Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-15

MR COETZEE: Mr Chair, as far as the second applicant is concerned, it is common cause apparently that he at all times found himself in the vehicle.  What exactly happened on the premises, he had no influence on that and it is clear that he had reconciled himself with the action there, that he had a common objective.
	It is also indeed so that the applicants in their application, do not state that the premises would be first reconnoitred.  A fact on which Mr Prinsloo placed a lot of emphasis.  I would submit that the probabilities support Mr Van Zyl and Mr Holder's version.
	The idea that a white policeman would be shot and killed for the sake of a single pistol, was a  thought that clearly was not acceptable to them.
	The fact that shortly after the incident, they had sworn off, that they had given up their right-wing connections, is a very strong indication of the disappointment that they had felt - that is Messrs Van Zyl and Holder, regarding this particular incident.
	I would also respectfully submit and point out that it is clear that Messrs Van Zyl and Holder regarded Mr Van Schalkwyk as their Commanding Officer, Mr De Meillon was held up to them as a dependable person, he knew what he was doing, who had already observed targets and the impression was created that they could openly without any reservation, go along with him, and that an excessive operation would not be planned and executed.
	To lay it before their door that in the two hour trip from Secunda to Pretoria, they at that stage did not start asking who would play what role and when, I would also submit that it is not justified to do so.
	At that stage, they didn't even know exactly what their target was. One would have expected them, when they arrived at the target, perhaps to just first drive passed, make an observation.  Perhaps then walk passed and do another observation, and then perhaps to come to a final planning and execution of the plan.
	To expect of them that they would have to take this specialist De Meillon and to question him, would given the fact that they were mere members of the AWB who had been sent as assistants, would just be asking too much.  Their impressions were clearly that Commandant De Meillon when it suited him, would pass onto them the information which they might require in order to carry out the operation.
	When indeed he disclosed to them the Pretoria target and found themselves in a position to make an evaluation of the risk involved, they immediately indicated that it was not part of the planning.  The fact of the matter is that because they had not attacked those guards, it is clear that the second and third applicants did not have any expectation whatsoever, that this was the type of thing that would have happened.  It had been in Mr De Meillon's mind that automatic weapons would be taken from guards, is clear, but the fact that it didn't happen, is clear proof that it didn't fit in with Mr Holder and Mr Van Zyl's agenda.
	I would therefore like to state that the problem should further be looked at from a different perspective and that is they drove back from Pretoria, De Meillon is the respected and appreciated Commander of the BRL, he had been instructed to find weapons, and now he is on his way to Secunda from Pretoria, with empty hands.
	If on a Saturday night, before the elections, when everybody believes there is a civil war confronting them, and he would turn up with empty hands at his command structure, what a fool he wouldn't be made of under those circumstances?
	So Mr De Meillon looks at alternative planning and on route back to Secunda, he thought of Devon.  He discloses it to his co-applicants, that Devon is an area well known to him.  There were also automatic weapons.  The applicants at all times believed that there wouldn't just be a blind attack that would follow.  It is a place that had to be reconnoitred properly.

CHAIRPERSON: What did he precisely tell them would happen at Devon?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, I have been instructed and the evidence had been that what they were going to do there, was to carry out a reconnoitring or a reconnaissance, and that if as they had been given to understand, it wasn't clearly stated but if it was easy to obtain firearms there without excessive risk, the arms would then be obtained.
	The applicants understood that this could also involve the commission of a crime, because it is clear that they had common cause in this.  It was clear that they were prepared to rub shoulders with the law.
	Considering this situation, I am sure that the applicants did not believe in the light of the fact that this was a military base, they believed that the action was justified and that it wouldn't have been an unlawful act.  It was clear that whatever action they would have been involved in, it would have either been trespassing or theft or it could have also been a robbery.

CHAIRPERSON: Is your submission that where the first applicant's version clashes with that of your clients, we reject the first applicant's version and that we accept your applicants' or clients' version?

MR COETZEE: I would respectfully submit that there is no reason to reject the second and third applicants' version.  However, what is respectfully very important to note is the fact that applicant 1, possibly had his own agenda, in all probability had his own agenda.
	Applicants 2 and 3, had their own agenda and the fact that there are contradictions as to who believed what, and what they regarded to be their agenda's, respectfully does not mean that the one's version is correct and the other one wrong.
	I think that it requires a detailed analysis and I respectfully submit that the second and third applicant acted bona fide at all times, without having had any reason to believe that Mr De Meillon didn't know what he was doing, or planning there.

CHAIRPERSON: But if their version directly contradict each other, and the way I understand the evidence and in this particular evidence, as to what had happened at Devon, then there is only one version that could be the truth.  We cannot accept both versions as the truth.
	Either they wouldn't have reconnoitred or they would have reconnoitred.  The first applicant said that they had to shoot for propaganda, the other said, we wouldn't, so it is a very pertinent question which I am asking you.  What is your submission where it comes to a direct contradiction between the first applicant's version and your clients' version.
	Is it your submission that your clients' version should be accepted as probably truthful?