Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-28

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: To also arrest if possible, but if the persons at the vehicle while it had stopped and there was a guard while the other persons were across the border, we could not fire on those persons or eliminate them because the other operation on the other side, would be jeopardised.  It was the only reason why I said "would have to arrest".

MR MOERANE: Why didn't you say in your application that your tasking, your duty was to eliminate these people?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: It is supposed to be here but unfortunately it does not say that, I do not deny that, we had to eliminate them.   Would there be a remote possibility of arresting them, we would have.

MR MOERANE: You not only told a lie once, but you told it a second time in the very next sentence.    You say
"... during the attempted arrest, the persons fired on us."
	Firstly, you were not in the process of arresting those people, not so?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: No, I can see we were not there to arrest them.

MR MOERANE: So why do you say that "whilst in the process of arresting these people", they fired on you, why do you put it like that?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: It was just put wrong, I put it now and it reads wrong, it was not so.

MR MOERANE: I will leave this part for the moment, the one that says "the persons fired at us", I will go to the next part of your sentence.
"... We returned fire."
	That is another lie?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: I see it.

MR MOERANE: Why did you tell that lie also?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: I don't understand because I shot first and it is clear from the other people's evidence that that was that, this is a mistake and I am sorry about that.

MR MOERANE: No Lieutenant, I suggest to you that this was just a deliberate attempt to minimise your role?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: Well, that is not true.

MR MOERANE: How else can you explain it, you signed the statement, not so?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: Yes.

MR MOERANE: After reading it?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: Yes.

MR MOERANE: After confirming that the contents were true?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: Correct yes.

MR MOERANE: Why didn't you correct it there and then?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: I assume that I did not read the whole thing properly, but it is not correct as it reads there.

CHAIRPERSON: It would also seem Mr Van Dyk, that it is a very, very short description of what occurred?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears in about eight lines?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: That is correct Chairperson.  As I said, it is not correct, but as it is described there, it is not correct, there was a possibility of arrest, but the main purpose was to eliminate.

MR MOERANE: Is it correct Mr Van Dyk, that throughout your life as a member of C1 at Vlakplaas, you were used to telling lies or making false statements under oath?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: Not in all instances.  I cannot think of anything else you would refer to, if you can point out these instances to me, I would answer you.

MR MOERANE: I am talking very generally at this stage, I don't want to mention specifics.  Was it not the rule that if you could get away with lies which have the effect of saving your skin, you did that?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: If you can show the instances to me, I cannot answer to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you ever made a statement following an incident or an operation, which didn't correctly reflect what happened in the operation, in other words some sort of cover up, planting of weapons, etc?  We have heard about Mr Ras now, we have heard in evidence here that they went to the inquest and they gave evidence about things that happened, but which wasn't correct.

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: Chairperson, I would not deny that, but I cannot at this instance think of a specific case.  But I know in certain cases, it did happen and it has been said here for example the inquest at Piet Retief, that things had been changed but at this instance, I cannot recall where specifically I did that.

CHAIRPERSON: If you had to put in a report after an operation in which an illegal action took place, and I believe there were many of those, where people were shot at or were ambushed or any sort of operation like that, would you come back and make a written report to the effect that you acted illegally or would you write the report in such a way that it would look as if it was a legitimate police operation?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: Chairperson, once you were in an operation and such illegalities took place, one would give information to legalise this thing, not that you acted illegally.  That is so, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that is what Mr Moerane was asking you about, whether in fact it was in fact a practice to do that.

MR MOERANE: Yes Mr Chairman.   So from your last reply are you saying that such did occur, that in reporting the incident you would try to make it legal?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: That is correct, that is what I said.

MR MOERANE: You were in the process of your history at Vlakplaas, involved in a lot of illegal activities, not so?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: In respect of those activities, you, I assume, you have applied for amnesty?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: Yes, I have applied for amnesty as far as my knowledge goes, where I acted illegally, yes.

MR MOERANE: Are you the person that set this motor vehicle on fire?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: There were four of us at the vehicle, as far as I know, Mr Botha, he shot at the petrol tank and as far as I know, he also set the vehicle alight.  It may have been Mr Ras, as he says.

MR MOERANE: Mr Botha was a junior to you then?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: You were actually the senior person?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Did he perform that act under your instructions?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: We all decided together, but I would give the instructions.

MR MOERANE: Did you give such an instruction?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: I did give such an instruction, yes, I did.

MR MOERANE: When you gave that instruction, where was the body of the deceased?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: The person, as the vehicle was standing, was lying on the right hand side of the vehicle, about more or less two or three paces away from the vehicle.

MR MOERANE: Was he not inside the vehicle?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: No, he was not inside the vehicle.

MR MOERANE: You knew that if that vehicle caught fire, he would be burnt?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: That is correct, yes.

MR MOERANE: You wanted him to be burnt?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: No, I would not say that I - we did not do anything to him to burn, the vehicle burnt and because of this heat, he must have, I never visited that place ever again.

MR MOERANE: Well, if you didn't want him to be burnt, you would have removed him from the vehicle, not so?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: He was not in the vehicle, no, we did not move him.

MR MOERANE: Yes, what I am saying is that you would have removed him from the immediate vicinity of ...

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: Yes, I concede if we did not want to injure him any more, but he was already dead.

MR MOERANE: I finally put it to you that you were not fired upon.

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: Well, I saw, I testified that we were fired upon, if that is your opinion, I differ from you.

MR MOERANE: How many shots were fired?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: Many shots.  From our side?

MR MOERANE: No, no, from the person at the motor vehicle?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: I don't know, I have no idea.

MR MOERANE: Well, how many flashes of light did you see?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: I don't know, I could not count, I have no idea.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, was it more than one?

PAUL JACOBUS VAN DYK: Yes, it was definitely more, it may also have been the other person who was at the vehicle.   It could not only have been, it may not only have been the person who was laying on the other side of the vehicle.