Amnesty Hearings — Pietersburg — 1997-07-01

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: As I said earlier in my evidence, we were always very conscious of the fact that that was always a possibility. We could have encountered three illegal immigrants who were just looking for a safe route, but we didn't want to take any chances. We thought it would be probably terrorists.

MR ROSSOUW: Why did you, where did you see the difference that you would allow three people, possibly armed, to enter into a residential area but you would not allow six people to do that?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: That was an entirely different matter for me.  It was already a bit of a risk to bring the people in across that distance to Seshego. To bring in six people who at that stage we suspected to be well-trained and armed, to bring them across that distance and allow them to enter a residential area, was risky because there could be some fighting and some of them could escape and we might be unable to actually trace them and arrest them.
	We wanted to make sure that it happened at a strategic place not far from the border where we had the advantage of terrain and also because we could do a show of force there which would help us and there wouldn't be bystanders who could become involved in the shooting.

MR ROSSOUW: Don't you think you would be running the same risk letting in three people?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: It happens daily in criminal cases and it's also happened to terrorists, you do very good planning, you observe a certain point or house, you obtain the necessary assistance and if it should come to a shooting, then it could also happen. At least then it takes place inside the house where the people involved wouldn't be entirely innocent but would be hangers-on.

MR ROSSOUW: I'm now going to take you to the scene and the planning as to what would happen on the scene (Tape jumps)...(intervention)

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: And that they would be armed.  And he was present with the planning during the final planning in the office, and from that it was clear that they would be well armed and we obviously expect trained terrorists from abroad....
(TAPE APPEARS TO BE JUMPING ALL OVER THE PLACE!)

MR BLACK: Now are you saying that before you sent people there, I understand at one stage it was put to Mr Sehlwana by Mr Visser that some people were sent to occupy observation positions, that before your men, if I may refer to them as that, went to that scene and before the encounter with the six they...(intervention) (TAPE AGAIN JUMPS)

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: ....in the process and there was nothing else for it but to arrest and to surrender, and that's more-or-less what I thought we should say to them depending of course, on their reaction.

MR ROSSOUW: Apart from what you thought was there an actual discussion as to how this should be done?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: The people responsible for the planning could perhaps have gone into the matter in greater detail but I can hardly imagine that what was discussed could have been very different as to what I've just said, namely to make it known to these people that they were in an area where they were simply outnumbered and surrounded and that they simply should surrender and not put up a fight.

MR ROSSOUW: Please bear with me, but it seems to me that you have a situation where you have six armed people in a vehicle and at a particular moment the enemy appears in front of them.  Now one person gets up and says don't shoot, you don't have a chance. Do you understand that it just seems that it wouldn't actually work?  That's why I'm asking, was there a discussion or planning as to how the message would have been conveyed to these people, how would the defence force member have conveyed this information to the occupants?  Was this discussed or not?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: That kind of very fine detail wasn't discussed in my presence.  Chairperson I must say that even though it might sound naive, the situation was such that we were honestly of the opinion that these people would be left in no doubt as to the fact that they had no way of shooting themselves out of the situation and that they should surrender.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw can I interrupt you on that point.  In relation to what Mr Rossouw is asking you, according to the plan, what was to happen first?  Was the teargas canister to be thrown into the combi first before the military man would speak to them, or was it the other way around?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: The canister would first be thrown into the combi as soon as the combi came to a halt.  The idea was that in the pandemonium which would ensue the moment that the combi came to a halt unexpectedly, in that moment of confusion that the canister would be lobbed into the window, in that period it would be too risky to first talk and then throw the canister because if they decided to shoot it would be far too late.
	If I may add, we relied absolutely on the effect that the grenade would have, in other words to persuade these people that they shouldn't put up a fight and that they would be in such a dazed situation that they would be persuaded to surrender and be arrested.

MR ROSSOUW: I would like to go back a bit to the first report that you referred to, the first report from van den Berg and Sehlwana that there was a possibility of three people entering the country.  It seems that there is a dispute between their version and the version put forward by your legal representative, that it was originally three, then the three became six and  Mr Sehlwana testified that he never knew about three which then became six.

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: I follow you, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Do you think it's possible, perhaps you couldn't comment, but do you think it's possible that these could have been regarded as two separate incidents that it was three and that didn't materialise and then a second incident in which six people were involved?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: No I'm very honest in saying that there was a golden thread running through.  It was three originally and it stayed three until very shortly before the event and the contact people whom he had seen referred to these people and never gave any indications that it was a different group.  As far as were concerned, as far as Sehlwana was concerned, I can speak on his behalf because he told us that, I steadfastly believe that the three to whom reference was made, they ultimately became the six, that is what the same.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Sir were you present when Mr Sehlwana informed that there were originally three people who intended to infiltrate the country?  Was that information passed to Mr van den Berg in your presence?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: No it wasn't conveyed to Mr van den Berg in my presence. You see these two people were active in the field far away from the office and often operated independently, sometimes together, but the normal procedure would have been that first he would have told van den Berg about the three people, van den Berg would then discuss it with Brigadier Coetsee who dealt with them and then he would inform me.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Thank you.  Mr Rossouw you may proceed.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr van der Merwe you said that during this planning meeting or planning meetings, the whole issue was discussed with Mr Sehlwana, he was in the picture the whole time and your words were, he declared himself willing to do this.

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: That's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Was he asked to do so voluntarily or was it an instruction or was it an order?