I do have questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BOTHA: Mr Wheeler you are saying today here before this Committee that you were a member of the AWB?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: Do you have any proof of your membership?

MR WHEELER: Unfortunately not. During my detention my wife went to the headquarters of the AWB on several occasions to try and get information about us but to no avail. Later however, she contacted the AWB offices in Randfontein and all that they could tell her was that they knew about us.

MR BOTHA: So as you sit here today you have no actual proof that you were a member of the AWB?

MR WHEELER: Correct.

MR BOTHA: Did you receive any orders or instructions from the AWB?

MR WHEELER: It was a well known fact that the 1994 elections were to take place and what proceeded those elections, certain announcements and statements were made by these people.

MR BOTHA: Did you receive an order, a direct order to you?

MR WHEELER: No. The way these people spoke - that I took to be an order.

MR BOTHA: Did they advise you?

MR WHEELER: No.

MR BOTHA: Did they plan this thing for you?

MR WHEELER: No but they planned something bigger for South Africa.

MR BOTHA: You say that they planned something bigger for South Africa, what are you referring to?

MR WHEELER: I'm referring to statements made by certain right wingers of which we're all aware and in which it was stated how they would plunge the country into anarchy.

MR BOTHA: I'm not quite sure that I understand you, how was going to plunge the country into anarchy? The blacks?

MR WHEELER: No, the right wingers.

MR BOTHA: What do you regard as a political objective? To achieve a political objective?

MR WHEELER: We don't see people of colours and races, we look at them in terms of the party they belong to and we would then see what would happen if those parties took over the government of the country.

MR BOTHA: You said that you didn't see black people as belonging to a race or colour but simply as members of a political party?

MR WHEELER: Yes that's true.

MR BOTHA: Did you know that the Papiyana brothers who were driving in that car, did you know to which political party they belonged?

MR WHEELER: No - but ninety percent of the black people in South Africa belong to the ANC. If a white person were shot the chances were a lot more remote that he would belong to the ANC than in the case of a black person.

MR BOTHA: Sir I could refer you to the judgement of Judge Mynhardt in this matter, if the Commission would just bear with me. Judge Mynhardt says, I'll give you the page number in a moment, it's on page 47 of the bundle, it's page 358 of the judgement and line 30 at the bottom, that he would be able to kill black people and I may say that the terminology which was used in the evidence was not the term "black person" or "black people" but let's leave that there for the moment. If you say that you wanted to attack a person belonging to a political party, why is the impression that was being created by your attorney and advocate at the trial that you simply went out to shoot black people, not ANC people or SACP members?

MR WHEELER: During my evidence in the court I said that we didn't decide to follow a political line with our affairs because right wingers before us had been given the death sentence for that kind of activity and that's why we were cautious.

MR BOTHA: Right, if that is the case, then during the proceedings in the Supreme Court, October 1994, you told a lie in court by saying that you had no political objective?

MR WHEELER: That's correct.

MR BOTHA: And the purpose was simply to save your own skin because you were under sentence of death or you could possibly face the sentence of death?

MR WHEELER: That is correct. At that stage I was very concerned about my family, my child was 50 days old and I was thinking of him.

MR BOTHA: By the way, why did you not think of this child before you continued with this act when Mrs Pyper told you that this was a ludicrous thing which you were planning to do.

MR WHEELER: At that stage we didn't know what the extent of this thing would be.

MR BOTHA: At that stage you couldn't envisage how the planning would go and what exactly you would do?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: I put it to you that you are quite possibly also telling a lie to this Committee. This time not to save your skin but to get out of prison and therefore it's not an unfamiliar thing for you to tell a lie once again?

MR WHEELER: No. In the case of the 1994 elections I could say that we were actually cowards but now that the opportunity has presented itself to fix things that went wrong on the past, I think we must accept that, we must grasp it with both hands.

MR BOTHA: Right. If I can refer you to paragraph 4 of your affidavit, you say that your parents taught you to respect the freedom of the Afrikaner people and to promote it?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: Did they teach you at any stage that one respects the Afrikaner people by killing black people?

MR WHEELER: No, that is not so.

MR BOTHA: Very well. When you and Mr Pyper on the night of the 27th April decided to embark on this tragic mission of yours, were you acting in your capacities as military personnel of the state or any state body or organisation?

MR WHEELER: No.

MR BOTHA: Were you acting in your capacities as, or according to your versions, members of the AWB?

MR WHEELER: That's true yes.

MR BOTHA: But there was no direct order given to you to do that?

MR WHEELER: I accepted that by virtue of the statements by AWB and CP leaders that something was about to happen and that we should prepare ourselves for a war and at that stage there were bomb explosions on the East Rand and I thought the time had come.

MR BOTHA: Alright so it's this picture of a political war situation which you had in your mind at the time?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: And you were prepared for this situation of war, you had gone to buy supplies and you were prepared for this war situation?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: And you discussed politics?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: It seems strange to me that a person who spent many years in military service that in that situation of war he would start tampering with his car, fixing his car, starts drinking, he has a braai. I put it to you that it was extremely improbable that a person who has this vision of a political war, an imminent political war, that he would actually commit these acts and do these things?

MR WHEELER: We didn't know when and where it would start and on the mine, we had a public holiday and up to the stage when we started making our arrangements for ourselves we didn't know anything. It was only afterwards that we heard of the bomb explosions.

MR BOTHA: In the months preceding there were also bomb explosions is that not so?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: And isn't it so that members of the right wing parties or leaders of the right wing parties admonished people and asked them to please be calm?

MR WHEELER: That's not the impression that I got.

MR BOTHA: Tell me, you say you attended AWB meetings?

MR BOTHA: Were you a member of the armed wing of the AWB?

MR WHEELER: No.

MR BOTHA: If you weren't a member of the armed wing why did you think that you should arm yourself and shoot people?

MR WHEELER: Because our leader called us up to arm ourselves. In making these judgements and statements he wasn't actually referring to his armed wing because they were already armed.

MR BOTHA: So you, the ordinary AWB members, had to take up arms for self-protection and self defence?

MR WHEELER: No, it was expressly stated that a situation of war would be created and that we should also lay in emergency supplies such as food and water.

MR BOTHA: But you decided on this day that the war was about to start, that you were going to have a nice day, that you would fix your car, work on your car and when you'd had enough alcoholic drink, you then started your political discussions and you said that it would be easy to use explosives, to plant it at the United Bank?

MR WHEELER: That's correct. I was looking at certain ideas and options whereby we could make a contribution.

MR BOTHA: You wanted to derail the elections?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: If you wanted to derail the elections why did you only on the day of the elections think about explosives and think that you could obtain it from the mines?

MR WHEELER: Well that was an option that we had.

MR BOTHA: So it wasn't actually planned at all the whole thing?

MR WHEELER: The reason why we spoke about the explosives was because we could obtain it quite readily, there would be no problem to get hold of it.

MR BOTHA: Sir, I put it to you that the mine where you were working, I practice in that area so I know, that it is not at all easy to get hold of explosives?

MR WHEELER: I must correct you on that - it is in fact quite easy.

MR BOTHA: One other aspect, paragraph 9 of your statement, you say: "specially Afrikaners who were generally speaking the most conservative component of the Whites" Is there any factual basis for making this kind of statement?

MR WHEELER: Yes. If we look at the people in South Africa, that is in fact the case that our Afrikaner people in the past have been conservative in any context and as far as anything was concerned, we were conservative.

MR BOTHA: I will leave the point there except to say that you have no factual basis for making such a statement. At what time did you fire the shot in which my client's son and brother was killed?

MR WHEELER: It was approximately quarter to eight to ten to eight that evening.

MR BOTHA: Wasn't it a little bit later such as for instance ten past eight perhaps?

MR WHEELER: I'm not sure.

MR BOTHA: The polling booths closed at 20.30 that particular evening?

MR WHEELER: Correct.

MR BOTHA: Why twenty minutes before the election was to be a thing of the past and after virtually everybody had voted, why shoot a person then?

MR WHEELER: I put it to you that the election was to continue the next day.

MR BOTHA: Are you talking about the postal votes?

MR WHEELER: Yes and the right wingers tried to disrupt the elections but nothing happened after we shot these people.

MR BOTHA: When you attended AWB meetings how many people were at these meetings where it was said that you should take up arms?

MR WHEELER: I can't specifically give you - or I can specifically refer you to the leader of the AWB who said explicitly and repeatedly.

MR BOTHA: How many members of the AWB were there?

MR WHEELER: There were many but I'm just mentioning one. I didn't go to all the meetings.

MR BOTHA: So there were thousands even tens of thousands of people who according to you heard these words?

MR WHEELER: Yes and it appears that they also interpreted it in the same way judging by the panic which existed just before the elections in South Africa.

MR BOTHA: And of these thousands and tens of thousands of people, you, Mr Pyper, was virtually the only one apart from the armed wing who planted bombs, who decided to embark on such a tragic mission?

MR WHEELER: There were other incidents but that is what happened.

MR BOTHA: Can you tell me why you and Mr Pyper were the only amongst those ten thousand who decided to take up arms and to kill people on your own initiative?

MR WHEELER: Because we believed in what the leaders had told us.

MR BOTHA: And did the leaders preach that you should go out and kill black people?

MR WHEELER: That's where the statements came from, that's how I interpreted it.

MR BOTHA: If the Honourable Commission would just give me a moment so that I can look at my notes? I put it to you that this act which you committed was not politically motivated.

MR WHEELER: Well, according to me it was a political act because ninety percent of the country's blacks were ANC members.

MR BOTHA: From the records of the Supreme Court proceedings it appears that you and Mr Pyper had drunk quite a lot of alcohol?

MR WHEELER: Yes we drank. It was a public holiday.

MR BOTHA: And as the drinking progressed the political temperature of your discussions increased?

MR WHEELER: Well I could put it to you in this way, before we started drinking we had already discussed politics here and there and in the course of the afternoon we did start talking about it more and more.

MR BOTHA: And this act of yours was motivated by the bravado of a drunkard, if one could put it like that and aimed at black people and not for any political motive?

MR WHEELER: I don't think you can put it like that because we weren't drunk.

MR BOTHA: Very well, you were the person who supplied the firearm?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: You cocked the firearm?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: You handed it to Mr Pyper and said "shoot".

MR WHEELER: I cocked the firearm and handed it to Mr Pyper and I moved so that I was right next to the taxi.

MR BOTHA: Tell me, afterwards, did you have any remorse, did you - or it seems that you simply quite at ease went to your brother and went and visited him and you made a joke about having shot somebody in a mini-bus, a black person and he said that he didn't believe you?

MR WHEELER: That is true.

MR BOTHA: So at that stage you had no remorse?

MR WHEELER: At that stage I didn't even know that anybody had been killed or wounded.

MR BOTHA: But it was your purpose when you left in the Ford Sierra?

MR WHEELER: Correct.

MR BOTHA: The next morning you were still of quite a peaceful state of mind that you were watching television?

MR WHEELER: Correct.

MR BOTHA: Amidst this war, you had now done your bit, you had fired a shot at a mini-bus and now as far as you were concerned, the war was over?

MR WHEELER: No, I was watching television to try and find out whether there had been any other events and in that way I realised that we were the only ones who had actually done something.

MR BOTHA: In the last paragraph of your affidavit you say: "I can't believe that I could have been so shortsighted."

MR WHEELER: That's correct.

MR BOTHA: I put it to you, that you were so shortsighted because the alcohol had actually made you that way and not politics.

MR WHEELER: No, that's not the case, we believed what the right wingers were proclaiming and we stood by our people and we were prepared to help them in this specific time.

MR BOTHA: Did you buy this 12 bore shotgun for the purpose of shooting a black man with it or was it the purpose to protect yourself?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: To protect yourself or?

MR BOTHA: I've asked the question double, I apologise, he's got only one answer and I think that he must just clarify that.

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: Is it correct that you bought the firearm to protect yourself?

MR WHEELER: No.

MR BOTHA: I'm sorry I wasn't listening?

MR WHEELER: I also purchased the firearm to protect my family but that was not the exclusive reason why I bought it, there was more than one reason why I bought a firearm.

MR MOLOI: Just at that point, can you say what is the other purpose for which you acquired this firearm?

MR WHEELER: Because sometime before the elections it was said that we should arm ourselves and I also wanted to protect my family and that is why I bought the shotgun.

MR BOTHA: In your application you mention two political parties, you already mentioned that the AWB made certain calls and according to you, they said that you should go to war? Is that also the case with the other party, that you apparently supported?

MR WHEELER: I will say that it wasn't so very applicable to that other party because there were also certain criticisms voiced against the election.

MR BOTHA: I see that you mention in your statement that you went to Mr Gert de Bruin's home that night?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: Was it to go and buy liquor? Why did you go there?

MR WHEELER: No, we stopped there to find out whether he had heard anything more about the defiance and resistance campaign against the elections but he wasn't home.

MR BOTHA: And then you decided that you would simply continue on your own without the knowledge of this AWB officer?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Wheeler, at what time did you go to Mr de Bruin's home?

MR WHEELER: It was approximately half past seven to twenty to eight.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

ADV. BOSMAN: ...[inaudible]

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

ADV. BOSMAN: Was that at a stage when you already had the firearms in the car?

MR WHEELER: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOTHA: I would like you to sketch for us a picture of the situation at Mr Pyper's home where you were together as friends. You mentioned that there were friends present and from the record it appears that there was a Mr Eksteen and his wife?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: Also a Mr and Mrs Skikkerling?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: And even in front of them you continued with your political talk?

MR WHEELER: Yes, we did.

MR BOTHA: Later that evening the Skikkerlings left?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: Mr Eksteen remained behind?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: Mr Eksteen then said to you or said to Mrs Pyper that she should see to it that yourself and Mr Pyper would not leave that night because he could sense that he was trouble looming?

MR WHEELER: Yes that's true, I think that's what he saw.

MR BOTHA: Later that night he left but he returned to just come and check to see that everything was okay?

MR WHEELER: I'm not aware of that.

MR BOTHA: I will leave that there. You were working on your Audi car?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: And this vehicle was at Mr Pyper's home?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: It also appears from the record that some of the tools were still attached to the engine which indicates that you just decided at some point that you'd had enough and you left all the tools and the rags there?

MR WHEELER: Yes, we didn't have the necessary parts to continue with our fixing of the car.

MR BOTHA: You then took the car and you left to go and fetch the faster Sierra and the firearms?

MR WHEELER: Correct.

MR BOTHA: You know, this is simply another indication to me that this was an act flowing from your consumption of liquor. The fact that you were so negligent that you simply left the engines and the tools and the rags there?

MR WHEELER: I put it to you like this that Mr Pyper and I didn't live very far apart and it wasn't necessary to remove these things. Our homes were about 20 paces from each other.

MR BOTHA: So you drove with the engine and the keys and the cloths round the block to your home?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: I put it to you that if you had committed this act out of political conviction then you would not at all have gone about it in such an unplanned fashion. The unplanned modus operandi which you used indicates that it was alcohol instead of politics.

MR WHEELER: I put it to you that any person probably uses alcohol on a day off but that it played no role in our decisions. We knew exactly what we were doing.

MR BOTHA: This is nothing other than a political assassination and if you had planned it in front of friends, people who would have tried to dissuade you from carrying it out, does that sound to you like someone who has a political objective or rather someone who is speaking in a drunken or out of a drunken sense.

MR WHEELER: It is so that Mr Eksteen probably wanted to prevent it but it came to my realisation that we had to make our contribution to this rightist resistance, to the takeover of our country.

MR BOTHA: Mrs Pyper also tried to dissuade you at one point, you swore at her?

MR WHEELER: I'm not aware of that.

MR BOTHA: According to the Supreme Court...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what aren't you aware of? The fact that she tried to stop you or the fact that you swore at her?

MR WHEELER: Yes, that's right, no the fact that I swore at her.

MR BOTHA: It's not all that important but at a point she attempted to call the police?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: And you knew that she was going to telephone the police?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: At one point she also hid your motor vehicle keys so that you couldn't drive with this mission?

MR WHEELER: That's correct.

MR BOTHA: And if you wanted to execute this assassination, why proceed with it if it would be clear to you that she would phone the police and she did in fact contact the police - why did you continue with it?

MR WHEELER: It was, as they said, the quest for our fatherland and our Boerevolk and this quest inspired me to such an extent that I continued with this and that I believed firmly and was convinced that there were others who were also assisting in this freedom war which of course later would appear to be incorrect.

MR BOTHA: I put it to you that you were inspired by the brandy and I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Botha. Mr de Koning?

MR DE KONING: Thank you Chairperson. If you would allow me, I'm going to ask a number of questions just for about five

minutes in order to clear a few aspects.

MR DE KONING: Mr Wheeler, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that the election of 1994 was scheduled in order to take place over two days. Is that correct?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Do I also understand it then in terms of your testimony that you and the second applicant, Mr Pyper, on the 27th April, attended or were at Mr de Bruin's house twice. Once in the morning and once in the evening, shortly before the shooting?

MR WHEELER: Yes that's correct.

MR DE KONING: And the purpose of the visit to Mr de Bruin's house in the morning was in order to determine when things would be happening and what would be happening. Do I understand that correctly?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: And my instruction is that at point it was already known that a bomb had exploded somewhere, somewhere on the Eastern Rand?

MR WHEELER: Yes that's correct.

MR DE KONING: And do I comprehend your testimony correctly in so far as you create the impression with me that you regarded Mr de Bruin as someone who was higher up in the hierarchy of the AWB as a mere supporter?

MR WHEELER: Yes that's correct.

MR DE KONING: And the message which you received as I understand your testimony regarding the first visit in terms of the fact that the bomb had exploded, this signalled the beginning?

MR WHEELER: Yes that is correct.

MR DE KONING: And that violence had begun in terms of the disruption of the election, is that correct?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: And do I also then understand your testimony correctly in that you say that the shooting with a shotgun was a further attempt to disrupt the election?

MR WHEELER: Yes that's correct.

MR DE KONING: And my comprehension of your testimony is correct in that you leave the impression with me and I would like to know if you concur with my impression, that between you and the second applicant, Mr Pyper, you actually assumed the leading role although he actually pulled the trigger, do I understand it correctly?

MR WHEELER: Yes you could say that.

MR DE KONING: Furthermore, I would like to determine with you whether or not you concur regarding my instruction to the knowledge that before the day of the 27th, by the second applicant and yourself, an opportunity was sought out at work in order to secure explosives but because of security measures, that opportunity did not present itself?

MR WHEELER: That could be so.

MR DE KONING: Furthermore, I would like to determine from you that this shooting had taken place on the evening of the 27th, that is a common issue and that my comprehension of why it occurred in the evening and that people often do strange things in the evening in the hope that they might not be noticed, is that correct?

MR WHEELER: That's correct.

MR DE KONING: Then I would also like to control the following with you, what are the christian names of Mr Eksteen? Is that Mike?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: And in their home before you and the second applicant left the home to go and fetch the firearms and ultimately launch the shooting in terms of the attempted derailment of the election, you attempted to persuade Mike to contribute to this. Is this correct?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: And that because of his opposition to this you told me and I beg your pardon, Chairperson, you told him that he was a "slapgat" and that he was not prepared to do his part for Volk and Afrikanerdom?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

MR DE KONING: Just a moment please. Am I correct when I say that the second applicant's impression was that Gert de Bruin had some other higher appointment than a mere supporter of the AWB movement?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

MR DE KONING: And Gert de Bruin was approached by you and it appeared, to be informed regarding the strategies more so than you and the second applicant, is that correct?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Mr Wheeler, perhaps I should just ask you another question first, in so far as my learned colleague Mr Botha wanted to bring home to you that on the evening of the 27th April 1994, you were under the influence of alcohol and I would like to just accept that for the moment, would that have been the first opportunity or moment in your life where you had too much to drink or had you been like that before?

MR WHEELER: No, I had had too much to drink before.

MR DE KONING: And if alcohol was the motivation or the agent which inspired you to go on this expedition which we could say that the objective was to kill or injure black people, you would then concur with me that there had been ample opportunity before the 27th to do this, is that correct?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Can we then accept your answer that you did this on the 27th April in order to derail the elections?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Because from what I understand from your statement and I'm referring to it's entirety you held the fear or it was inbedded within you from the AWB's side that the election would bring about essential changes in the government structure?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

MR DE KONING: Chairperson, might I just ask for five minutes because there are certain issues which I am still slightly unclear about?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly Mr de Koning. We'll take a short adjournment.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DE KONING: (cont)

Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson for the sake of order shall I wait until everybody has returned and is seated before we proceed? Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Wheeler, my instructions are that the second applicant

at an opportunity by means of the mediation or for want of a better word, by the mediation of Mr de Bruin applied for a 303 gun which would come from the Lenasia Military Unit or something of that sense. Are you aware of that?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Did you also make such an application?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: The guns however for some or other reason were not made available?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Then, with the second visit to De Bruin's home on the evening of the 27th as I understand it, shortly before the shooting, Mr de Bruin was not at home?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: And the second applicant remained seated in the vehicle at that occasion?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Perhaps just to observe whether or not your and the second applicant's versions correlate with the following aspect, it is my instruction that the hope which you cherished with this deed was the derailment of the election and the hope that a State of Emergency would be announced which would bring or prevent a complete change of the political dispensation?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr de Koning. Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, if you would allow me just two questions.

Mr Wheeler, just to clarify it for myself, the instruction that you received was this to the effect that you understood it that you could take a weapon and during or before the election kill any black person?

MR WHEELER: No it was said that we should acquire weapons and that that is what would happen.

MR STEENKAMP: On what grounds did you decide that it was your responsibility to kill, shoot a black person during the election?

MR WHEELER: From the fact that I saw myself as a white Afrikaner and that is how I identified myself with what happened.

MR STEENKAMP: Did the AWB ever create the impression with you that your contributions would be important in light of the fact that you could go and shoot a black person on your own?

MR WHEELER: Yes - might I just consult with my legal counsel?

MR STEENKAMP: I will explain the question. Mr Wheeler, did the AWB ever order you that you or members of the AWB, was it

ever said to you that you could take a weapon and that it would be justified within the struggle of the AWB to take a weapon and shoot a black person?

MR WHEELER: That is what I heard from their discussions and that it would be a collective attempt not an individual attempt.

MR STEENKAMP: Before or after the incident did you contact the AWB?

MR WHEELER: After that my wife contacted them.

MR STEENKAMP: Did you contact them afterwards and tell them what you had done?

MR WHEELER: No because the day after the incident we were arrested and I think that for about two or three weeks we were in detention before our bail application was granted and during that time my wife tried to make contact quite a number of times and they said that they did know about us and the incident.

MR STEENKAMP: And my final question to you........

..(tape ends)

MR PRINSLOO: .....next, I see the pages unfortunately are not numbered, sir, but typed pages, typed page 35, in the middle. Do you have the documents in front of you?  

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the bail application?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It also appears in ...(intervention).

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...in the second volume of documents. Maybe if you can get to the bail application and then just point to the number of, the page number of the bail application and we can get it on our papers.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, it's on page 45.

CHAIRPERSON: Of the bail application. That is page 55 of the second volume of the papers.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, I'm confusing everyone, it's page 35 of the bail application, and the numbered page it's page 45. The page number, it's page 45. In the middle of the page, and I will just read to you briefly:-

Was this also a light held by your wife?

MR WHEELER: Yes, I gave the instruction to state it as that

because my advocate or my attorney granted me two chances and said one could be like this and one could be like that, and I considered, in terms of my family and decided that we would not follow a political direction.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Moloi, do you have any questions you would like to ask the witness?

MR MOLOI: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Wheeler, according to your evidence, you had received a military training?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: Amongst other things, you were taught was to obey orders given by your seniors, is that correct?

MR WHEELER: That is correct, yes.

MR MOLOI: Were you at any stage during military training, and even when you were engaged in military activities, allowed to make your own conclusions of what could be meant by a policy, for instance?

MR WHEELER: No.

MR MOLOI: So at all times instructions were to be clear cut and understood unequivocally?

MR WHEELER: That's quite correct, yes.

MR MOLOI: Do I also understand that you say you had not received any clear-cut, unequivocal instructions to kill blacks?

MR WHEELER: That is correct, under the given circumstances of the '94 elections, and what predecessed it, and what was said by people, led to this incident.

MR MOLOI: You then drew your own conclusions from what you heard being said by the leadership of the AWB?

MR WHEELER: Yes, through my conclusions, I thought that we were assisting them in this operation or war, as they called it, we assisted them, I thought so.

MR MOLOI: Had they specified to you which form this war would take?

MR WHEELER: They just said that we would know, and that is it.

MR MOLOI: And were you ever informed that it has now started and in which form, and what your contribution should be?

MR WHEELER: Yes, after we've been at Mr De Bruin's house, and he confirmed that bombs went off and this is the beginning of the resistance.

MR MOLOI: What did he mean by that, did he mean now bombs are going to continue going off, or whether you must now take your rifle and go out and shoot?

MR WHEELER: That was as I took it, that now we, as white people, now our action has begun, and I took it as myself clearly, as the bombs went off, I knew something is busy happening here in South Africa.

MR MOLOI: According to the radio broadcast you heard, was the bomb explosion attributed to any particular person or organisation?

MR WHEELER: No, it happened at the airport, and which meant that once that you close off all the, as we can say accesses, that nobody could escape, and that is what I saw in this thing, that nobody, if somebody starts attacking these places, then obviously to me it meant that it started, what these people had said.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, before we continue, I'm not certain whether or not my client is aware of the fact that he may use the interpretation services and perhaps he might be a bit more comfortable using these services.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because whatever you say is getting translated simultaneously as you speak, but if you would just speak a little slower, it would assist us greatly.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR MOLOI: Mr Wheeler actually the question is, did anybody claim responsibility for the bomb explosion that you heard of over the radio?

MR WHEELER: I can - it's what I know.

MR MOLOI: So the bomb could have been set by the right wing or the left wing or anybody else for any purpose whatsoever?

MR WHEELER: Not within this specific context of the events of the election and what preceded it. Regarding this specific event, we knew that it was the right wing that had planted this bomb.

MR MOLOI: Because there were left-aligned parties against the elections?

MR WHEELER: This could be true.

MR MOLOI: So the shooting we are talking about took place before the close of the elections on the day in question?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: And earlier in that day you had seen scores and scores of people queuing at polling stations for voting purposes?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: For the simple reason that the elections were scheduled to take place over two days, it's quite likely that at the time of the shooting, there were still scores and scores of people queuing at the polling stations?

MR WHEELER: That may have been so.

MR MOLOI: You wanted to make your contribution to hinder the process of the elections, but you did not choose to go shoot where there were many blacks queuing for voting purposes?

MR WHEELER: That's correct.

MR MOLOI: Instead you chose to go shoot in an abundant area, where only one vehicle was moving at the time, and did not know whether or not those people were interested in the elections or not?

MR WHEELER: As I have stated, I accept that that 90% of the black South African population supported the ANC and that is how I accepted it, and that we attempted also, through this incident, which today we could term isolated, we attempted to embed fear within the minds of other people.

MR MOLOI: Did that incident have relevance really to the elections? The elections were not conducted in that abundant road in the middle of nowhere?

MR WHEELER: I could put it to you as follows: that we were an isolated case. If the objective had been achieved which was proclaimed by these people, it would have been a completely different situation, but for the reason that we were an isolated case, it is now a completely different story.

MR MOLOI: The fact of your contribution towards the cause of the AWB would have been much greater if you had chosen to go shoot where there were people queuing for purposes of voting, because your intention is to disrupt the voting process, is it not?

MR WHEELER: That is possible.

MR MOLOI: After this incident, did you report to De Bruin that "I have now contributed by doing X, Y, Z"?

MR WHEELER: Mr De Bruin was not at home that evening, and after we returned, I went home, but I dropped Mr Pyper off at his home and I went to my own home, and the following morning I returned to Mr Pyper, where we discussed these things and I said to him again that I did not believe that we had killed people and I returned to my home and that is where the police arrived then.

MR MOLOI: Did you endeavour in any way to reach De Bruin, your immediate senior, according to you, or any other AWB official?

MR WHEELER: No, I did not, because on radio and television there was no mention of the so-called resistance which would have been carried out by the right wing movements.

MR MOLOI: ...contribution then have been recognised by AWB if you had not made it known to them, and secondly by the political, the government leadership at that time, because it was your intention to disrupt what they were doing, the elections, how would it have been known?

MR WHEELER: We must once again consider the allegations which were made that we were in fact a group of people who carried out these actions, and that is what I believed as well, and the day after the incident, we were reasonably shocked or embittered because no other incidents had occurred, and that we had acted exactly according to that which the right wing had proclaimed and that nothing further had happened.

MR MOLOI: Can you really say you had acted precisely as the right wing had prescribed, because if I understood you properly, you were never given instructions to go shoot the blacks?

MR WHEELER: I would say so.

MR MOLOI: ...proud then if the disruption of the elections succeeded, that your organisation, through your contri-bution, is recognised as the cause thereof?

MR WHEELER: Yes, I would have been proud. However, after these events, what is there to be proud of.

MR MOLOI: How would, before you were arrested, how then would your organisation accredit you, so to say, with that deed if you did not inform them about it?

MR WHEELER: Let me put it to you this way, there was no mention of accreditation or reward, we were told that we were doing this for our country.

MR MOLOI: No further questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Advocate Gcabashe, do you have any questions you would like to put to the witness?

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, thank you chair. Mr Wheeler, talking about the value system that you were brought up in as an Afrikaner conservative young man, those same values you were taught in your family were the values that people like the Ecksteens who were at your house, the other family, Schutte, I mean they, your wives, they held the same values, didn't they, they were brought up in the same types of households?

MR WHEELER: I'm not certain as to how they were raised.

ADV GCABASHE: The discussions you had on your house on the 27th, the political discussions, you were all agreed that you were under threat as a "volk", that you needed to protect yourselves and you needed to try and conserve the values you had been taught?

MR WHEELER: Could you repeat the question please?

ADV GCABASHE: Just from the discussions you had on the 27th, you were talking about politics, yes?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: The ideas that you were sharing were based on the same values you had all been taught, you know that you are a folk, you are a grouping of people, fairly conservative people, yes?

MR WHEELER: Those who were present, who were not as far right as what we were, had their own ideas and I had my own ideas.

ADV GCABASHE: I'm simply saying that the core of things you were discussing, as Afrikaner people, was that you believed in certain things, is that correct?

MR WHEELER: That is what I believed, yes.

ADV GCABASHE: And you wanted to preserve your culture, your status as fairly conservative people?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: And this is what colours your political idea as well, you know, your upbringing, those values you are taught, there are certain political objectives therefore you try and achieve?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: I'm just thinking broadly in terms of the AWB, broadly in terms of Afrikaner families, what I have learnt about them in proceedings such as this, so if I'm wrong, please say I'm wrong, all right? Now, in those discussions, you and Mr Pyper were the only ones who wanted to go out and do something to derail these elections?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: And you heard the discussion between I think it was Mr Ecksteen and Mrs Pyper, where he said to her, "Try and stop them", you were there?

MR WHEELER: I think so.

ADV GCABASHE: And you, despite having your own people say to you, "This isn't the right thing to do, not now", you still decided to go out and shoot whichever black person you came across? 

MR WHEELER: You could put it that way.

ADV GCABASHE: You went out and didn't bother to identify those black people as ANC or Communist Party members?

MR WHEELER: As I've said, one must look at the broader spectrum, if one wanted to identify the people, you would have had to have gone to the election rooms and looked at the ballots which they had voted with in order to determine who was ANC or who had voted for other parties.

ADV GCABASHE: But your upbringing was to value life, yes?

MR WHEELER: That's true.

ADV GCABASHE: The only time you would go against what you had been taught from childhood would be where you had a specific political objective?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Now I'm talking about this particular case, how did you think you were achieving a political objective when you couldn't identify your enemy? 

MR WHEELER: I accepted that black people voted ANC and that they were ANC orientated, and that led me to doing this.

ADV GCABASHE: Now, you grew up with black people around you, whether they were workers, but you grew up with black people around you, yes?

MR WHEELER: No, the only time when I worked with black people was when I actually began working, when we mixed with black people, so to speak.

ADV GCABASHE: Didn't you have black "bediendes", people who worked in your home from a young age to the time you were married and settled?

MR WHEELER: No.

ADV GCABASHE: The few black people you met at work, did you assume that they too were ANC or Communist Party members?

MR WHEELER: On the mine there were various cultural groups also from other countries, for example from Mozambique, who had come to seek out work here, and those with whom I identified as South African mine workers, in my mind they were ANC members.

ADV GCABASHE: But this wasn't a fact that you established at any stage?

MR WHEELER: No.

ADV GCABASHE: And forgive me if I'm wrong, do say so, this isn't what the AWB taught you or talked about, that all black people are ANC or Communist Party people, all of them?

MR WHEELER: Everybody accepted it as that, and we also knew that the IFP was on the one side and automatically the AWB was aware of them, so it was said that black people supported the ANC, however most of the IFP members came from Natal and we didn't really have anything serious to do with the IFP people.

ADV GCABASHE: Also Lukas Mangope and the AWB, to a certain extent, co-ordinated activities, supported them in certain ways, those were black people, the AWB didn't teach you that every black man is an enemy, am I wrong?

MR WHEELER: You could put it that way. If you observed what had happened in Bophuthatswana, that the AWB members were driving through the streets and voluntarily shooting at black people, so at that stage they didn't know to which party those people belonged.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, but the AWB people went there specifically to protect a black person and his followers, those were not their enemies, that's why they died there, they were helping black people?

MR WHEELER: That is correct, for the reason that they helped black people there and that also substantiated that the ANC had once again recruited or incorporated Bophuthatswana into South Africa.

ADV GCABASHE: What I'm putting to you, as I understand what I heard of the AWB, they act on principle, there is a cause they believe in, they are principled that they base what they do on, they don't make general assumptions?

MR WHEELER: It was indeed so with the case of Bophuthatswana, but in the case of our own country, in terms of the 1994 elections, it was a different story. How else? Because there is no other way to determine which people would be IFP or ANC, seeing as black people were the majority, how would we distinguish between who would be an IFP or an ANC follower, as well as white people in this case who supported other organisations?

MR MOLOI: How would your conduct then, if I may jut in, how would your conduct then of shooting these people you couldn't identify have assisted you in achieving the political objective of eliminating your enemy, your enemy, and in so doing derail the course of the elections?

MR WHEELER: We must not forget that this period, during which people proclaimed that we were part of a large-scale resistance power or movement, that we would put the country into a state of war. It was our view that we would have been part of this, not only us, but that there were also other people who were doing the same sort of thing, and which, at the end of the day, did not transpire, as such.

MR MOLOI: ...say indiscriminate action against whomsoever would achieve the objective you sought to achieve, namely to derail the elections by endangering or killing your enemy, the ANC and the SACP supporters?

MR WHEELER: At that stage I believed this, and I stood firmly by what I believed. However, today I have a completely different viewpoint.

ADV GCABASHE: Were you a registered member of the AWB?

MR WHEELER: That's correct.

ADV GCABASHE: And you joined them in 1993?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: How many AWB meetings did you attend between the time you joined in '93 and the 27th of April 1994, just roughly, I don't want exactly?

MR WHEELER: Approximately 10 to 15.

ADV GCABASHE: And on the basis of having heard the AWB leadership talk about, I'll call it the total onslaught, you decided that you did not need any further authority before taking your gun and going out to shoot the enemy?

MR WHEELER: It was said that we would be one collective power, that there were many others who would incorporate their activities in the maintenance of South Africa.

ADV GCABASHE: Now, looking at the action of shooting the victims on that night, it was because you believed in a cause, it was a principled action, you say?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Now, you did not stop to see if you had achieved your objective of killing these people, correct?

MR WHEELER: That is correct, as I have said, I looked in my rear-view mirror and saw that the taxi had not sped or rolled off the road, and from that I made the inference that no-one had died or had been wounded.

ADV GCABASHE: And yet, having not achieved your political objective, I mean the taxi just veered off the road, you didn't go on to another incident and another one, to make the point you felt you had to make on that day?

MR WHEELER: No, we didn't.

ADV GCABASHE: But you had set out to achieve a particular political objective, you weren't sure that you had achieved it after that first shooting?

MR WHEELER: That is correct, as I said today, I was certain that we had not achieved it, because at that point we were not part of the larger force which was protecting our Afrikanerdom, in fact, to tell you the truth, we were part of nothing. So if others were part of or did the same thing that we did, it would have created a completely different viewpoint regarding that period in time.

ADV GCABASHE: Well you were part of nothing, this is really the point that I am trying to understand, you were part of nothing at that time, you did not even go to Mr De Bruin's house after the act to say, "We have done X, what can we do next?", you were part of nothing?

MR WHEELER: Let us once again look at the events preceding the election, what was said, we all know it, we felt so strongly for our cause that we decided to harm these people. However, at the end of the day, as I have said, on the radio and television nothing appeared which would substantiate the political objective which they were talking about, and one could say that they had left us alone, no-one assisted us.

ADV GCABASHE: Coming to your day in court, you took the oath to tell the truth, yet you did not tell the truth?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: If I may just intervene, I didn't get that question, but I understand that the question implied that my client testified. I just want to correct that, he has never testified at any proceedings preceding today.

ADV GCABASHE: My apology. I really am thinking more of the bail application, of the evidence that has come from that, in terms of what was said, and yes, other people gave testimony at the bail application. Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. But the point really is that the people who did give evidence misled the Court, this is what you are saying?

MR WHEELER: Yes, that's correct.

ADV GCABASHE: And one of the reasons you are saying is that you were worried about the death penalty?

MR WHEELER: Yes, correct.

ADV GCABASHE: A death penalty which, at the time, and I'm happy to be corrected, had already been rescinded by the then President De Klerk, it was actually done away with under his government?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I think there was a moratorium that existed in the, putting such sentences into effect, it was still in existence and on the books at that time.

MR WHEELER: Yes, because if we look at the court records, it was also mentioned in court.

ADV GCABASHE: Again, the point, the point, however, being that if you were a principled member of an organisation, if you were a member who believed in your cause, you wouldn't mind either the death sentence or life imprisonment for the cause, for your cause?

MR WHEELER: Let's look at it this way, we had time to reflect on it, and there wasn't a lot of right wing resistance against the taking over of the government, the handing over of political power from white to black, so my reasoning was, why should I decide, or I thought I should decide, should I continue or should I look at my family's interests, that was at the stage after we moved into the new South Africa, and based on these considerations, I decided that I would not follow the political route.

ADV GCABASHE: Finally, my difficulty really is with that political objective, as has obviously become the crucial discussion in today's hearing. I am concerned and what I don't understand is why you have waited all of this time to actually say, "We did it for our cause, you know, there was a political objective"?

MR WHEELER: In the first place, I considered my family's welfare, and for that reason I didn't want to receive the death penalty, and for me, who was part of an organisation who was supposed to take part in the toppling of a government, I felt that I could at least try to contribute to reconcile people. I didn't do this thing simply just for the sake of doing it, I reflected on this matter for a long time and ultimately I decided that this was the right thing for us to do, not only for us, but also for other people, also whites like ourselves who are opposed to this, just to demonstrate where it actually gets you, and that's why I'm here today.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Wheeler, I need some clarity about the membership issue of the AWB. What did you do to become a member, did you sign a register, did you pay a subscription?

MR WHEELER: Yes, you also had to fill in a form, which I did, and you had to pay a subscription.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you receive any acknowledgement of your subscription, did you receive a membership certificate?

MR WHEELER: No, to this day we haven't received anything like that.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you expect such a thing, were you told that such certificate would be issued?

MR WHEELER: Yes, I assumed that people would come and see me at home and that sort of thing, but I assumed that people forgot to do that, and collections were also taken up at the meetings, party meetings, they collected money, and I then made my contribution.

ADV BOSMAN: How would you have identified another AWB member?

MR WHEELER: AWB members got to know each other at meetings, like for instance the one where we met Gert, and also when you talk to people, you find out how they are orientated, politically speaking.

ADV BOSMAN: And how did you determine from whom you could receive orders?

MR WHEELER: These people were speakers, and they were eloquent speakers, and I accepted that these were the kind of people who had authority.

ADV BOSMAN: Are you saying that anybody who spoke from the podium and who addressed a meeting would be a senior person in the hierarchy who could give orders?

MR WHEELER: It was from the way in which they spoke and from their demeanour, one could ascertain what kind of a person this person was and in what capacity he was involved and what his thoughts were.

ADV BOSMAN: Now, if you couldn't get hold of Mr De Bruin to find out how your contribution would fit into the wider strategy, was there anybody else whom you could identify or refer to?

MR WHEELER: I think so, I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: In the bail application proceedings and in the papers, it seems that the braai that you and your friends had on that afternoon started at about 12 o'clock during the day, is that right?

MR WHEELER: It's possible.

CHAIRPERSON: To give, you to give us some indication of the quantity of alcohol that you drank from the start of the braai until the time that you and Mr Pyper went away in the vehicle?

MR WHEELER: Let us say six beers.

CHAIRPERSON: Quarts?

MR WHEELER: Yes, and a half a bottle of brandy.

CHAIRPERSON: Each?

MR WHEELER: No, how could I put it, we shared it.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there also other people present, so ...(intervention).

MR WHEELER: I really can't tell you.

CHAIRPERSON: There was also mention in the proceedings of whisky being drunk, can you recall?

MR WHEELER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: And were you and Mr Pyper drinking neck to neck, I mean having about the same amount, or did you drink more than him or he more than you?

MR WHEELER: I can't answer you on that.

CHAIRPERSON: What would you say your state of sobriety was when you got into that red Sierra to - with the shotgun?

MR WHEELER: We were under the influence, I can't say to what extent, I can't say how drunk we were, but we were under the influence. I had had more to drink than was permissible.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean that if you were stopped by traffic cops, you wouldn't have passed the ,08% blood alcohol, you would have been ...(intervention).

MR WHEELER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you said in response to questions put to you by Mr Botha, that when you left, you were under the impression that the police were going to be phoned and told about what you were going to do, is that correct?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And yet you proceeded with your plan, or with your intentions?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you do that? Your intention was to go and kill somebody?

MR WHEELER: We were firmly convinced that there were other people who would make the same contribution to try and plunge the country into war, and I firmly believed that I was part of that larger plan, and believed that we were busy with a bigger resistance campaign, I didn't think that we were just two of us, two people committing an act by ourselves, we were of the impression that we were part of something bigger.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree that one would expect that if somebody's planning to go and murder somebody, or execute somebody, or assassinate somebody, and you had to plan it properly, you would take precautions not to get caught, like changing the numberplates on your car or not even using your own car, using some other vehicle that couldn't be traced to you, that sort of step to cover up your acts, and yet you say you go there, you go in your own motor vehicle, knowing or expecting that the police may well be telephoned and informed of it, but you say that's because you thought it was a larger operation, a small part of a larger operation?

MR WHEELER: That is correct, and that everything would have been in a state of confusion in the country.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that your (indistinct)?

MR WHEELER: That is correct. There were also indications that the police would support right wing groups, which also turned out not to be the case.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Mr Ecksteen a member of the AWB?

MR WHEELER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions, arising questions in re-examination?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. Thank you, Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: The first aspect, Mr Wheeler, I'd like to refer to, your evidence during evidence in chief and during cross-examination is to the effect that you thought that you were part of a war which was about to commence?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And the organisation whose interests you wanted to serve by your conduct, who was that, or what was that?

MR WHEELER: It was the AWB and partly the CP.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, with respect, I would like to refer to the applicant's application, on page 5 of the paginated documents, paragraph 11(a), the question is:-

And the answer given there is:-

My instruction is to apply to you at this stage for the amendment of that form, the answer should be:-

And my instruction is:-

And I therefore request the according amendment.

...(tape ends)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Koning?

MR DE KONING: I don't have any particular objection, neither to standing down or the amendment, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, perhaps it would assist, you want to amend it to say, to insert the answer yes, if we could just get that ...(intervention).

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: ...to get the answer that you wish to insert there, the answer is yes, and then is there any qualification to the yes?

MR PRINSLOO: "On behalf of the AWB and the CP."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the copy that I have of that application form, at present the answer there is, it's typed in "Nee".

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So you want to delete that?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we'll take that short adjournment for Mr..., what is the time now? Perhaps we can take the lunch adjournment at this stage, I see it's ten to one, and then if possible if we could try to start at ten to two, we'll just bring the lunch adjournment ten minutes earlier. We'll take the lunch adjournment now.

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I had a look at Mr Prinsloo's intentions on behalf of the first applicant. My respectful submission is that at this stage there is no real reason and no real real reason for this, as he describes it as a mistake, and that should be clarified, why is there such a mistake on the documents, and this mistake goes to the essence of this whole hearing. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I agree with my learned colleague. I would like to lead evidence, but that will have to take place with your permission, because that is actually in the nature of evidence in chief, and therefore I would have to ask permission from you to find out whether I can deal with this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: It is in order.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.

JAMES WHEELER: (still under oath)

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Wheeler, is it correct that this application form of yours was drafted in consultation with your legal representatives?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct that you considered the questions in paragraphs 11(a) and 11(b) of the application form?

MR WHEELER: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: When the form was completed, the answer to 11(a) was "no"?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall what the motive was at that stage why the correct answer to this question in 11(a) was "no"?

MR WHEELER: I misinterpreted the question and I thought they, or I thought it referred to whether there was money involved.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct that as far as 11(b) is concerned, that you read 11(b) with 11(a)?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And did the question in 11(a) have any effect on your interpretation of 11(b)?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall how you reasoned at that stage, why 11(b) or why 11(a) had an effect on your answer in 11(b), or otherwise, the other way round?

MR WHEELER: If I'd said yes in the previous one, then that would have implied that we would have had to give them names of the people, because I misinterpreted it in the previous question, I thought that it referred to money being involved and that's the reason why I thought it had to be answered in that way, I thought it would cause a big misunderstanding.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there any issue of you having argued that there was a direct order being given for the commission of the offence which you committed?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Please listen to my question carefully, did you at any stage consider to say in this application that somebody gave you a direct order to commit this specific offence and kill this specific person?

MR WHEELER: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it also so that the portion which appears on page 5 of this application at the top of the page, that that portion was completed simultaneously with the rest of the application?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: That also includes the portion which appears on page 5, I quote, it's the fourth line from the bottom, the typed version:-

It included that part as well?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: That is then the evidence in respect of this aspect of Mr Wheeler's application.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: I submit, Chairperson, that as far as the application for amendment is concerned, that it appears very clearly from the top portion of page 5 that in reality there is no misunderstanding as far as the correct interpretation of the application as a whole. I want to emphasise the sentence that I've quoted, that it had to have followed logically that that would have been the answer, if there was no interpretation problem, then the answer in view of what the applicant had said at the top of page 5 must, the answer must have been yes, that is the answer now to 11(a), there can be no other logical conclusion, because these two things, as they stand, are contradictory and in view of this it can have no prejudicial consequences for any interested parties if this amendment is granted. It is actually self-evident. MR BOTHA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman ...(intervention).

INTERPRETER: Speaker's microphone.

MR BOTHA: ...my argument on this point over until the end of these proceedings, regarding this, especially there's a few questions that still has to be asked pertaining to this. How can he think that this was, this meant something to do that he, that there was money involved, but with your permission I will hold it over for argument at the end of the proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Prinsloo, it doesn't really have much effect whether the application to amend is granted or refused at this stage or at a later stage, would you agree with that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Mr Chairman, I just wanted to do it earlier rather than later, to not create the wrong impression.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: But I agree with you, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: What would your attitude be to Mr Botha putting a few questions to Mr Wheeler at this stage? It might save making an application to recall him later on this point, as to how he could make that mistake, I think, would you have any objection to that?

MR PRINSLOO: No objections.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha, would you like to ask some questions now at this stage? It might save some time later.

MR BOTHA: Yes. Yes, I will do it now. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: Mr Wheeler, your explanation is that this question 11(a), you interpreted it to refer to financial reward or interest. If you read question 11(a):-

And your answer was initially no. How could you have interpreted this question as referring to any financial reward?

MR WHEELER: Maybe I can explain it like this, when I drafted these documents, I was still in prison, and I read through it very briefly, and that's how I interpreted it.

MR BOTHA: You say you read it briefly, when was that?

MR WHEELER: I really can't tell you at this stage.

MR BOTHA: 27th of March 1997, that was the date on which the statement was attested to. Was it more or less at that stage?

MR WHEELER: It's possible.

MR BOTHA: And in this period of almost a year, you haven't realised this mistake before, it's only now that you realised this mistake?

MR WHEELER: As I said in my affidavit, I apologise for misunderstanding, and this is something that we actually just didn't notice, due to an oversight. After we sent these documents away, I never again read through it, I just assumed that what I wrote down here was correct.

MR BOTHA: Can you remember today what you thought at that stage, a year ago?

MR WHEELER: No.

MR BOTHA: Then how can you tell the committee today that you at that stage thought there was an issue of money involved and that the question referred to money?

MR WHEELER: It may be one of the thoughts that entered my mind, and what I thought was that nobody had offered me any money to commit this act, I hadn't received anything from the movement, and that is why I interpreted it in this way.

MR BOTHA: So you're saying that it could have been something that you thought about a year ago. Could one of the other thoughts that came to you not have been that it was indeed so that the act had not been committed with the approval of the organisation?

MR WHEELER: No. We mention in the paragraph above that, it was simply a matter of an oversight.

MR BOTHA: No further questions on this particular point.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Botha. Mr Prinsloo, just before we move on, just on this, while we're dealing with this matter, 11(b) says:-

Your amendment to, your application to amend 11(a), will that have any effect on your answer to 11(b) of your client?

MR PRINSLOO: No, chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Because that only refers to "on behalf of"?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You were re-examining your client, I don't know if you have any ...(intervention).

MR PRINSLOO: Yes please, Chairperson, I have a couple of questions.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Wheeler ...(inter-vention).

CHAIRPERSON: ...of this application will then be pended until later in the hearing.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you. Mr Wheeler, I'd like you to just reflect carefully, and take your time, please don't get the impression that we're hurrying you up, take your time and think, and indicate to the committee what your impression was, if you cast your mind back, after you heard these statements and pronouncements made by, for instance, Mr Eugene Terreblanche, in respect of what would happen if the AWB, or the ANC took over the country, that the AWB would take it back by force, etcetera, if you could place yourself back into that period of time, the 27th of April 1994 and you have to indicate to the committee what your views were as to what would happen if the plan which you interpreted Mr Terreblanche to have encouraged you to commit, what would have happened if that plan had taken place successfully, what would have been the outcome on the day of the elections or in that period of time if it had happened as they had held out to you?

MR WHEELER: At that stage, with all these statements and pronouncements, we were actually afraid as to what would happen to us if there was a takeover of the government, because in the whole of South Africa's history, there'd never been black people in government, and I assumed that what these people were telling us, namely that it would be a disaster, and it would be especially bad for the Afrikaners if there were such a change in government, that caused me to think what would happen and how things would be after the elections, and in that way I was influenced and I had a growing conviction that the people in South Africa would be very badly off under a black controlled government, and that is how I made the decision to try and combat that. The explosions that took place at the time also made me realise that these people were actually busy doing what they had promised they would do, and that we would take our land back and that we would not yield to an ANC/Communist government. All right, today the contrary has been proved, that we are not that badly off after all, and now we realise that we should just have accepted it, and that in the past our people suffered, but today things are not that bad, and I think if we had this view then, we would have had a very different situation today, the feelings that we had then, before the elections, namely the fear that these people, the new government, would oppress us, those are feelings which are hard to describe, and those feelings were instilled in us, and that is how it happened, that is the feeling that I had regarding that period surrounding the elections, I feared that we were entering a very shaky period, and at that stage everybody was full of bravado and quite prepared to resist. Ultimately, of course, nothing happened and we stood alone.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Wheeler, I don't want there to be any misunderstanding between the two of us, I would like you to describe to the committee, what was the plan, what was the action which you thought should take place if people correctly interpreted the appeals made by the AWB?

MR WHEELER: There was the issue of the water infrastructure being attacked or sabotaged and that people's electricity was going to be cut off ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Prinsloo is asking you is, what, could you tell us what you thought would have happened had this uprising, if we can call it, by the followers of the AWB been successful, also what would have happened after the elections had everything gone as you thought it should have gone, or expected it to have gone?

MR WHEELER: We would then have taken over the country entirely. We would be able to restore the fact of being white people and we would not have yielded to the government.

MR PRINSLOO: Who would you have expected to have been in control of the country after the elections?

MR WHEELER: I think that Ferdi Hartzenberg would have been a suitable person.

MR PRINSLOO: Would you, in those circumstances, have expected anybody to prosecute you for any offences perpetrated in the execution of this war?

MR WHEELER: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that what you thought afterwards, or had you already reached that conclusion at that earlier stage?

MR WHEELER: I'd already thought so earlier.

MS GCABASHE: May I just ask for clarity, you thought somebody like Ferdi Hartzenberg might take over. I mean what made you think this, is this what was said in your party political meetings?

MR WHEELER: No, this is what, my own conclusion.

MS GCABASHE: But what was said in the party political meeting, you know the end result will be?

MR WHEELER: They just said that we will take over the country and that the country would be governed by the right wing, and I assumed that perhaps Mr Terreblanche would also feature, but my own conclusion was that Ferdi Hartzenberg would be the person to take over the country.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Wheeler, during cross-examination a question was put to you, namely whether you'd told Mr Pyper to shoot, to fire a shot at the mini-bus. May I ask you the following, in my notes I have a gap there, could you please indicate to the committee, did you at any point say to Mr Pyper that he should fire?

MR WHEELER: No, I said that I'd cocked the rifle and handed it to him, whereupon I accelerated to draw level with the taxi and the shot went off.

MR PRINSLOO: Towards the end of cross-examination by Mr Botha, he made a statement to you and immediately afterwards he said he had no further questions, but you didn't answer that statement that he made. The statement was this, that it was the liquor which encouraged you to commit the offence. What is your answer to that, was it the liquor? 

MR WHEELER: No, it wasn't. As we already said, there were many prior occasions when we'd consumed liquor and that was not the reason or the motive why I acted on that day.

MR PRINSLOO: In cross-examination, you were asked whether, who was your immediate senior in the AWB, did you have any contact with him immediately after the incident? My question is, was there any question of Mr De Bruin being your immediate senior in the AWB?

MR WHEELER: No.

MS GCABASHE: (Indistinct), you had no seniors or juniors as far as you were concerned, as an individual?

MR WHEELER: That is correct, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Regarding one other aspect, you've already indicated that Mr Ecksteen was not a member of the AWB?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, to the best of your knowledge, who amongst the other people at that gathering on the afternoon of the 27th, who, amongst those people, were AWB members?

MR WHEELER: It was just myself and Mr Pyper.

MR PRINSLOO: I have no further questions, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, (indistinct) to Mr De Koning and

Mr Botha to ask if they have any questions arising out of the questions that were put to the witness by the panel members. Mr De Koning?

MR DE KONING: Would you just bear a second with me, I just want to confer with my learned attorney? Mr Chairman, can I just make sure? We're confined to matters raised by the committee as opposed to Mr Prinsloo in re-examination, we're not entitled to that?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Thank you, Mr Chairman. That means (indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I have a few questions. Thank you, Mr Chairman, I do have a few questions.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: Mr Wheeler, with reference to what Advocate Gcabashe asked you, he asked you whether you grew up with black people and you said no, you didn't actually grow up with them, but that you worked with them?

MR WHEELER: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: In your supreme court case, you called a black man to testify on your behalf, and he apparently was a colleague of yours at work?

MR WHEELER: Yes.

MR BOTHA: I refer the committee to page 75 of the first bundle, line 12, if I could read that to you?

That is now referring to yourself:-

The evidence of Klaas Mabaya in this respect is significant. Was Klaas also lying, according to your instructions, was he lying to the judge?

MR WHEELER: If I could put it this way, in 1992, I was working at the mine and Klaas came to work for me, and since then a lot has happened, but in the context of what I said, that we should not follow a political line in the court case, I thought it a good idea to call him to testify.

MR BOTHA: I'm not understanding your answer. Please just answer it again.

MR WHEELER: The last time that I worked with this man was in 1992. He wasn't working for me at the time of the court case.

MR BOTHA: In 1992?

MR WHEELER: That's right. I was working at Western Deep Gold Mines in 1992, and that is where I got Klaas from to come and testify for me, because I believed that we should not, or that we hadn't achieved our political objective and therefore we believed we shouldn't take the political line, and that's why I thought Klaas should come and testify for me, but this was two years before the incident that I had seen him last.

MR BOTHA: Very well. So Klaas also misled the Court, because he testified as to things that happened before '92 and the incident took place in '94?

MR WHEELER: The things that he testified about took place in 1991, such as for instance when I referred to there that I took them to their homeland in Lesotho on Christmas day or New Years day.

MR BOTHA: Would you agree with me that that is not the conduct of the normal AWB person?

MR WHEELER: We were not opposed to black people, but we were opposed to what they stood for.

MR BOTHA: You then refer in your affidavit which you read to the committee today, in paragraph 12:-

What was the reason for your resignation?

MR WHEELER: At Western Deep Levels, I worked quite far underground, and there were several incidences of rockfalls in which black people were killed, and after the last one I decided to resign and go to a safer mine.

MR BOTHA: The impression which your wife created during the bail application was that you could not, in respect of the death of these black people, that you couldn't actually deal with it and that's why you resigned?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I don't want to interrupt unnecessarily, but I want to ask if these questions are actually flowing from the questions that the committee put? With respect, I can't see that it does.

MR BOTHA: Honourable Chairperson, if I may react, what I'm dealing with here is cross-examination by Advocate Gcabashe. She put questions relating to the relationship between Mr Wheeler and black people with whom he'd grown up, or with whom he had not grown up, and the people with whom he worked, so it flows directly from that cross-examination relating to his relationship with his colleagues and so forth.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Gcabashe would dispute the word "cross-examination", questions by her.

MR BOTHA: I apologise, Advocate.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'll allow it to continue, but if you ...(intervention).

MR BOTHA: I'm finished. Mr Wheeler, the question is, isn't it so that at Western Deep Levels Gold Mine, that you resigned from that mine because you couldn't deal with the death of people in your team?

MR WHEELER: To a certain extent, yes.

MS GCABASHE: Can I just ask for clarity, are we talking about the black people who were dying, you couldn't deal with that?

MR WHEELER: Yes, because of the rockfalls that took place on the mine.

MS GCABASHE: Ja, but that still gives me even greater difficulty at your shooting at black people again who, in a sense, you cared for, and that here you don't bother to identify, can you identify that contradiction?

MR WHEELER: At that point our country was not in danger of being taken over by these people, and I believe that anyone, no matter who they may be, has black people working for them and that they should see to the needs of their workers, is that not so?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, do you have any questions?

MR STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Wheeler.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson, these are all the

questions for Mr Wheeler.

I would like to call another witness. However, there is a technicality which plays quite an important role in my submissions and might influence my decision regarding whether I could call the person, and secondly under which disadvantage I may stand should I call him to give evidence. As the honourable members of the committee have already heard from the testimony of Mr Wheeler, as well as the documentation in terms of the applications of both applicants, it is very clear that there is an exceptional chance that if Mr De Bruin were to testify, questions would be posed to him and in all probability they would, which might in effect incriminate him, and I wish to ask the committee whether, in terms of section 31 of the promotion of ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) with the attorney-general, etcetera, that's the section you're referring to?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, Mr Chairman. Otherwise there will be severe limitations on the evidence and you will have the factual situation that every now and again, most probably, there will be objections to certain questions being put because it might have the result of Mr De Bruin incriminating himself. If the committee, however, issued an order in terms of section 31, after the prerequisites had been met, in respect of questions which might elicit incriminating answers as to the role of Mr De Bruin and his own participating in any planning, then I submit to you then the full truth can come before this committee, and I would urge the committee to, before I call Mr De Bruin, or before I decide to call Mr De Bruin, that you exercise that discretion, so that he can be called and talk freely and so that we can hear the full truth, without technical ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it would seem from the evidence that we've heard now from Mr Wheeler and as you say what's on the documentation, that it would be difficult to foresee a situation of Mr De Bruin being convicted in a court of law in respect of the death of the deceased and the injury of the deceased's brother, you know either as an accessory before the fact or in any other way, because it would seem that from what Mr Wheeler has said, he made certain statements and he created certain impressions in the mind of the applicants as to what action they should take, but if it would assist, I think the panel would be of the view that the evidence of Mr De Bruin would assist in this matter, so that would satisfy sub-section 2(b) there. I'll hear what Mr Botha has to say about it, but I don't - my prima facie view is that there wouldn't be a problem from the panel's point of view of complying with the provisions of 2(b) before he calls - section 31.2(b) before he's called, if that would assist.

MR BOTHA: I agree with the panel, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I actually pre-empted this position and I've already had certain discussions, not myself, but with Advocate Van Zyl, who is the senior deputy attorney-general in the office of the A-G. I have also, one of the members, instructed one of the members earlier this morning to speak to Advocate De Vries. He left a message on my cellphone and I've spoken myself to Advocate Van Zyl, and I have got a copy of the fax which was sent to Advocate De Vries's office this morning, he acknowledges the content thereof and as far as section 31's requirements is then stipulated, with all due respect, Mr Chairman, I did have certain discussions with the A-G regarding this specific issue and the position that may arise on this issue. So I've got copies here, if necessary for ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Prinsloo would be wanting would be some written confirmation from the attorney-general that the provisions of section 31 would apply in respect of the evidence given by Mr De Bruin, and that he would therefore benefit by the other provisions in the Act that his evidence given in this hearing would then not be used against him in any subsequent criminal trial.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, because of the, I would like to say the practical time concerned this morning, Advocate De Vries was unable to send me a written confirmation, but all I can say is that I did have oral confirmation by Advocate Van Zyl and Advocate De Vries, but if necessary I'm sure they will, if necessary, will give me a written undertaking, if necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that will - would you insist on waiting for that written undertaking?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, my position is this, that if the committee is satisfied that the prescribed prerequisites of section 31.2 have been met, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), whether that is based on written acknowledgement or whether you satisfy yourselves in any other manner, I would be satisfied, as long as the committee says that it's satisfied that those prerequisites have been met, then in terms of this provision, with respect, you can issue an order that the witness should answer all questions, and then he has the protection under the section.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you'll notice also that the wording of section 31.2(a) says that the commission, after the commission has consulted, whatever that may be, and there has been that consultation through Mr Steenkamp.

The committee is satisfied, as I've already mentioned, that the evidence would assist here and is therefore necessary.

With regard to (c), he may be asked a question which might incriminate him, although, as I've already indicated as well that that might be remoted, from what we've heard now, but it may well arise that he may have to answer a question which will incriminate him, so in that regard then, I would, and my members who are sitting with me here are in agreement, order that the provisions of section 31, particularly section 31.2, have been satisfied and that they would apply in regard to the testimony given by Mr De Bruin in this matter.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you be calling Mr De Bruin now, or would he be giving evidence also - I don't know if Mr De Koning will also be calling him again after that or not?

MR DE KONING: Mr Chairman, I would avail myself of my opportunity to elicit what I need to know from him in cross-examination, I haven't had the opportunity of consulting with him, I don't know what he will say. So I will perhaps see what comes and also what comes from cross-examination. I don't intend

leading him as such, if it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I call Mr De Bruin.

JOHANNES JAKOBUS DE BRUIN: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr De Bruin, you have heard the evidence of Mr Wheeler this morning?

MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: You are an adult person living in Westonaria?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm showing a document to you, do you recognise it?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: What document is this?

MR DE BRUIN: It is a statement which I have made.

MR PRINSLOO: An affidavit?

MR DE BRUIN: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you confirm that the contents of the affidavit are the truth and correct?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I have copies of this affidavit and I ask that it be handed out to all persons involved, after which I would beg your leave for it to be read into the record?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson. With your leave, I'll ask Mr De Bruin to read his statement into the record.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll receive this affidavit then as EXHIBIT B.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr De Bruin.

MR DE BRUIN:

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, this is the only question which I would like to pose to Mr De Bruin.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Koning, Mr Botha, do you want to do the same order as ...(intervention).

MR DE KONING: I would prefer that, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha, do you have any objections?

MR BOTHA: No objections.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr Botha.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: Mnr De Bruin, ek sien dat u het inderdaad hier 'n afskrif aangeheg van u bewys van lidmaatskap van die Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging?

MR DE BRUIN: Ja, dis korrek.

MR BOTHA: When did you apply for this document and when did you receive it?

MR DE BRUIN: In 1989, the exact day and month I cannot recall, but it was a question of three months after I had applied for membership that I received my membership card.

MR BOTHA: I see that there is a small block, firstly there's a triangle with the AWB logo, and then there's a small square which would appear that it has been left there for a passport size photo?

MR DE BRUIN: That's correct.

MR BOTHA: On my copy there is no photo of you on this AWB membership card. Can you explain why?

MR DE BRUIN: I never had a photo taken or pasted thereon. I didn't see the purpose of it, because my name, my surname and my signature were enough for me in terms of this membership card.

MR BOTHA: Very well. As a member of the AWB, if I understand or remember correctly, the AWB wore certain uniforms with certain ranks?

MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: What was your position within the hierarchy of the AWB movement?

MR DE BRUIN: I was simply a regular member of the AWB.

MR BOTHA: Can you tell me whether you wore a uniform of the AWB?

MR DE BRUIN: No, not at all.

MR BOTHA: Did you at any stage see that the two applicants, either one of them, wore a uniform to indicate that they were members of the AWB?

MR DE BRUIN: No, we never wore the uniforms.

MR BOTHA: Can you tell the honourable committee why not?

MR DE BRUIN: I saw no purpose as to why we should wear the uniform because the uniforms that you are referring to were regular khaki clothes, which the AWB members regularly wore and I saw no purpose to prove to one and all that I was a member of the AWB. I attended meetings in civil clothes and Mr Wheeler and Mr Corrie Pyper did the same, and that is all that I can say regarding this, we saw no purpose to wear the uniform in order to prove that we were members of the AWB.

MR BOTHA: Very well. Is it true that by wearing the uniform, one would identify much more clearly with the purposes and the objectives of the AWB?

MR DE BRUIN: That is so.

MR BOTHA: When you, as a soldier, because it appears to me that you were also operative on the Angolan border, at any point when you entered that war in your civil clothing, did you at any point make war?

MR DE BRUIN: No, it was discipline which was enforced upon one to wear a uniform and one was more proud of the uniform which was issued one in the army.

MR BOTHA: Would my inference be unfair then if I were to say that these applicants neglected to wear their AWB uniform while they were entering this war situation and that therefore they would not be proud or identify themselves with the objectives of the AWB?

MR DE BRUIN: With all respect, it would depend on each person whether or not they would want to wear the uniform and I cannot explain why the applicants refused to wear the uniform or purchase the uniform for that matter.

MR BOTHA: In paragraph 8 of your statement, you mention the Church Street bombing, can you remember approximately in which year that took place?

MR DE BRUIN: That is a sudden question, but I know that with the Church Street bomb a school friend of mine was injured and I can't provide the exact date and day.

MR BOTHA: Was that approximately five or six years before the election?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR BOTHA: And the Magoos Bar bombing, can you remember when that took place, how long before the election did this take place?

MR DE BRUIN: That was also quite some time before the election. If I had to estimate, I would say also approximately five to six years before the election, in the 1980's.

MR BOTHA: Could you tell me what the relevance of that would be to the election day, can you explain that to us please?

MR DE BRUIN: I feel that many explosions occurred, exercises of sabotage, before the election, and as I have said in the former paragraphs, that I was raised in a very conservative manner, that I was in the military division of the Parachute Brigade, and there we were specifically made aware who our enemy was and what our enemy was doing on the borders of Namibia, and also what they were doing internally, and I feel that the bombs which were planted were planted by those who wanted to overthrow the government of that time, and I felt that in our action on election day, had to be an expression of what our feelings were.

MR BOTHA: On the 27th of April 1994, did you regard a bomb attack from the side of the ANC/SACP alliance as a possibility?

MR DE BRUIN: No.

MR BOTHA: Can you specifically recall the words, you mentioned the name of Mr Terreblanche, I assume that that is the leader of the AWB, what exactly did he say?

MR DE BRUIN: His exact words I cannot recall, but what it boiled down to was that on the day that the ANC would become this country's government, on that night he would take over the country and take it back with violence, those were his words, not exactly as I have stated them, but what he said inferred to that which I have said to you today.

MR BOTHA: Paragraph 9 of your statement indicates that at various meetings, Mr Terreblanche called you up to prepare for the imminent freedom struggle and to arm yourselves. He didn't tell you to make war, he told you to protect yourselves?

MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: If that was the call, and you, along with Mr Wheeler and Mr Pyper, had undertaken discussions and recalled these bomb explosions from six to seven years ago, why is it then that only the two of them decided that they would go and shoot the people and that you decided, or in fact you didn't make any decision, you yourself did not at all participate in any such activities as what they did?

MR DE BRUIN: As I referred to in paragraph 9, where Mr Terreblanche called us to prepared for the imminent freedom struggle and to arm ourselves, I thus waited for specific instructions from specific people, and ultimately I did not receive such instructions, although I had much to do with AWB officers.

MR BOTHA: However, you weren't even at home, you went to visit your parents in Randfontein, so you wouldn't have received those instructions?

MR DE BRUIN: I drove to my parents that afternoon, and the AWB officers with which I was involved knew that I would be with my parents and they would have known where to contact me and that would have been at my parents' home.

MR BOTHA: I'm going to ask you one more time, why is it that only Mr Wheeler and Mr Pyper decided to go and shoot people and you did not go along to go and shoot? They received the same instructions, why didn't you?

MR DE BRUIN: Because I was waiting for a specific instruction from a specific person.

MR BOTHA: And why didn't they wait for these instructions?

MR DE BRUIN: I suppose that they were not aware of the fact that specific instructions would be issued.

MR BOTHA: I put it to you that in all possibility they were not aware of such instructions because they simply were not members?

MR DE BRUIN: They were members and they attended various meetings with me.

MR BOTHA: Do you have personal knowledge that they received appointments as members of the AWB?

MR DE BRUIN: I know specifically of applications that they filled out and which were handed in, but I don't know why they did not receive feedback from the AWB officers.

MR BOTHA: You state in paragraph 14, it appears to me that you came together on the relevant day and you were, all three of you were frustrated at the elections, which you regarded as giving over power to the ANC/SACP alliance. At what time did you meet?

MR DE BRUIN: It was during the morning hours when Mr Wheeler and Mr Pyper were at my home, they also asked for tools with which they wanted to fix his vehicle, and I told them that I didn't have any equipment. However, I did supply them with parts. We spoke for a time, but I cannot remember the exact time.

MR BOTHA: Can you tell me, you see the picture that they are sketching is that a great war would emanate from these events, and you have said in paragraph 10 that they were gathering emergency supplies and ammunition, can you explain to me that if there was a war on the way and that all the necessary emergency supplies and ammunition was ready, why would you go for a visit in Randfontein?

MR DE BRUIN: The reason why I paid a visit to my parents was that if anything would occur, Randfontein was approximately 15 to 16 kilometres away from my home, so I could be back at my home within a question of minutes, and also at my parents' home provision was made for supplies, so that if anything had happened, I would have been able to survive there.

MR BOTHA: Mr De Bruin, if an order had come through to you from your authorities, your officers, what would you have done, what would the order would have been, what would you have expected?

MR DE BRUIN: It's difficult to say, the order could have been that the people should meet and do something, or the order could have been that the people should meet just to hear that they could continue with their normal lives, that nothing was going to happen, it's difficult to say what ...(tape ends) ...it was going to be. 

MR BOTHA: To do something like what?

MR DE BRUIN: What we expected was that people would get together and that there would an insurrection and revolt, that is what we prepared ourselves for.

MR BOTHA: You were used to army discipline. Were there any specific instructions for any specific events?

MR DE BRUIN: No, there were no specific instructions given to us. It could have been conveyed to the officers, because they would have had to take the lead, but not to us ordinary members.

MR BOTHA: Would you, on the instructions of your senior officers, give your shotgun to your friend and, armed with your grandfather's .22, go and shoot any black man that you meet along the way, would you do that?

MR DE BRUIN: No, because I felt that such a person wasn't a threat to me, but he was a threat for my political convictions.

MR BOTHA: I have no further questions. I thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Botha.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Koning.

MR DE KONING: Thank you, Chair.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DE KONING: Mr De Bruin, do I understand your evidence correctly that you were actually, from a very young age, you were very interested in politics, especially organised politics?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: And your political involvement was limited to right wing politics?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: And more specifically the far right wing?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: If I look at the evidence which was led at the bail applications of the two applicants, I see on typed page 2, Chairperson I think it's page 12 of the bundle, Mr D Rie testified, I think he was from the Security Department of the Westonaria Gold Mine, he testified that he saw the accused, and at the bottom of the page he was asked, perhaps we should go from rule 19:-

He further says:-

That was the next question:-

Now the statement I'd like to make to you is that it appears to me that in the community in which you lived it was a generally known fact that you were involved in the right wing politics, especially AWB circles, and that you were openly so involved, you made so secret of that fact, am I right? 

MR DE BRUIN: I had no, there was no need to make a secret of my involvement in the AWB, but people could have made their own inferences as to whether I was a member or an officer, I didn't make it clear to anybody what exactly my position was in the AWB.

MR DE KONING: Now I don't want to dispute the matter with you, all I want to ascertain is this, you were clearly aware of the fact that your political convictions were known to your community?

MR DE BRUIN: It could have been like that.

MR DE KONING: In your affidavit which you handed in today, you also say that you concede that it's possible that the two applicants could have believe that you were an officer, is that not so?

MR DE BRUIN: It's possible.

MR DE KONING: Am I right in saying that the AWB leader, and perhaps one should use the plural, leaders, shortly before the elections, often, especially on television, made pronouncements and statements which indicated that they were in favour of violence?

MR DE BRUIN: That's correct.

MR DE KONING: At these meetings, which fortunately I, or unfortunately I never attended, but as I understand from media reports, at these meetings it was widely propagated that there should be resistance to what was happening, namely the transformation from one constitutional dispensation to another?

MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.

MR DE KONING: And that violence was an acceptable mechanism, as far as the AWB was concerned, to try and halt that transfer of power?

MR DE BRUIN: That's correct.

MR DE KONING: And that is how it came about that the people who attended these meetings were encouraged and incited to mobilise and to arm themselves?

MR DE BRUIN: Correct.

MR DE KONING: The liberation struggle which you mentioned wasn't only a struggle to try and defend, it was widely propagated that offensive action should also be taken?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: And you, as an active supporter of the AWB, obviously identified yourself with these judgments and statements made?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: And you would agree with me today that, going by what Mr Wheeler told the committee today, that he regarded you as a leader in the AWB, a leader of some sorts, I say leader in the sense that you weren't an ordinary member, that you held some office in the AWB, did you never convince him of the contrary?

MR DE BRUIN: No.

MR DE KONING: And the same goes for Mr Pyper, is that not so?

MR DE BRUIN: Correct.

MR DE KONING: And, due to your active involvement in right wing politics, you would agree with me that they could, therefore, also have seen you as a very definite leader of whatever extent?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: And you would also then agree with me that, referring to the visit to you on the morning of the 27th, when the bomb explosions were referred to and you told them, as you say in paragraph 13, you said:-

That could surely have created the impression with them that you had certain inside knowledge?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: And it could also have created the impression with them that the time for action was on hand, because the first shots had already been fired, so to speak?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: And you would then also agree with me that that could have been interpreted as incitement to violence?

MR DE BRUIN: Well that's their own inference which they could draw, but it's possible.

MR DE KONING: Well, given the circumstances, I want to put it to you, it was clear what was going on in their minds?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: If I understand it correctly, you would also agree with me that you were in some way aware of the fact that these two applicants, like yourself, had associated yourselves with this liberation struggle and the mood of defiance as to what was happening at the time?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: And their intense interest in the explosions which took place that morning and their approach of you to try and find out what exactly was happening, those are also indications of the fact that they saw you as somebody who knew more than they did and who was a leader?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Am I correct if I infer from your testimony that when you told them that the resistance of the boers had started, you believed in your own mind that the explosion which had taken place on that day was an explosion caused from right wing circles?

MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.

MR DE KONING: And that was also the message which you tried to convey to them by the statement which you made to them?

MR DE BRUIN: Correct.

MR DE KONING: So, insofar as they had any doubt as to who was responsible for those explosions, you, during your meeting with them on the morning of the 27th, you conveyed to them that it had been caused by the right wing and the AWB?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: You in fact, if we look at the spirit of what is stated in paragraph 13, you also said to them that, "This is not the end and we also have to make our own contribution as far as is necessary"?

MR DE BRUIN: Correct.

MR DE KONING: And you can't say that these events and these communications to them directly or indirectly was responsible for the fact that they went and did what they in fact did later that day?

MR DE BRUIN: Correct.

MR DE KONING: Maybe I should ask you this, do I understand your evidence correctly that the propaganda which originated from the higher echelons of the AWB was to the effect that violence should be perpetrated to cause disruption?

MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.

MR DE KONING: And you heard Mr Wheeler testifying as to the possibility that was considered to plant a bomb at the United Bank or something like that, did you hear that?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: You would agree with me that the United Bank is not per se a political target?

MR DE BRUIN: Correct.

MR DE KONING: So the objective of the violence which was propagated by the AWB was to instill fear in the community at large?

MR DE BRUIN: That's correct.

MR DE KONING: Do I understand it correctly that it was part of the AWB's propaganda that this fear should be instilled so the people will stay at home and no go and vote so that the elections are scuppered?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Well I'm asking you, is that how you understood the objectives or did you understand it to be one of the objectives?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: And you would not have understood it in that way if it hadn't been said, whether from the political platforms or at secret meetings where members of the AWB had talks?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: You say that you regarded both of the applicants as members of the AWB by virtue of their sympathy for the cause and their visible involvement in the AWB?

MR DE BRUIN: Correct.

MR DE KONING: Please bear with me for a moment, I'm nearly finished. I see that in paragraph 11 of your statement you refer to the fact that you were involved in the AWB and the Mineworkers Union, and you say that:-

Am I to infer from that, that the Mineworkers Union also had a right wing political undertone?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: In paragraph 14 of your statement, about the middle of the paragraph, you say, the sentence starting with the word "we":-

You would agree with me that, as I understand your evidence, although it was never specified what exactly this resistance and freedom struggle should be, it was generally known that it referred to violence?

MR DE BRUIN: Correct.

MR DE KONING: And that was the view of the AWB and their propaganda?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: And that is also the vision that you shared with the two applicants?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Please just give me a moment, Chairperson. Thank you, Chairperson. Mr De Bruin, you've already conceded that the applicants had reasonable grounds for believing that you had some leadership position in the AWB and that you also had some inside information as to the activities of the AWB. You'd also concede that that could have misled them into thinking that you were also a person who could issue orders?

MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.

MR DE KONING: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr De Koning.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, do you have any questions?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, just two questions, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STEENKAMP: Sir, I'd like to understand from you, you're an AWB member and you have a good idea of the AWB'S policy, what it stands for, etcetera?

MR DE BRUIN: I knew what the AWB's affairs were, not everything, but the basic policy, but because I'm no longer actively involved in the AWB, I've lost all interest in the organisation.

MR STEENKAMP: No, but I'm referring to the time of the incident?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, I was very much aware of what was going on.

MR STEENKAMP: Was it ever the policy of the AWB that all black people were enemies of the AWB and should therefore be killed, was that ever their policy?

MR DE BRUIN: It wasn't the policy, but that was the idea that Mr Terreblanche conveyed to us.

MR STEENKAMP: Did he say that all black people were enemies of the AWB?

MR DE BRUIN: Basically, yes. He did not allow any black person as a registered member of the AWB.

MR STEENKAMP: Would he have allowed or would he have approved of the AWB killing any black person in this period of time?

MR DE BRUIN: No.

MR STEENKAMP: Well could you then tell me, or explain to me, where does the applicant's political motivation fit into this policy of the AWB?

MR DE BRUIN: It's difficult, I suppose those are inferences which you drew from conversations with leadership figures in the AWB or things that were said at meetings.

MR STEENKAMP: When you heard of this incident, whilst you were still an AWB member, did you agree with their conduct as an AWB member, not personally, but as an AWB member, did you agree with what they did?

MR DE BRUIN: As AWB member and as a person, it shocked me, and I did not agree with the conduct.

MR STEENKAMP: Why not? Because it wasn't AWB policy, or why?

MR DE BRUIN: Because I felt that it served no purpose and I felt shocked about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, any re-examination?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes please.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr De Bruin, if the idea that was propagated within AWB circles, as prescribed by yourself, the idea to disrupt the elections by means of violence, now if sufficient numbers of people had done what the applicants did, the applicants in this matter, do you think that that would have achieved the objectives so propagated by the AWB?

MR DE BRUIN: It's possible.

MR PRINSLOO: So within that context, you would agree that the actions of the applicants made sense?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moloi, do you have any questions you wish to put to the witness?

MR MOLOI: Mr Chairman, I'd like to clear a few issues with the witness. Mr De Bruin, exactly when did you come to know the two applicants?

MR DE BRUIN: It was in 1992, at the mine where we worked, that's where I got to know them.

MR MOLOI: From which time did you know them to be members of the AWB?

MR DE BRUIN: It was towards the end of 1992, beginning of

'93, they went to AWB meetings with me.

MR MOLOI: You have mentioned that you know they did complete certain application forms for membership. When was that?

MR DE BRUIN: It was at these meetings, I can't remember the specific meeting, but I know of application forms which they filled in at these meetings.

MR MOLOI: Had you also completed a similar application form to become a member?

MR DE BRUIN: No, I filled in a similar form at the offices in Ventersdorp for membership of the AWB.

MR MOLOI: And how long did the process take before you could be issued with a membership card, which you have attached to your affidavit here?

MR DE BRUIN: It took me approximately three months before I received my membership card.

MR MOLOI: Did you at any stage inquire from the applicants whether or not they had received their membership cards three months or more after the forms were completed?

MR DE BRUIN: No, but I told them that there was such a card and I showed them what it looked like, and I told them they had to wait for that, they would receive that to prove that they were members.

MR MOLOI: Were you in their company and also attended meetings with them, say three months or so after their application forms were completed?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes. Yes, we attended meetings, but I can't recall specific time periods, but after their applications had been filled in, we again attended meetings.

MR MOLOI: If you would not receive your membership card, having completed the forms duly, after say six months, what would you have done?

MR DE BRUIN: I would inquire as to what was going on, but it was generally accepted that if you filled in the form, you were already a registered member and you don't have any problems. It wasn't essential to have a membership card to prove that you were a member.

MR MOLOI: There was no need at all to screen you, for instance to determine whether you are now a leftist, so to say, attempting to infiltrate the AWB, that was all irrelevant, you just had to complete the form and that's it?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, that's correct, you could simply fill in a form and you were approved and accepted as a member.

MR MOLOI: And then issued with a membership card?

MR DE BRUIN: That's correct.

MR MOLOI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Gcabashe, do you have any questions?

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, thank you. Just on that point, was there such a thing as a supporter as opposed to a member of the AWB?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: What's the distinction?

MR DE BRUIN: A member is someone who had filled out an application form and received a membership card. Your number would appear on the computer system and that would prove that you are a member, whereas a supporter would be someone who would attend meetings and support the AWB but not want to be directly involved by becoming a registered member of the movement.

ADV GCABASHE: So it's therefore correct to say that until you have your registered card and you are known of, you are on the computer system, you are a supporter, you're not a member?

MR DE BRUIN: No, that's not correct, because your membership card might have become lost in the post, but your name would appear on the computer system, indicating that you are a member. So it's possible to be a member and have one's name on the computer, but if you're a supporter you're not on the computer system or do you have a membership card.

ADV GCABASHE: But if you don't follow up what might have happened to your application form, can you really assume that you are a member and not a supporter?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, it could be.

ADV GCABASHE: No screening is done in this organisation, sir, when you were there, no screening was done to verify the bona fides of the people who wanted to join?

MR DE BRUIN: No, there was no selecting, because applications were made at the head office or at meetings.

ADV GCABASHE: Okay. Now, on a slightly different aspect, you have said that you attended AWB meetings with the applicants"

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, that's correct.

ADV GCABASHE: They heard what you heard?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: You didn't have to interpret anything to them, they speak Afrikaans like you?

MR DE BRUIN: Correct.

ADV GCABASHE: You never had a uniform?

MR DE BRUIN: No, but I did have khaki clothing which I wore, however that was not my AWB uniform.

ADV GCABASHE: Just on that point, khaki uniforms, wearing khaki doesn't qualify you as a member, surely? It's irrelevant whether you're wearing khaki or red or blue?

MR DE BRUIN: No, it was basically the same.

ADV GCABASHE: But your officers would be in full uniform, is that correct?

MR DE BRUIN: That's correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Then why did the applicants, or why do you think the applicants may have elevated your status to that of officer, because on all the points I've just asked you, you didn't qualify as an officer?

MR DE BRUIN: All that I can say regarding their elevation of me to an officer is because I knew many of the officers and communicated with many of them at meetings, and so therefore the applicants could have made inferences that I might be an officer from seeing such things.

ADV GCABASHE: But you have confirmed that they heard what you heard when you went to meetings, you didn't have any special privileged information?

MR DE BRUIN: No, no special information whatsoever.

ADV GCABASHE: And they are adult men, and they were at the time adult men, like you?

MR DE BRUIN: That's correct.

ADV GCABASHE: A slightly different aspect again, moving on from that one, I thought I heard you make mention of the SADF uniform, that you were proud to wear that uniform, did I hear correctly?

MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: But not so the AWB uniform, did I hear correctly?

MR DE BRUIN: That's correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Now it's difficult for me to understand that, can you explain that to me?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, I can explain it. Those who wore the AWB uniforms, which were basically khaki clothing, we saw on a number of times how they wore this clothing. Some people couldn't really fit with the clothing, but they wanted to wear it. The women in the AWB wear khaki clothing which doesn't suit them, but they wear it nonetheless, and I didn't want to wear the clothing, I didn't want to identify myself with the AWB by wearing such clothing. That is all that I want to say.

ADV GCABASHE: Would it then be correct to say that your commitment to the cause was not as strong, is the easiest word I can find, you weren't as committed to the cause as some of those uniform-wearing AWB members, who wanted to show the whole world that they believed in the cause of this organisation?

MR DE BRUIN: Could you repeat the question please?

ADV GCABASHE: Is it correct to conclude therefore that your personal commitment to the AWB was not as strong as that of somebody who proudly wore that AWB uniform?

MR DE BRUIN: That's correct, if you make that inference.

ADV GCABASHE: Now, given that, why again would the two applicants want to believe that you're an officer of this organisation that they say also represented their cause, who they were?

MR DE BRUIN: Many of the officers within the AWB were basically people, how could I put it, please pardon what I'm about to say, but they were people who generally appeared to be stupid, and what I mean by that is not that they are stupid people, but they create the image of stupidity by means of the decisions that they make and the actions that they take, and I did not want to associate myself with stupidity and stupid decisions, and I put it to the two applicants many a time that there were certain elements who were making very wrong decisions with which I could nt agree, and that was one of the reasons which I posed to them which might have led to them seeing that well, I'm not super-intelligent, but I'm not dumb enough not to see what was going on.

ADV GCABASHE: Now, having had these discussions with them, you were still left with the impression that they thought that you were the person they would take orders from, or they could relate to in the AWB?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, that's correct, they might have received that impression and maintained it.

ADV GCABASHE: The basic point, however, being is at no stage did you give them an instruction to go out and shoot black people they happened to come across, at no stage?

MR DE BRUIN: No, I never received or found it necessary to issue such instructions.

MR DE BRUIN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman, do you have any questions?

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairman. Mr De Bruin, did you recruit the applicants for the AWB or who recruited them?

MR DE BRUIN: No, I did not recruit them for the AWB, but with our underground resting place conversations, as well as conversations that we had at our respective homes where we often met, we spoke politics and I inferred that politically they felt the same way as I did, and I invited them along to meetings with me and there they made their own decision to join the AWB.

ADV BOSMAN: So indirectly you may have recruited them?

MR DE BRUIN: Indirectly, yes.

ADV BOSMAN: And the testimony of Mr Wheeler created the impression with me that it was a kind of strategy which was planned for the election. However, on the other hand, if you could just explain, you said that you were waiting for instructions, which of course creates the impression of a certain structure?

MR DE BRUIN: The discussions which Mr Eugene Terreblanche held specifically at meetings led one to the conclusion that he was secretly planning something, and that the officers of the AWB were involved with it, and that they would issue instructions to us. That is the inference that I drew from the statements made by Mr Eugene Terreblanche, as well as that we would receive instructions, because the officers knew who else was involved with the AWB, who else was members of the AWB, so you would have thought that the general AWB member attending these meetings would have interpreted that the regular members were waiting for instructions to be given.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes. And on the morning when you were discussing, or talking to the applicants, did you mention these further instructions to them?

MR DE BRUIN: No.

ADV BOSMAN: Did it not, was it not said that you were waiting for instructions, that you had to be ready in case something had happened?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: And nobody wondered where the instructions would come from?

MR DE BRUIN: Well we assumed that the instructions would be issued from the leadership element.

ADV BOSMAN: When you say "we", do you mean you and the applicants?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, that's me and the applicants. As I saw it, I would receive instructions, I knew where they were, and then I would have said to them, "Guys, we've received these instructions, we must report over there or meet over there", and that would have been the case if I'd received such instructions.

ADV BOSMAN: So therefore, to conclude, you were clearly under the impression that everybody had to wait for instructions which would be issued by the officers?

MR DE BRUIN: No, not that there would be definite instructions, but if there were to be instructions, I would convey it to them.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Bruin, we've been talking about officers of the AWB, did they have, did these officers have military ranks, did they call themselves captains and lieutenants and brigadiers and generals?

MR DE BRUIN: That's correct, they had basic military ranks.

CHAIRPERSON: And did the applicants ever ask you what your rank was, whether you, what level you were in the hierarchy?

MR DE BRUIN: No, we never discussed things like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising from questions put by the members of the panel? I'll start with Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr De Bruin, you answered a question that the officers of the AWB wore a uniform. I would just like to clarify with you, do you know a Mr Fred Rundle? 

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, I do.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct that he is quite high up in the AWB?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know the position which he occupies within the structure of the AWB?

MR DE BRUIN: I'm speaking under correction, but I suppose that he is a general.

MR PRINSLOO: This specific person, does he wear a uniform

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, but I have seen him at various meetings without a uniform.

MR PRINSLOO: Would you agree then that this is one of the cases where one of the top officers within the AWB often doesn't wear his uniform?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: So your answer cannot indicate an absolute rule, but a more general rule, that normally members would wear uniforms?

MR DE BRUIN: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr De Koning?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DE KONING: Mr De Bruin, the question was posed to you that the applicants were with you at the meeting and what you heard is what they heard. However, you told me during the first round when we shared certain ideas with each other that the AWB propagated violence as well as the disruption of the election?

MR DE BRUIN: That's true.

MR DE KONING: So they must have heard that as well?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Furthermore, would you agree with me that, strange enough, and well I cannot provide the reason for this, but the director of the Security Division of the mine was also under the impression that you were an officer in the AWB, is that not true?

MR DE BRUIN: I don't know him.

MR DE KONING: But that he has said it under oath?

MR DE BRUIN: I know that he has said it under oath, but I don't know him. I know that the security services at the Westonaria mine involved, that they often drove among the houses, it could have been that he saw me and I didn't see him, and that he might have seen that the two applicants were with me, that is all possible.

MR DE KONING: Then I would also like to ask you that in answering one of the questions put by one of the panel members, that at the meetings you often communicated with certain officers because you knew them?

MR DE BRUIN: That's correct.

MR DE KONING: And will you agree with me that once again that is a very strong factor which might have led the applicants to believe that you possessed certain knowledge?

MR DE BRUIN: That's correct.

MR DE KONING: Would you agree with me further when you say that there was certain planning which was undertaken, as I understand your testimony, that from the AWB's side resistance and disruption of the elections would come, all that you were waiting for, and I'm referring to you specifically, is an instruction regarding what you were supposed to do and you would then also have gone over into action, is that true, that is the inference which we must make from your testimony?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, that is so.

MR DE KONING: You have said to one of the committee members that you never issued instructions to the applicants to go and kill or shoot black people, but you say in paragraph 13:-

So you will agree with me then that what you said to them then could clearly have been interpreted as the fact that the struggle had begun, the first shots had been fired and action had to be taken?

MR DE BRUIN: That's correct.

MR DE KONING: And in the light of that which you have just said, the concession which you have just made, it could very well be interpreted as an instruction, it could be in the form of a request or someone stomping his foot and saying, "Now you will do this"?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, that's correct.

MR DE KONING: So it could very well have been an instruction, depending upon how the person hearing that statement had interpreted it?

MR DE BRUIN: Indirectly, yes.

MR DE KONING: And you've also said to the committee that Mr Terreblanche created the impression that the organisation was ready and that the instruction would come from some point and that then it would flow through the channels to whoever was supposed to undertake the instructions?

MR DE BRUIN: Correct.

MR DE KONING: Then, Mr De Bruin, there is another aspect which I find rather strange, you've said that you were shocked when you heard what the applicants had done. Do you remember that?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, I remember that.

MR DE KONING: Now, I'd like to ask you whether you would agree that the explosion which occurred on the morning of that election day was, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Johannesburg International Airport, is that correct?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: And that people died during that explosion?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: And that ultimately people were prosecuted and placed in jail as a result?

MR DE BRUIN: That's true.

MR DE KONING: And we can accept that the news reports also reported that people had died during that explosion?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, that's correct.

MR DE KONING: However, if I understand your testimony correctly, especially that which you have said in paragraph 13 of your statement, you were not shocked at the loss of life which occurred there, because that was within the strategy of disruption?

MR DE BRUIN: I was shocked.

MR DE KONING: So you were shocked about that as well?

MR DE BRUIN: That's right.

MR DE KONING: Although it was part of the planned strategy to disrupt the election and sow chaos so that there could be no change in the State dispensation, do I understand it correctly?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Although these events were to be expected to you, you said that in a humane way, it did shock you, so that would be of application to any act of terrorism in terms of the objective to disrupt and terrorise?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes.

MR DE KONING: So that which you have said with regard to what you heard the applicants had done was not an exception?

MR DE BRUIN: That's true.

ADV GCABASHE: If I might just interrupt at this point, can you explain that shock, you know Mr De Koning is talking about you were shocked?

MR DE BRUIN: Ja.

MS GCABASHE: Why in relation to these two applicants, why?

MR DE BRUIN: Because I did not expect that the two applicants would have done something like that, because they were my friends and my friends at that point were at the mine, we never spoke in such a way that we would have killed people in order to achieve our objective. We spoke about the possible loss of life, but not that we directly would cause it, and that is why I was shocked at my two friends, that they could be involved in such a matter.

MR DE KONING: However, you expected of them to participate in the resistance and freedom struggle which you told us of, like yourself?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, that's true.

MR DE KONING: And you knew that the resistance and freedom struggle would lead to violence, people being injured, death, blood, destruction?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, I knew that.

MR DE KONING: Chairperson, I am finished. However, in my notes there are three places where I have placed a question mark regarding certain things which the witness has said regarding where he involved the applicant regarding certain things which he said to you, and I would like to clear this up so that I can either just get a version on that and just determine whether it is in line with the applicant's version. Would you grant me that?

CHAIRPERSON: Is this arising out of questions that were put?

MR DE KONING: That is correct, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes, all right.

MR DE KONING: My note pertaining to questions from the board?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to ...(intervention).

MR DE KONING: A two minute adjournment, it would be very brief.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DE KONING: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what we'll endeavour to do, I see it's getting towards four o'clock, but I think it would be good if we could finish with Mr De Bruin's evidence today, rather than ...(intervention).

MR DE KONING: Hold it over. No ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: ...hold it over until tomorrow.

MR DE KONING: I surely have that intention as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Because Mr Botha will then ask questions, and that will be the end of it.

MR DE KONING: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll take a short adjournment at this stage.

ON RESUMPTION:

JOHANNES JAKOBUS DE BRUIN: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Koning, I see that everyone's not back in, including one of the applicants. I think we should perhaps get them in.

MR DE KONING: We can just wait a while, thank you

...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Oh here they're coming in now, yes. Yes, I think you can continue.

MR DE KONING: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DE KONING: Mr De Bruin, the second applicant has told me that in 1989 already, he, at an AWB meeting at Donald's Dam, he had completed an application for membership, did he mention that to you?

MR DE BRUIN: Yes, now that you mention it, I know that he definitely told me this at a certain point.

MR DE KONING: And at another event he attended, another meeting, where he filled out another application form, because he had never received any proof or certification or membership card?

MR DE BRUIN: That's correct.

MR DE KONING: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that ...(intervention).

MR DE KONING: That is all I have, just to clarify.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: I've got no further questions in re-examination.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you, Mr De Bruin.

MR DE KONING: Chairperson, before we adjourn, might I request, for the sake that the second applicant will appear regarding testimony, that you request the prison authorities to bring him here earlier?

CHAIRPERSON: I was just about to do that, because I realised this morning that there was a bit of a problem, I don't know what the nature of it was, but they did come late, despite arrangements having been made by the legal representatives to get them here early.

MR DE KONING: I'd be indebted to you. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: What will be a convenient time to start?

MR PRINSLOO: I'm sure nine o'clock, for consultation purposes, would be sufficient, or if we could have roughly an hour, I don't know what time you would wish to start. Do you want to start ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Could we try to start at half past nine?

MR DE KONING: Well if we could have him at half past eight, we would be more than happy. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Steenkamp, is anybody from the Gevangennisdiens hier?

MR STEENKAMP: Yes, Mr Chairman, there is people from Correctional Service here, I think the people who actually transported him are, all of them are present here.

CHAIRPERSON: Are they here, present here?

MR STEENKAMP: He is sitting down there, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible to bring the applicants here before 8:30 tomorrow morning?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We'll then adjourn for the hearing to resume at 9:30, or depending on Mr De Koning's consultations, as soon thereafter as is possible, and also Mr Wheeler should also be brought timeously as well please, please if Mr Wheeler could be here by that time as well, at half past eight, thank you, and that the two applicants be brought by the Department of Correctional Services to the venue here by 8:30 tomorrow morning. Thank you. We'll then adjourn.

MR DE KONING: Thank you, Mr Chairman.