Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-14

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you say that it's quite clear that he is lying?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You also say that you have knowledge of a .38 round that was found?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes it was a .38 projectile.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Could you repeat that?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: A .38 projectile was found at the scene.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: The only person on that scene with a .38 was Mr Holder?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you ever handle his weapon so that you could have fired the shot?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No, I never had his weapon in my hands.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now after this incident, why do you only take this one weapon from the policeman, but why don't you take Constable Swart's firearm?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well at that stage I realise that everything had gone wrong.  It didn't happen as I had planned and the first thing that came to my mind was to leave the scene.  Now the guardroom was dark and at that stage I also didn't know where Constable Swart was.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You say in your testimony that Mr Holder had already taken out his weapon outside of the room, is that correct?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: If Mr Holder says in his application that he had not taken out his firearm and that it was in his pocket when he moved then he is lying?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why do you think that Mr Holder would be lying?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: I don't know why he would lie but it would be possible to put all the blame on me, to blame me for everything, for the whole incident.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I take you to Annexure B, page 10, 10 - 15 of the statement and there you give an exposition of the Boere Weerstandsbeweging, the BWB, where does it indicate here that you may attack or wage war against the government of the day?  I would like to say to you Sir, that nowhere in this document any basis is formed for an attack on a white policeman or any member of the police.

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No, it is not summarised in this.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: What is your reply?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No, it is not summarised in this.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you are saying is that the basis of your movements, nowhere states that you may attack policemen?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No, it is not contained in the BWB's documentation.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you are saying that you made this decision yourself and that it was part of the policy of the movement?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: As I had said at that stage the BWB had already declared war against the State, against the ANC/SACP Alliance and the National Party Government.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I don't agree with you that war had been declared.  Where and when did this happen?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: It was before I joined the BWB, I can't give day and date but it was made very clear to me that war had been declared, we had a flag which signified that war had been declared.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would like to say to you that this flag with the orange band is being used by many organisations in non-violent capacity.

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well I wouldn't know about this.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I wish to say to you that there is no proof that war had been declared at any stage.

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well the leader of the BWB is present here today, I don't know whether my advocate is going to ask him to testify but he will be able to confirm that.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well let us then look at the event.  At whose house were you dropped?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Mr van Rensburg.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are you going to call Mr van Rensburg to come and testify?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well I don't know whether we're going to call him, I won't be able to tell.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well, after you had been dropped off, did you tell Mr van Rensburg what had happened?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes I informed him briefly.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: At that stage why did Mr van Rensburg not take you to the nearest police station because you had killed a policeman?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well we were co-cell members, we worked towards the same objective.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So in other words you say that Gerhard van Rensburg identified himself with the objective and he didn't hand you over to the police because he agreed with the objective that was striven for on that day?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes we can assume that.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well I would say that he is a person who is a beneficiary by our law and that he had done so in order to favour himself?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: That is possible.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did he assist you to escape that day?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: He didn't assist me in escaping, he just nursed my wound and he took me to another person.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well I would state that he took you to another person to darken the trail you had followed so that the police wouldn't be able to trace you?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well he had taken me to another person because he had gone to find medical assistance for me.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well I would like to state that he didn't take you to a hospital but that he wanted to obtain alternative medical assistance to ensure that he wouldn't be caught?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well as I had said, he went to the BWB head office, headquarters to find out from the leader whether there were any doctors who would assist us.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Were there any doctors who were able to assist you?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well the doctors came to Secunda for me to consult them.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Who was the doctor?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: I wouldn't be able to say.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Who had called in this doctor?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well as I was given to understand, Mr Ford, the leader of the BWB, gave the address of the doctor to Mr van Rensburg.  I never enquired about that.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you meet Mr Ford just after the event, after the conclusion of the event?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No I didn't meet him shortly after the conclusion of the event.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: The evidence that was given at the court case of Mr van Zyl and Holder, did you read this?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No, I didn't read the testimony.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well I would say to you that Mr van Zyl was the driver?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would further like to say to you that he had made a statement to the South African Police regarding the events of the evening from 19H40, do you have any knowledge of this?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Knowledge of what?  I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would like to put to you that he starts with the evening's events and nowhere in the statement to the police does he refer to the visit to Pretoria.

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well I'm not aware that he didn't refer to it in his statement.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would like to say to you and I'm going to read the paragraph to you
"Enter Constantia Hotel at 9.40"
and then they continue through the whole process of travelling to the base, he never talks about travelling to Pretoria, he only says to Devon.

MR PRINSLOO: Well is this a reasonable question to this witness?  How will he know why Mr van Zyl is making certain statements and not referring to others?

CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm quite sure that he will react accordingly.  Mr van Schalkwyk, you may continue.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Okay, I will rephrase my question.
	I am stating to you that you never went to Pretoria that night, that there was not enough time to go from Secunda to Pretoria and back but that it was a fictitious statement that you ever went to Pretoria.

MR PRINSLOO: Is this a fact that is stated or a probability?