ADV NTSEBEZA:

I believe you are also represented by Mr Brand, is that right?

Dis reg.

MR BRAND:

That is correct Mr Chairman. I am here with Mr Odendal and the same procedures will be followed as the previous one, thank you.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Thank you Mr Brand. I will ask get advocate Potgieter to administer the oath.

ADV POTGIETER:

Thank you Chairperson. Mr Cornelius Adolf Janse Odendal, will you please stand to take the oath? I accept you have no problems in taking the oath.

CORNELIUS ADOLF JANSE ODENDAL Duly sworn states

ADV POTGIETER:

Baie dankie, u kan sit.

Please be seated.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Now I believe that you are going to follow the same procedure as the previous witness. Mr Brand has indicated to me that you have a prepared statement and that you will read the statement into the record.

Dis reg mnr die Voorsitter.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Thank you sir.

That is correct sir.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

You may proceed.

MNR ODENDAL:

Ek, die ondergetekende

verklaar hiermee soos volg:

1. Ek is 'n volwasse man en 'n gewese lid van die Suid-

2. Ek het 'n kennisgewing ontvang om te kom getuig voor die

3. Uit die aard van die saak is my geheue oor die voorval wat meer as

4. Op Sondag 2 Maart 1986 laat die namiddag of vroeg die aand is ek

5. Op 3 Maart 1986 om ongeveer 02h30 het ek bevel geneem van die

6. Ek en vyf van die lede onder my bevel het posisie ingeneem aan die

7. Kort daarna het ek vier Swartmans sien loop in NY111 in 'n

8. Ek het gesien dat Kaptein Kleyn en twee van sy manne in 'n motor

9. Al drie mans het in 'n noordwestelike rigting na die nabygeleë bosse

10. Ek het opgespring en met NY1 in 'n noordelike rigting gehardloop.

11. Terwyl ek hardloop het ek kort-kort sarsies skote agter my, naby die

[En ek gaan vir u nou wys hoe ek op gehardloop het, ek sal weer terugkom. Die doel hoekom ek by die bruggie op gehardloop het, was om te sien of van die persone wat in die bosse in hardloop nie miskien aan die ander kant uitkom op die N2 waar die groot pad geloop het nie, ek het egter niemand daar gesien nie].

12. Nadat ek myself tevrede gestel het, dat my manne die situasie

13. In NY111 op die sypaadjie het ek nog 'n Swartman aangetref met 'n

14. Met verdere ondersoek het ek 'n Swartman op die noordelike kant

15. Verder die bosse in het ek nog twee Swartmans dood aangetref. By

16. Ek self het geen skote afgevuur tydens hierdie voorval nie, behalwe

17. Sover ek kan onthou was opdragte aan die lede gegee om te

MR BRAND:

Mr Chairman with your permission then will I hand in the signed statement of Mr Odendal and he will then answer any questions that will be put to him regarding this specific incident.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Very well Mr Britz - I mean Mr Brand sorry. Thank you - any questions from the panel - Mary Burton?

MS BURTON:

Thank you Chairperson - Mr Odendal you mentioned the meeting that you attended on the 2nd of March [intervention]

MR BRAND:

Excuse me Mr Chairman, can I just - I just want to arrange something here for the witness to understand the English questions - sorry?

That’s fine - is that - are you hearing me now, or hearing the translation.

Nou hoor ek u baie goed.

Now I can hear you very well.

MS BURTON:

Thank you, you referred to the meeting of the 2^nd of March, which you attended at Wingfield and you mentioned the presence there of Lieutenant Liebenberg and Sergeant Bellingham. Can you recall whether there were any other people there?

Kaptein Liebenberg was daar en Sersant Bellingham was teenwoordig gewees, so ver ek kan onthou.

Captain Liebenberg, Sergeant Bellingham were there - as far as I can remember.

And that was that the first meeting of that kind that you have attended, regarding this incident?

Dis korrek.

That is correct.

Thank you, then when you were at the scene, at which stage were reinforcements from Murder and Robbery called for? Was that before or after the shooting?

Nee mnr die Voorsitter, daar was 'n beplanning gewees voor hierdie tyd, Moord en Roof se manne was die oggend toe ons halfdrie bymekaar gekom het vir die hoofbeplanning om elkeen te sê wat sy taak is, die stategetiese punte waar hy moet gaan staan, toe was Moord en Roof teenwoordig. Ek weet nie wie hulle gekontak het nie.

No, madam Chair, Mr Chairman - I am sorry. Planning was done beforehand and the people gathered half past two to do the main planning to decide where the strategic points were. Where they should be deployed. I do not know who had contacted these people.

Thank you, then you mentioned, when the hand-grenade was thrown, did you yourself see that it was a hand-grenade?

Die persoon het 'n beweging met sy hand gemaak en toe hy die hand op bring, nog voordat die handgranaat ontplof het, het ek uit my eie uit gesê daar gaan 'n handgranaat.

The person made a movement with his hand and before the hand-grenade had exploded - I said a hand-grenade was going to be thrown.

MS BURTON:

So you thought that it would be a hand-grenade and you instructed your people to take evasive actions.

Nee ek het nooit gesê hulle moet aanval, ek het net vir die manne wat by my in die bosse geskuil het, gesit het, gesê daar gooi hulle 'n handgranaat, daar word 'n handgranaat gegooi.

No, the people were hiding in the bushes, or rather, we were sitting and the bushes and warned them that a hand-grenade was being thrown.

I see, thank you chairperson. I have no further questions.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela.

MS GOBODO:

Thank you Chairperson. Good afternoon to you. According to your knowledge, are you aware of any involvement of Vlakplaas in the operation on the day - the 3^rd of March 1986?

Ek dra geen kennis van Vlakplaas-mense wat betrokke was. Luitenant Liebenberg het vir my meegedeel hy was van die Veiligheidspolisie en Sersant Bellingham, ek het geen kennis gedra van Vlakplaas nie. Vlakplaas manne het maar die laaste paar maande of jaar in die koerante verskyn.

I have no knowledge whatsoever of members from Vlakplaas being involved. Lieutenant Liebenberg informed me that there were people from the Security Police, but I had no knowledge what so ever of people from Vlakplaas. The Vlakplaas member, their names only appeared - these last few years in the papers.

Thank you - our investigators have established that the occurrence book at the Guguletu police station - for March 1986 is missing. Do you have any - yourself, do you have any records that you are aware of the Riot Squads that we can perhaps refer to?

Daar was destyds rekord gehou by die Onluste-eenheid - [onduidelik] gehad dis korrek waar daar voorvalle aangeteken is van enige onlus-voorval.

Record was kept at the Riot Squad - they had a log book. That is correct, in which incidents were documented - any incident.

Thank you - just another question relating to my first question to you - are you aware, do you have any information about Askari’s ever having been involved in the operation in Guguletu on 3^rd or March 1986?

Mnr die Voorsitter, ek het geen kennis daarvan gedra nie.

Mr Chairman, I have no knowledge whatsoever.

MS GOBODO:

Thank you.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Thank you ma’am. Glenda Wildschut?

Are you still referred to as Colonel or are you now called Mr Odendal? It’s - I am speaking.

Ja nee ek sien wie hier praat, u kan maar sommer sê meneer.

I can see you speaking ja - you can call me Sir or Mr.

I am a health worker by profession, so I don’t really know very much about incendiary devices. But could you give me an idea of what kind of damage could occur when somebody launches a hand-grenade - just from your experience - what can happen when somebody launches a hand-grenade?

Dit hang van die omstandighede af - dit hang hoe ver jy van die handgranaat af is, hulle het my met 'n handgranaat gegooi en ek was ernstig beseer in 1985.

It depends on the circumstances. It depends on how far you are - they threw a hand-grenade at me in 1985 and I was seriously injured.

Maar as ek so in 'n kamer is en hulle gooi die handgranaat op die bed kan daai persoon gedood word - as jy 30 meter daarvandaan staan, dan kan jy miskien net 'n skrapnel wond op doen.

But if you are far, it can’t do so much harm, but if you were near, it could harm you seriously.

But that is in relation to a person being close to the hand-grenade, but if it were to land on the ground or whatever, can you just describe what kind of damage there would be if a hand-grenade were to land?

Ek is nie 'n deskundige op die gebied nie, maar dit kan baie skade aanrig aan 'n persoon. Dit hang van die posisie waar die persoon is, as hy gestaan het of gesit het of gelê het.

I am not an expert, but it can do a lot of damage. It depends on the position where the person is standing. Is he lying, is he sitting.

You mean the position of the person launching the grenade?

Nee die posisie van die persoon wat die handgranaat na gegooi word.

No, the position at whom the hand-grenade was thrown.

Okay - I am not interested in an individual now, I just would like to get an idea of what the area would look like if a hand-grenade were to land in a particular area. Can you give me some idea of what it would look like?

UNKNOWN COMMISSIONER:

If it would land here?

MS WILDSCHUT:

Yes imagine a hand-grenade were to land near that pillar, for example.

Daar sal 'n gat in die vloer wees - sement - as dit sand is, sal daar 'n groot diep gat wees.

There would be a hole in the ground - there would sometimes be a deeper hole in the ground.

Yes, a very deep hole.

Dit sal 'n diep gat wees ja.

Yes a very deep hole.

Afhangende van die handgranaat tipe - handgranaat tipe.

Depending also on the type of hand-grenade.

MS GOBODO:

What type of hand-grenade okay I accept that and the pillar, what would happen to the pillar?

Dit kan die pilaar beskadig.

The pillar will be damaged.

Can you describe the kind of damage to that pillar.

Dis baie moeilik vir my om dit te beskryf want ek - soos ek sê ek is nie 'n deskundige nie. Ek het nog nie 'n handgranaat so naby gesien nie.

It’s very difficult for me to describe that. I am not an expert - I have never seen an hand-grenade exploding so nearby.

Ja - I am aware that you - you might not be an expert in the field, but you’ve obviously got many years of experience. You’re are a Colonel, you’ve obviously come across quite a lot of incidents where hand-grenades were launched or even in your training, you must have come across these incendiary devices - all I want - just to give me an idea - not exactly, but just give me an idea of what the damage a hand-grenade can cause.

Soos ek u reeds gesê het dit kan persone dood, dit kan 'n gat in die grond ruk, dit kan skade aan muur aantrek as dit in 'n toe gebou gegooi word, kan dit baie skade aangerig word, byvoorbeeld die vensters kan almal breek.

As I have already told you, it can kill people. It can make - cause a hole in the ground. It can do a lot of damage, it can break windows.

Yes, so the windows will be shattered, that pillar would be completely damaged. There will be quite a deep hole in the floor here.

Nee ek sal nie sê die pilaar sal heeltemal beskadig nie, maar die pilaar kan beskadig.

No, I wouldn’t say the pillar will be damaged completely.

Okay but that’s quite a big pillar.

Ja.

MS GOBODO:

Now what were to happen if there were to be a very small pillar - about maybe just about this size? What would happen to that pillar?

Dis - dis baie moeilik vir my om te sê, dit - daar kan skade aan gewees het, maar ek - ek kan u regtig nie daar help nie, nee hoeveel skade nie.

INTERPRETER:

It’s very difficult to say. Damaged would have been caused, yes. But I can’t - I really can’t help you.

But from the movies I’ve seen in the American movies of what happened in Vietnam and so on. When I saw a hand-grenade being launched - I saw massive things being launched and the pillar blown out of their - would that be an accurate description of a launch of a hand-grenade?

Nee dit - dis wat ek sê dit hang van die omstandighede af, maar onthou in die movies act die mense ook baie moet u onthou.

No, as I have said, it depends on the circumstances.

Okay sure - okay but I am just trying to connect my experience with what you are saying.

Ja.

MS GOBODO:

You were watching the video did you not?

Dis - ja.

At the place where the person who was doing the video - pointed out where the hand-grenade had landed, did you notice the damage that was caused in the area?

Daar was 'n gat as ek onthou.

There was a hole, if I can remember well.

Yes, but it was very close to a little white pillar that was painted in white. There was a pillar completely in tact, standing right next to that little hole that you described.

Ja ek - ek kan nie sê nie, maar al wat ek vir u kan sê die handgranaat is gegooi.

No I can’t say. But all I can say is - that this hand-grenade was thrown.

Okay, all right, except that for the record we notice that the pillar was completely in tact where the hand-grenade had landed. Thank you very much.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Now, I notice that it is already 1 o’clock and maybe let us take the lunch hour adjournment now. And we will return at 2 and we will carry on with Colonel Odendal. We will adjourn until 2 o’clock.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

We still have witness, Colonel Odendal? I just have to remind you that you are still under oath and questions are now going to be put to you by advocate Potgieter.

CORNELIUS ADOLF JANSE ODENDAL Still under oath

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Advocate Potgieter.

ADV POTGIETER:

Thank you chairperson.

Mnr Odendal, was u in die omgang terwyl u nog diens verrig het as 'n polisiebeampte algemeen bekend as Dolf Odendal?

Where you, while you were in service as a policeman, generally known as Dolf Odendal?

Dis korrek ja.

That is correct.

Nou u sê dat dis net uself en Luitenant Liebenberg soos u toe was en Sersant Bellingham wat teenwoordig was met die vergadering die aand voor die operasie, die 2de van die 3de ’86.

You say that it was only you and Lieutenant Liebenberg and Sergeant Bellingham who were present at this meeting, the evening before this operation. That was on the 2^nd of March 1986?

Dit kan moontlik wees dat daar een of twee meer persone was, maar dis wat ek kan onthou.

This is as far as I could remember, but I think that was what it was like.

As daar - as daar 'n ander senior beampte teenwoordig sou gewees het, sou u seker dit onthou het.

If there was another senior officer present, you would have remembered that?

Yes, I would have remembered that.

ADV POTGIETER:

Iemand soos Kaptein Kleyn?

Something like Captain Kleyn or something.

Ja.

Was daar - was daar inderdaad enige kwessie van die Moord en Roof-eenheid by daai vergadering genoem gewees, want dit lyk dit was uself en Liebenberg en Bellingham alleen wat daar was dan - moontlik alleen. Daar mag moontlik iemand anders wees, maar nie 'n offisier nie, so dit lyk asof Moord en Roof nie verteenwoordig was eintlik nie.

Was there any question that the Murder and Robbery Unit was involved in that matter? Was it only you, Liebenberg and Bellingham - where those the only people present at the meeting? Where there other people? For example an officer? It seems to me that Murder and Robbery was not presented there.

Sover ek my kan herinner was hulle nie daar verteenwoordig gewees nie. Alhoewel as ek reg kan onthou, sal hulle ook die oggend daar gewees het, want dit was ons beplanning gedoen, waar hulle moet wees.

As far as I can remember they were not presented there. All though if I remember correctly they would have been there the next morning, because this was how we had planned.

ADV POTGIETER:

Was dit - was dit die beplanning en Liebenberg en Bellingham gedoen het dat ons - u gaan vir Moord en Roof ook intrek in die optrede?

Was that the planning that you and Liebenberg and Bellingham did that you were also going to involve Murder and Robbery in this action.

Dit is nie wat ek gedoen het nie, hulle het gesê daar sal van Moord en Roof se lede ook wees.

This is not what I said.

Ek wonder wil u nie daardie mikrofoon miskien net so nader aan u trek nie, hy kan - hy kan beweeg - sit hom so nader aan u dan kan ons vir u duideliker hoor.

I wonder would you like to put the microphone nearer to you, it can move. Then we can hear you better.

ADV POTGIETER:

Baie dankie.

Thank you.

ADV POTGIETER:

Maar - maar u was in bevel van die optrede gewees.

But you were in charge of this whole operation?

Dit is korrek ja.

That is correct.

So - so wat het u beplan, het u beplan dat Moord en Roof moet ook inkom?

So, what did you plan? Did you plan to involve Murder and Robbery?

Soos ek u reeds gesê het, ek het nie Moord en Roof gekontak nie. Hulle was in die beplanning ook, sal hulle ook 'n spesifiek - ons is ingedeel op strategetiese punte waar die persone moet staan en Moord en Roof was ook daar.

No, I did not contact Murder and Robbery. In the planning we were divided up into strategic positions and it was noted where the people should take their positions.

Maar hoe kon hulle dan nou in die operasie gekom het as u as die bevelvoerder die persoon in beheer van die optrede nou nie hulle ingeroep het nie?

But how could they be involved in this operation, if you as the person in charge, did not involve them in the planning?

Luitenant het my gesê daar is ook mense van Moord en Roof [onduidelik]

Lieutenant Liebenberg told me that the people from Murder and Robbery will also be present.

So - so wat het u dan nou beplan op die 2de, want dit lyk asof Luitenant Liebenberg al meeste van die werk gedoen het.

So, what did you plan then on the 2^nd It seems as if Lieutenant Liebenberg had done all the work beforehand?

Nee ons het beplan die aantal mense wat ons gaan inkry en waar elkeen moet 'n strategetiese punt moet inneem - waar sy voertuig moet wees, want ons het geweet waar die aanval na bewering gaan plaasvind.

We planned how many people would be involved. Where they would take up their strategic positions, because we knew where this attack would presumably happen.

Nou u was die tweede in bevel van die Onluste-eenheid op daai stadium.

You were the second in charge of the Riot Squad at that time.

Dit is korrek.

ADV POTGIETER:

Nou hoe het dit dan gekom dat u daar is en nie die persoon wat in bevel van die Onluste-eenheid is nie.

How was it then that you were there and not the person in charge?

Ek was maar - as tweede in bevel van die Onluste-eenheid was ek die man wat altyd in die gebiede op die grondvlak die werkings verrig het.

I was there as second in charge of the Riot Squad. I was the person who had to do the work on grass roots level.

Dis korrek, ek meen u het 'n - u het - u was baie bekend gewees in die woonbuurte ensovoorts in daai jare - in die jare van die onluste.

You were well known in the townships during the time of the unrest.

Dit is korrek.

ADV POTGIETER:

En u was bekend as Dolf Odendal ek meen - mense het u amper almal geken in die woonbuurt, nie waar nie.

And you were well known as Dolf Odendal. All the people in the townships knew you.

Dis korrek.

ADV POTGIETER:

U was by baie optredes betrokke gewees.

You were involved in many incidents.

Ja ek was by baie optredes dis doodreg.

Yes, I was.

En daar is 'n hele klomp verhale wat 'n mens hoor van wat gebeur het waar Dolf Odendal na bewering betrokke was en so aan - amper - u was so bekend was u gewees eintlik maar in die...[intervention]

There were many stories which have been told about where stories about Dolf Odendal being involved.

En baie verhale wat nie getoets is onder kruisverhoor om te hoor dat dit die waarheid is nie.

Many stories have been told yes, but not proved.

Dis reg - nee-nee ek - ek sê - ek maak nie daai punt nie, ek sê nie dis die waarheid nie, maar dis net die beeld wat u gehad het op daai stadium.

I am not stating that fact, I am not saying it’s the truth, but that was the image that was created.

Dis korrek.

ADV POTGIETER:

U was baie bekend gewees en dit is waarom ek geïnteresseerd is hoekom u spesifiek nou ingeroep was in hierdie optrede. Is dit as gevolg van u rekord van optrede of wat?

You were a well known man. This was why I am interested to know why you were involved in this action. Was it because of your record of action?

Nee, ons het baie - is ons ingeroep saam met die Veiligheidspolisie Deursoekingspan [onduidelik] en ander eenhede.

No, not at all. Often we were called in with the Security Police and other units.

Maar hulle verkies om u - die tweede in bevel in plaas van - u - hulle het u verkies bo die persoon wat in beheer was van die eenheid.

But they prefer you - second in charge to the commanding officer.

Of die persoon of waar hy gewees het, hy kan miskien op verlof gewees het of op 'n kursus.

Where he was at that time, I don’t know. He might have been on a course or he might have been on holiday. I don’t know.

Nou het u gesien enige persone word geskiet op die toneel?

Did you see that any person was hit or was being shot?

Ek het gesien soos ek reeds in my verklaring gesê het, die persoon wat die handgranaat na Kaptein Kleyn gegooi het, hulle het weggehardloop in 'n noordelike rigting - weg.

As I have already said in my statement, is the person who threw the hand-grenade at Captain Kleyn, ran away in a northern direction.

En toe is daar op die persoon geskiet en hy het - een van die persone - toe het die persoon nog weggehardloop het - het geval.

And then they fired shots at that person who was running away and that person fell.

So u het gesien dat daar word geskiet en een persoon val?

So, you saw that people were shooting and one person fell down?

Dis korrek.

ADV POTGIETER:

U het geen ander persone gesien wat geskiet word nie?

You did not see any other person’s being shot?

Nee niemand nie.

No, nobody at all.

U kon uit die aard van die saak nie sien dat dit 'n handgranaat is wat gegooi word nie, nie waar nie? U was versteek in die bosse.

You could not see that it was a hand-grenade that was been thrown, because you were hiding in the bushes.

Ja maar waar dit gegooi is, ek kan nie die hand wat die beweging oorkom, het dit ontplof, toe weet ek dis 'n handgranaat.

I could just see from the movement that this man made and I could see the explosion - after it had detonated.

Ja maar ek meen dit is eers - dit is eers na die voorval gebeur het - nadat die ding gegooi was en ontplof het wat u nou gedink het, maar dis 'n handgranaat nie terwyl dit gegooi word, nie waar nie.

It was only after the hand-grenade had detonated, that you saw it? You didn’t see it being thrown?

Terwyl dit gegooi word, terwyl die man sy hand uitgehaal het en hy bring hom oor, toe sê ek daar gooi hulle 'n handgranaat, alhoewel ek dit nie - dit kan 'n klip ook gewees het, maar toe was 'n ontploffing daarna, toe was dit 'n handgranaat.

No, while the man took out his hand and he made this arm movement - I said, there he is throwing it. It could have been a stone, but then the explosion followed.

So u was maar net gelukkig gewees, u het reg geraai.

Reg geraai ja.

You were lucky, because you guessed correctly.

ADV POTGIETER:

Nou daai persoon wat u gesien het wat geskiet word, wat nou gehardloop het, het daai persoon enige wapens by hom gehad.

That person you saw, being shot, who was running away - was he carrying any weapons?

Ek kan nie meer onthou nie.

I can’t remember.

ADV POTGIETER:

U kan nie sê nie.

Ek kan nie sê nie, kyk u moet verstaan so 'n situasie gebeur vinnig, dis baie vinnig.

I can’t say. You have to understand, such a situation occurs very quickly. Everything happens very quickly.

Nou saam met u daar in die bosse was Barnard.

Together with you, in those bushes, were Barnard,

ADV POTGIETER:

En McMaster?

McMaster?

Ek kan nie onthou of McMaster daar saam met my gewees het nie, maar Sterrenberg was saam met my gewees.

I can’t remember whether he was there too. Sterrenberg was also there.

En u het 'n - het u saam met hulle beweeg van waar u was aan die oostekant van NY1 oor na die westekant toe.

And did you move with them from where you were on the eastern side of NY1 to the western side?

Dis korrek.

Yes, that’s correct.

En het u op 'n stadium toe nou weg van hulle af beweeg?

Dis korrek.

Yes that’s correct.

ADV POTGIETER:

En het u op 'n stadium toe nou weg van hulle af beweeg?

Did you, at a certain stage, leave them behind and moved away from them?

Ja - ja. Ek kan vir u meer verduidelik as u wil hê - dan sal ek opstaan en vir u wys.

I could show you again if you want to.

ADV POTGIETER:

Nee-nee dis all right ons sal sien of ons mekaar nie sommer kan verstaan soos ons praat nie.

We see if we can’t understand one another while we are talking.

ADV POTGIETER:

Hulle twee het in die bosse ingehardloop - hulle het verdwyn van u af.

They ran away into the bushes and you did not see them afterwards?

Dis korrek ja.

ADV POTGIETER:

U het hulle nie verder gesien en gesien wat hulle doen nie.

And you did not see them afterwards, you couldn’t see what they were doing?

Nee.

ADV POTGIETER:

Het u enige skote gehoor daar in die omgewing waar hulle was?

Did you hear any shots being fired?

ADV POTGIETER:

Barnard en Sterrenberg?

There Barnard and Stellenberg were running too.

Terwyl ek gehardloop het, was daar so baie skote afgegaan. Ek kan nie spesifiek onthou of ek daar skote gehoor het nie.

While I was running, I heard so many shots being fired. I couldn’t specifically remember whether I heard shots coming from the bushes.

Terwyl ek opgehardloop het, soos ek sê ek het by die bruggie opgehardloop, het daar baie sarsies skote plaasgevind.

There was a lot of shots fired.

So u is nie seker of daar skote daar van daai - uit daai bosse uitgekom het nie.

So you don’t know whether any shots were being fired in those bushes?

ADV POTGIETER:

Het u verwag daar gaan 'n skietery wees?

Did you expect that shooting was going to take place on that specific day?

Die betrokke dag?

ADV POTGIETER:

Ja.

As 'n man met terroriste te doen het, moet jy dit verwag het dat daar 'n skietery kan wees, dis korrek.

If you have to do with terrorists, you can expect that there will be some shooting.

As die persoon nou nie oorgee nie, dan vind 'n skietery plaas, dit kan moontlik - dis 'n moontlikheid wat ek voorsien het.

And if the person does not give himself over, then you can expect and have to

foresee the possibility that there will be shooting.

Nou u was in beheer gewees.

You were in charge of this operation.

Dis korrek.

ADV POTGIETER:

En u het verwag dat daar gaan 'n skietery wees.

You expected that shooting would took place.

ADV POTGIETER:

Waarom het u toegelaat dat die polisiebussie daai oggend nog steeds daai roete ry?

Why did you allow the police bus still to follow that route that morning?

Om die aanvallers aan te keer, te arresteer.

Because we wanted to apprehend the attackers.

So - so u wou hulle uitlok?

You wanted to entice those people?

Nee ek bedoel nie vir uitlok nie, as 'n man inligting dis 'n plek wat geroof of aangeval word, moet jy as 'n polisielid stappe neem om daai persone te arresteer.

If you have information that a person or an object is going to be robbed, you have to be there to apprehend them.

En om onnodige lewensverlies te verhoed.

And to prevent a loss of life, is that also necessary?

Onnodige lewensverlies - ek glo dis korrek.

Yes.

So jy sal nie jou eie mense goedsmoeds daar in 'n situasie in stuur waar jy verwag hulle sal so 'n voorval gebeur nie, nie waar nie - as 'n verantwoordelike polisiebeampte?

So, you would not send your own people into a situation which you would expect that a shout out would take place - as a responsible officer, would you do that?

Ek verstaan die vraag nou nie mooi nie.

I don’t understand correctly.

ADV POTGIETER:

As a responsible policeman, that where you are responsible for those people and you expect that shooting will take place, why would you send your own people into such a situation? Why would you allow the bus to follow that route?

Om soos ek u reeds gesê het om die persone wat die aanval loods om hulle te arresteer of in die hande te kry.

It is important for the people - for the attackers to be able to apprehend them, because you want to entice them?

ADV POTGIETER:

So - so om hulle aan te lok?

Because you want to entice them.

Dis nie om hulle aan te lok nie.

No it’s not to entice them.

Nou om die regte persoon in die hande te kry.

It is to get hold of the correct person.

Nee, want u wil mos nou hê - kyk u verwag daar gaan 'n aanval wees.

Now, you expect that an attack will be launched and you want these people.

Dis korrek.

ADV POTGIETER:

En u wil hê dat die persone moet probeer om hulle plan uit te voer sodat u hulle kan arresteer.

You want them to execute their plan so that you can arrest these people.

Dis reg.

ADV POTGIETER:

En daarom stuur u nou die voertuig daar in sodat u kan hulle kry om te probeer om die voertuig aan te val.

And this is why you sent that vehicle there, so that you can entice them to attack this vehicle - is that not so?

As die voertuig deurkom en die voertuig word aangeval moet daar - moet daar opgetree word teen hulle.

If the vehicle is being attacked, you have to act against them.

ADV POTGIETER:

Ja maar die rede hoekom u nie die voertuig gestop het nie, dis eintlik die punt.

Ja maar die rede hoekom u nie die voertuig gestop het nie, dis eintlik die punt. Want u wou gehad het dat hierdie mense moet die voertuig aanval.

Tell me the reason why did you not prevent the vehicle from following that route? Is it because you wanted those people to attack the bus? Why didn’t you stop the bus before hand, this vehicle?

Nee ek wil nie gehad het hulle moet die voertuig aanval nie.

ADV POTGIETER:

Waarom het u dan nie die voertuig gestop nie?

Die voertuig gestop nie?

ADV POTGIETER:

Ja.

Die voertuig wil mos deurgaan.

How could I stop the vehicle - the vehicle had to go that way.

Maar u weet dan nou die voertuig gaan aangeval word.

But you knew this vehicle was going to be attacked.

Ek het nie geweet hulle [onduidelik]

ADV POTGIETER:

En u wil nie - u sê nou vir ons vandag onder eed u wou nie gehad het dat die voertuig aangeval moet word nie, nou vra ek vir u, waarom stop u dit nie?

And you are telling us today, under oath, that you did not want the vehicle to be attacked. Why didn’t you stop it?

Ons het die voertuig soos ek u reeds gesê het laat deurgaan om die persone wat die voertuig aanval, om hulle te arresteer.

As I have said already, we allowed the vehicle to go through, to be able to apprehend the attackers .

En omdat u gedink het dat - as u daai voertuig stop, dan gaan daar nie 'n aanval wees nie, nie waar nie.

And because you thought that if you stopped this vehicle, there will not be an attack - isn’t that so?

ADV POTGIETER:

Dis mos logies.

That’s logical.

Ja dan is die voertuig deur, maar daar kan daar ander polisievoertuie deurgegaan het wat ook aangeval word.

ADV POTGIETER:

Nee maar - nee maar u weet mos nou - u weet mos nou waaroor die aanval gaan. Dit gaan spesifiek oor daai bussie, wat op 'n spesifieke tyd in die oggend by daai kruising verbygaan.

Dit is korrek ja.

No, but another police vehicle could have gone that same route, but you know now what it was all about. It was specifically aimed at this specific bus which would have crossed that intersection at a specific time.

En dis waaroor u beplan het die vorige aand, u het die hele ding gedoen want u het betroubare inligting gehad dat daai voertuig gaan aangeval word.

And that was what you had planned the previous evening, because you had reliable information that this vehicle would be attacked.

Dis korrek ja.

ADV POTGIETER:

En nou is die punt mos nou eenvoudig dat - of laat ek vir u so vra u kon - u kon daai voertuig gestop het nè.

And it is just simple to say, or rather you could have stopped that vehicle.

Daai voertuig kon gestop het, maar dan kan hy miskien die volgende week gekom het as 'n man so redeneer so u nou redeneer, dan het hulle 'n ander voertuig aangeval.

Ja you could have stopped it, but then the next - but if you reason like that, they could have attacked another vehicle the next week.

ADV POTGIETER:

Moontlik - moontlik nie.

MNR ODENDAL

Moontlik.

Possibly, yes.

Maar hulle sou minstens - hulle sal minstens nie daardie spesifieke voertuig aanval nie, want u het dit gestop.

But they wouldn’t have attacked that specific vehicle, because you could have stopped it. But then you could have avoided that some of your colleagues would have been participating in a shout out.

Dis korrek ja.

ADV POTGIETER:

Nou verstaan ek nie waarom...[tussenbeide]

Die moontlikheid - die moontlikheid het bestaan dat hulle kan aangeval word ja.

The probability could have been that they could have been attacked.

Nou verstaan ek nog nie vir u - hoekom het u dan nou nie maar die bussie gestop nie.

No, I still don’t understand why didn’t you stop the little bus.

U moet besef dat in daai tye daar terreur plaasgevind het, dit was die polisie se taak om op te tree en die persone uit te haal en in die hande te kry, want die aanvalle pleeg.

You have to realize that terrorism was occurring during those times. It was the task of the police to get hold of those terrorists, those attackers.

So u wou - u wou graag sien dat die mense hierdie aanval loods.

So, you wanted - you wanted those people to launch this attack

Ek wil nie sien dat die - as hulle die aanval geloods het soos hulle dit gedoen het, ons sou hulle gearresteer het.

And now if they had attacked the little bus, we would have arrested them.

En u het - u het eintlik as deel van die beplanning het u die polisiebussie ook in aanmerking geneem. U het beplan vir die polisiebussie ook as ek dit korrek verstaan van Superintendent Liebenberg.

As part of your planning, the police bus was also taken into consideration. You also made plans for this police vehicle - if I understand correctly what Liebenberg had said.

Die polisiebussie wat deurgery het.

ADV POTGIETER:

Dis reg.

Dis korrek.

The police vehicle which crossed the road.

ADV POTGIETER:

So dit was - dit was ook amper soos 'n Trojaanse perd daai ene wat daar deurgegaan het.

Nee ek sal nie sê...[tussenbeide]

That was actually like a Trojan horse which passed the inter section.

ADV POTGIETER:

Die mense moet dink maar dis - dis die - dis die gewone polisie wat daar verbyry en hulle - hulle is niks vermoedens nie, dit was die idee gewees. U wou daai indruk skep.

And the people had to think that was the ordinary people going that way and they could not suspect anything. Was that the impression you wanted to create?

Ja as u dit so wil stel, kan u dit so stel.

Yes, if you want to put it like that way, it could be.

En eintlik - en eintlik was dit ook maar 'n tipe van 'n lokval, want binne-in daai bussie was daar mense wat gereed was.

Natuurlik was hulle.

ADV POTGIETER:

Om ook aan te val.

But that was also a kind of an ambush, because in that little bus there were people who were ready also to attack?

As hulle aangeval word, moet hulle vir hulle lewens - dis korrek.

Yes, if they were attacked, they would counter attack.

Was die idee nie dat u in elk geval daai voertuig bussie - polisiebussie laat deurgaan het deur die - deur hierdie interseksie nie. Omdat u geweet het in elk geval die ding was so beplan dat u geweet het dat hierdie sogenaamde terroriste nie 'n kat se kans staan nie. Dit is so beplan dat hulle eintlik in 'n lokval ingelei word.

Was the idea not that that little police bus had to drive through that intersection - allow it to drive through the intersection. The planning was accordingly because these so-called terrorist had not the faintest chance to attack you.

Nee [onduidelik]

ADV POTGIETER:

Daar is geen risiko - met ander woorde laat ek net voltooi, met ander woorde daar is geen risiko vir die bussie nie - die polisiebussie nie, u het klaar daarvoor ook beplan.

They were actually ambushed. Because you’ve already planned for that.

Nee ek het nooit daarvoor beplan nie, want as jy 'n persoon lewend vang, lewendig vang, en nie doodskiet nie, kan jy mos baie meer inligting uit hom uitkry. As u nou beweer ons het beplan om die mense dood te skiet.

Because if you arrest a person live, you can get a lot of information from them. If you’re implying now that we wanted to shoot them, to kill them.

Wat presies u weet - dis die ander ding, kyk u het die bussie sien u voor verby u beweeg.

Now, you saw that little bus passing by.

Dis korrek.

ADV POTGIETER:

En toe sien u dat daar loop vier mense in NY111. U het gesê in 'n westelike rigting, met ander woorde van regs na links op daai - op daai plan.

Then you saw that 4 people were walking in NY111 in a western direction, from left to right, on that plan.

ADV POTGIETER:

Stap hulle verby die interseksie.

They walked passed the intersection.

Dis korrek.

ADV POTGIETER:

En skielik is daar hierdie verskriklike voorval wat gebeur.

And suddenly is that terrible incident that happened.

Dis korrek - die lede was al besig om te onttrek van hulle punte af.

Because all these people came from the places where they were positioned.

Maar ek meen u was - daar was soveel polisie - u het dit so beplan dat die mense kan nie wegkom nie, u het die hele - u het die hele toneel onder...[tussenbeide]

There were so many police that it was - and these people were unable to get away.

Dit is doodreg ja.

ADV POTGIETER:

Ja.

Doodreg hulle kan nie, ons het dit so beplan dat hulle nie kan ontglip nie.

That is correct - we planned it so they could not get away.

Absoluut - ek meen absoluut, u het alles voor die tyd beplan.

Absolutely yes.

Dis reg.

Absolutely yes. We planned all this before hand.

Daar was geen - daar was nie 'n element van verbasing by u gewees nie, surprise daar was nie 'n element daarvan nie.

You were not surprised at all. There was no element of surprise?

ADV POTGIETER:

U het die hele ding in beheer gehad, u het mense gehad wat saam met die sogenaamde terroriste was.

You had this whole situation under control?

ADV POTGIETER:

En u was aan die ander kant gewees, daar was geen risiko vir die polisie gewees nie.

There were people who were with these so called terrorism. You were - the police were on the other hand.

ADV POTGIETER:

So in daai - onder daai omstandighede ek dink u stem met my saam, u het al klaar so gesê.

There was no danger for the police involved.

Onder daai omstandighede, waarom gaan skiet u die mense dood? Waarom arresteer u hulle nie?

Under those circumstances - why did you kill those people?

Mnr die Voorsitter ek maak ten sterkste beswaar teen hierdie tipe van vrae, die getuie het nou al herhaaldelik gesê dat die voorval was klaar gewees, daarna was 'n optrede gewees. In alle billikheid teenoor die getuie, daar moet nie woorde in sy mond gelê word nie, oor wat hy gesê het nie.

Mr Chairman, I object to these type of questions. This - the witness have said repeatedly that the planning have been done and this is what have happened. Please don’t place words into his mouth.

Dankie.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Advocate Potgieter.

ADV POTGIETER:

I don’t - I don’t follow the objection Chairperson. There is an allegation that words are placed in the mouth of the witness. I think that is probably explicable on the basis that the questioning wasn’t followed. I never put any words in anybody’s mouth.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Mr Brand, what questions do you feel are being asked in such a way that words are put into the mouth of the witness.

Chairman, the witness already testified and you can read it in his statement. He explained what happened and that when they were called to retreat that there was - there was an assault - plans on the - on the police. That is what the witness testified. And he explained it now over and over again. Now certain things is put to him by way of questioning and telling - you said this and you said this - isn’t it true? That is not what he said.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Advocate Potgieter, perhaps you want to rephrase your questioning in such a way it does not reflect these sort of insinuations that Mr Brand says it does. I haven’t got this - I have not reading through his statement now. Maybe you just want to rephrase your questions in such a way, but I think the questions are quite permissible for purpose of clarifying some of the issues - you want to clarify.

Thank you Chairperson.

Mnr Odendal kom ons kom nou weer terug voor die onderbreking.

Mr Odendal let’s go back to where we stopped before the interruption.

ADV POTGIETER:

U het alreeds toegegee nou in ons gesprek dat u dit so beplan dat die polisie in beheer was van die - van die toneel.

You have already admitted now, during our conversation, that you have planned that the police should be in control of this whole incident.

Dit is korrek, die polisie was in beheer van die toneel.

Yes, that is correct.

Ons was besig om te onttrek, as die persoon nie die handgranaat gegooi het nie, sou daar geen skietery plaasgevind het nie.

ADV POTGIETER:

Ja.

The police was in control. We were busy withdrawing and if this person had not thrown a hand-grenade, there would have been no shooting.

Ja, maar u sien dit is die punt wat ek maak, waarom was daar geskiet gewees.

That is exactly my point. Why did that shooting take place?

ADV POTGIETER:

En u was - u het verskeie polisiebeamptes gehad op die toneel, u het die moontlik gehad om te verhoed dat hierdie mense wegkom as hulle wil wegkom. U kon die mense konfrontreer met die feit dat u in beheer is van die toneel. U sien want julle is - julle is omsingel van die polisie staan stil.

There were several police officers there. There was a possibility that you could prevent that these people could get away. You could confront them with the fact that you were in control of the situation. There were police surrounding you and they couldn’t get away.

Nee meneer ons het die [onduidelik] gesoek want as 'n man met 'n AK47 gewees weghardloop [onduidelik] - polisiemanne skiet, om nou te sê staan stil hier dat hulle jou in die kop kan skiet.

No, if a person had an AK47 gun and they ran to and fro and they could shoot you, it doesn’t work like that.

ADV POTGIETER:

Wel - wel...[tussenbeide]

ADV NTSEBEZA:

I think what I would personally also want to be clarified about and I think this is what Mr Potgieter is wanting to get at. If I understood your evidence well, and you’ll correct me if I am wrong, in - when you read your statement and when you were being asked questions by other members of the panel - it seems to me at one stage, when once your police bus had gone past the place where it was expected to be attacked and had reached it’s destination. You then - in all the areas in which you had been placed, in other words the police - began to take the view that the attack is not going to take place on that day. And it was at that stage that you, you as a person, began to see people walking on foot at about the intersection.

And I think what advocate Potgieter is trying to establish from you, is whether an effort was made at all by the police to arrest these people. For instance, was there any endeavour made through a loud hailer - seeing that you had surrounded these people from the description of how the police were placed.

Was there for instance a loud hailer that was used to say - we have reason to believe that you are the people who were planning to commit a crime - that you are so and so and so and so. But that we must warn you that you are completely surrounded - that you must surrender and if you don’t we will have to defend ourselves?

Was there anything of that nature that was attempted - when they were walking there. Walking, as I understand the evidence in a suspicious manner?

Dit - ons het nie dit nie gedoen om die mense deur 'n luidspreker te waarsku nie mnr die Voorsitter. Ek glo Kaptein Kleyn toe hy daar stilgehou het by die drie persone wat aangekom het, wil hy hulle ondervra en deursoek het.

We did not warn them through a loud speaker, because Captain Kleyn, when he stopped, he wanted to question these people and search them.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Now I don’t know whether I understand you well, are you saying that you did not want to indicate to them, through a loud hailer that they were surrounded? But why not?

Ons het nie 'n luid - ons het nie 'n luidspreker by ons gehad nie.

No, we didn’t have a loud speaker with us.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Precisely - is it not therefore, and I think this is what we would like to know - how were you hoping to effect an arrest on people who were as armed as had being described by you? To your knowledge this thing had been planned. Now, why were you hoping to affect an arrest on people who might resist by approaching them in the manner in which you say they were being approached by one of the police? … End of Tape 3, Side A … [indistinct] to make sure that from a distance you are able to indicate to them that they are completely surrounded. That they dare not move, that they should surrender.

Mnr die Voorsitter, dit het alles het binne of baie vinnig gebeur. Ons het nie eers geweet die persone wat daar verby staan is die aanvallers nie.

Mr Chairman, all that happened within a few seconds. We did not even know that the people who were standing there, were the attackers.

Eers toe hulle die handgranaat gooi, en op daardie stadium was die meeste voertuig al besig om te onttrek en die polisiebussie wat deurgestuur is, was alreeds by Guguletu polisiestasie.

Only when they threw this hand-grenade, we realized that at that stage the police were withdrawing and the bus had also - had also left for Guguletu at that stage.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

But the question still remains, and I don’t want to be engaged in a debate of this nature. Here are people who appear at a place where you had laid an ambush. I am not saying this sadly that, that was what - that was what is intended. But you were there waiting for a bus to come. Which presumably would attack a police bus and you were ready for it.

Just when you begin to think that it is not going to happen, that maybe it is going to happen on another day, but whilst you are still in a state of readiness, you see a Kombi - just like the one that had been described - is going to be coming to do the attack. You see from that Kombi, people coming out, people who might or might not have been answering to the description of the people you are expecting, but certainly young men.

Certainly people who, in your own evidence, or in the evidence of others - are behaving very suspicious. Now what would the most natural reaction be of police officers who’s intention is to arrest suspects. Knowing that these people might well be the people - especially coming off a Datsun E20, such as you were expecting. Walking suspicious, more or less the time that it was expected it was going to happen.

I still ask the question, wasn’t the most logical thing to make sure that you confront those people in such a way that an event as has taken place, would not take place.

Mnr die Voorsitter ek het nooit gesê dat ek mense uit 'n voertuig sien klim het nie. Ek het gesê ek het in die bosse geskuil, mense was besig om op te breek en ek het gesien die mense stap verby. Ek het nooit gesê dat ek iemand gesien het wat uit 'n voertuig uit klim nie.

Mr Chairman, I never said, I saw people climbing from a bus. I was hiding in a bus. People were withdrawing. I saw those people walking by. I never saw any people getting out of a bus.

Hulle het oorgestap die een het gemaak of hy water af slaan, die ander het aangestap, Kaptein Kleyn het by hulle stilgehou, hulle het die handgranaat gegooi en net daarna het daar 'n woeste skietery plaasgevind.

One of them pretended to urinate. The others were walking on. Captain Kleyn stopped there. They threw a hand-grenade and then it was that this shooting took place.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Advocate Potgieter?

Just a minute - thank you chairperson, thanks for that indulgence.

Mnr Odendal u het nou gesê vir die Voorsitter dat u het nie geweet dis die mense nie. U het nie geweet dis die aanvallers daai nie.

Mr Odendal you have just said - just told the Chairman that you did not know those were the people you were waiting for. You did not know those were the attackers.

ADV POTGIETER:

Maar dis mos nie korrek nie.

But that is not correct.

Ek sê daar het mense wat verdagt voorgekom het, ek het nie geweet hulle is die aanvallers nie, ek het maar eers geweet hulle is die aanvallers na hulle die handgranaat gegooi het..

I said people who looked suspicious. I did not say they were not the attackers. I only realized that they were the attackers after they had thrown the hand-grenade.

Dis - dit is die punt wat ek met u wil debateer - dis nie korrek nie, want sersant Mbelo 'n deel van u eenheid was, optreder, u was in beheer van hulle gewees. Hy het die mense geken. Hy het die aanvallers het hy geken - hy het geweet dis die aanvallers daai wat daar afgeloop kom.

That is not correct, because Sergeant Mbelo, a part of your Unit, you were in charge of these people, they knew - he knew those people. He knew the attackers - he identified them.

Maar ek ken nie eers vir Mbelo nie.

I don’t know Sergeant Mbelo.

ADV POTGIETER:

Dis - dis baie eienaardig.

This is really strange.

Ek ken nie Mbelo nie.

I don’t know Mbelo.

Ek ken ook nie vir Bellingham nie.

I don’t know Bellingham.

Want u sien dit is die - dit is die eienaardigheid wat aan u gestel was deur die Voorsitter.

You see, that is what is so strange.

ADV POTGIETER:

Ek probeer net daardie prentjie finaal inkleur dat hier kom Kaptein Kleyn en hy spring uit sy voertuig uit en hy konfrontreer sommer die mense. Dieselfde mense wie bekend is aan lede van die span waarin u van beheer is dat hulle die aanvallers is. So hy gaan konfronteer hulle sommer miskien uit die bloute uit. En nou gooi hulle die handgranaat - nou skiet - nou word hulle stukkend geskiet.

This is what the Chairman tried to explain. I want to give you the full picture. Now, here Captain Kleyn jumps from a vehicle - he confronts those people. The same people known to members of this team, who you were commanding, they identified them as the attackers. And suddenly he started shooting. And then they threw this hand-grenade and then they were shot to pieces.

Maar Mbelo was mos nie by my om vir my te sê dis die mense nie.

Mbelo wasn’t there to tell me those were the people.

Mbelo was mos nie by my in die voertuig nie, ek het mos in die bos gelê.

Mbelo wasn’t with me in my vehicle.

Maar u sien dit is die eienaardig wat ek aan u stel, daar was mense op die toneel, deel van u span wat die mense geken het en dit was die maklikste ding op die aarde om vir hulle te los om observasie te doen, en te kyk of dit inderdaad die aanvallers is daardie en dan - dan tree jy op volgens daardie kennis. Dan gaan jy nie mense konfronteer nie, uitklim en hulle gaan ondervra en visenteer soos u gesê het wat Kaptein Kleyn wou gedoen het nie.

But this is what was so strange. There were people on the scene, people in your team, who could identify those people. It was the easiest thing to leave them to identify those people and then act accordingly. Then you wouldn’t confront those people - like you said Captain Kleyn wanted to do.

Hulle was nie by op die toneel nie, ons het op sekere strategetiese punte uitmekaar uit - weg van mekaar af gewees, dit was nie almal hier op mekaar by die hoek nie. U sien dis die...[tussenbeide]

We were positioned in certain strategic places. We were not all together on that one specific point.

Ek besef dit.

I realize that.

ADV POTGIETER:

Ek besef dit - ek besef dit, ek vra net vir u die eienaardigheid van die optrede om die mense net sommer skielik te gaan konfronteer, waar jy eintlik hulle wil arresteer. En u sê maar u het nie geweet wie die mense is nie.

I realize that and I am just asking - it is extraordinary just to suddenly confront those people. Where actually you just wanted to arrest them. And you said you did not know who those people were.

Maar wat moet Kaptein Kleyn gedoen het, hy moet tog daar by die mense stilgehou het en hulle ondervra het omdat hulle verdagt lyk.

What did Captain Kleyn then had to do? He had to stop, he had to question them.

Maar - maar hy was mos deel van 'n span gewees. Hy was mos nog onder - onder bevel gewees, hy het mos - kan mos nie net sommer doen wat hy wil nie.

But he was part of a team, he was under instructions. He couldn’t do whatever he liked.

Ja.

ADV POTGIETER:

Hy kon - hy kon mos nou - hy het - was hy in radio verbinding met u gewees as die bevelvoerder?

Was he connected by radio - connected by radio to you - you, as the commanding officer?

Ja ek glo hy was in 'n - ons het radio verbinding met mekaar gehad.

Yes, we were connected by radio.

Het hy aan u gerapporteer dat Kolonel hier is nou vier mense wat vir my baie agterdogtig voorkom, dit lyk vir my hulle kan die aanvallers wees, waar is Mbelo of waar is die mense wat die mense ken dat hulle net kyk of hulle die mense is of nie, het hy so iets gedoen?

Did he report to you that Colonel, here are 4 people who look very suspicious? They could be the attackers. Where is this person who could identify them?

Dit was nie aan my gerapporteer nie, maar dit gebeur so vinnig, daai wat u nou alles sê dis maklik as dit na die voorval om dit nou te kom sê ons moet dit of dat gedoen het, maar wat die voorval plaasgevind het, dit is heeltemal iets anderste.

No, there was no time to report back to me. It is easy to say this afterwards, but everything had happened so quickly - it was completely different.

Ja maar die mense het mos nie u aangeval nie, hulle het afgestap gekom in die pad, een staan en water af slaan daar in die hoek en die ander drie stap lekker aan en hulle val niemand nie, nou skielik spring Kaptein Kleyn uit, en hy wil hulle gaan visenteer. Dit is eienaardig, dis al wat ek aan u wil stel.

But the people did not attack you. They were walking down the road. One was urinating. They did not attack anybody and now suddenly Captain Kleyn jumps from the vehicle and he wanted to confront them. This is strange.

Dit kan vir u eienaardig wees om te klink, die mense het hom aangeval - 'n handgranaat na hom gegooi.

It might sound strange, but these people attack him. But these people [indistinct] at him.

ADV POTGIETER:

Ja dis natuurlik nou op die polisieweergawe nè.

This is according to the police version.

Dis op my weergawe en dis wat daar gebeur het, want ek was op die toneel.

This is my version, and that is what had happened, because I was present there.

ADV POTGIETER:

Ja, thanks.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Thank you Mr Odendal. You will now be excused and thank you for having come.

Dankie mnr die Voorsitter.

Thank you Mr Chairman.