Amnesty Hearings — Pietersburg — 1997-07-01

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: That deals with
"The political objective, the protection and maintenance of the previous government and the constitutional dispensation and to prevent the community losing confidence in the government as a result of intimidation and fear. The averting of the ANC/SACP Alliance onslaught to overthrow the previous government by violent means and to destroy the constitutional dispensation.  To do everything to prevent the ANC/SACP Alliance and other organisations which wanted to overthrow the government violently form enlarging their political power base.  To combat the threat entailed by the Communist expansionism and to ensure that the South African Government and the security forces were not overwhelmed by those elements.  To fight for the continued survival for what I regarded as the normal Western democratic lifestyle; to protect South Africa from Communist take-over or alternatively to prevent the country and it's people from being overwhelmed by a series of attacks, both militarily or political attacks, for instance international sanctions, boycotts and isolation and I saw this as being aimed at taking over the government of the day in this country. And also to fight for the right for myself, my family and the general public to live in South Africa in a way that our forefathers lived with special reference to our heritage, background, culture and political way of life."

ADV VISSER: Is it then, is it correct that your feeling was that your conduct during May,June and July of '86 in so far as it relates to this incident was an instruction which you performed in the course of your duties as a policeman and that your conduct was in line with standing orders that you had received to do what you did?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: That is correct yes.

ADV VISSER: Please tell the Committee Mr van der Merwe, are you applying for amnesty just for this one incident?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: Yes.

ADV VISSER: Why are you applying for amnesty?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, yes I got to the point where I felt that we acted lawfully during this entire operation, but I'm concerned, or I became concerned when I heard that investigation was being done into this incident and that there was mention of a criminal investigation. That made me very worried.
	Did something happen - I wasn't really aware of what the Amnesty Act provided and I've heard from all sides, for instance, as Bishop Tutu said, that people if they weren't quite sure whether they were vulnerable, that they should actually apply for amnesty, and we live in uncertain times and things change from day to day.  I don't know whether perhaps in future, new acts could be placed on the statute books, or acts could be amended which would perhaps render my involvement in these incidents a crime and that I would then be called to account for something which I really believed was my task. And that in brief was my motivation for the amnesty application.

ADV VISSER: And you are asking the Amnesty Committee to grant you amnesty for any offence which they might find that you had committed or might have committed during the incident?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: Yes.

ADV VISSER: Or a delict, for instance you don't know who fired the first shot from your own knowledge?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: That is correct, yes.

ADV VISSER: Now a last aspect. You sat here and you listened to Mr Matthew Sehlwana's evidence, and you heard him testifying as to how he said that he'd seen Tokkie Fuchs shooting, or in respect of a wounded person, how he shot this wounded person at the scene.

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: Yes I heard that.

ADV VISSER: When did you hear that story for the first time?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: I heard it from you in your office for the first time.  I'm talking about Mr Visser's office.

ADV VISSER: Let us cut a long story short, it's about a month ago?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: Yes.

ADV VISSER: Was there ever any suggestion amongst the members of your branch from 1986, or amongst the defence force members of something like this, of this kind of version that that could have happened on that day?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: No not at all, it was a complete shock when I saw these facts. When I read the facts appearing in the statement. It's something which I didn't expect at all and I had no reason to suspect anything like that and I believe that that did not happen.

ADV VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.  I have no further questions at this time.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW

MR ROSSOUW: Mr van der Merwe, you said that according to the information that you received as to the planning, was this information conveyed to you or were you present at the planning of the operation you said that Matthew Sehlwana was to run back alongside the combi to the back and towards safety.  Did I hear you correctly?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: Yes that is what I said.

MR ROSSOUW: Was that something that was told to you or were you present when it was said to him at a planning meeting?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: No I was present. He was present when we sketched the whole situation and when we planned it and I was present when this was said.

MR ROSSOUW: Now you've heard the evidence led here that, I bear in mind that you weren't present during the operation but perhaps you can give me an answer.  According to what you said and according to Exhibit C which was handed in, it appears as if Matthew Sehlwana ran exactly the same way as you had told him at the planning meeting initially and that after that a voice was heard from somebody on the ground who told him that he was running in the wrong direction. Why do you think there would have been this deviation?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: I will have to guess. As you said I wasn't present at the scene, but with my knowledge of the planning and with my knowledge of the presence of the defence force man with the grenade, you see they were working from the same side, do you agree? They were both on the right-hand side of the vehicle.

MR ROSSOUW: I agree.

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: Sehlwana ran from the door to get away from possible danger and the man who had the gas grenade with him had to have to have come from more-or-less that direction, now I don't want to rely on hearsay but I later inferred that they more-or-less ran into each other and that there was a change, that that necessitated a change of course for Sehlwana.

MR ROSSOUW: I think we will have to question the people who were actually present on the ground as to that.  Now the three members who you originally had heard were planning to enter the country, to infiltrate, what was the planning, what was supposed to have been done with these three, the original three which didn't materialise?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: Now my people had planned and I was aware of this, they had planned that the route would go to Seshego, that's the Black township near Pietersburg, and to have people strategically placed along the route.  We also planned to have a plane in the air, and the plan was to follow them to their planned destination and we then planned to arrest them there.  We suspected that they would have ultimately arrived at a house and this would have meant that they were welcome at the house and that would have also meant that the people in the house would have been hangers-on or sympathisers and obviously we would have wanted to interrogate them all.

MR ROSSOUW: These three people, now provision was made for defence force help at the planning meeting, you've already mentioned a plane.

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you at that stage have a reasonable suspicion that those three people would also be armed?