Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-14

ADV GCABASHE: And all the way to Pretoria he did not say to you what Van Schalkwyk said is not the position, he didn't contradict Van Schalkwyk at all?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No he didn't.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Holder, just to further investigate this question which the Honourable Advocate Gcabashe had raised, is it now your testimony that Mr van Schalkwyk had said that the firearms were to be obtained in Vermeulen Street?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No, Mr van Schalkwyk had said that Mr de Meillon had observed various places where we could obtain firearms, we had to go with Mr de Meillon and then thus in that manner find or get the weapons.

MR PRINSLOO: So Mr van Schalkwyk hadn't said to you that they were in Vermeulen Street?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No, Mr De Meillon took us there.

MR PRINSLOO: No, the question is, Mr van Schalkwyk never mentioned a specific place where the arms could be found?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No he didn't Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: So you answered very quickly and said Mr de Meillon had heard everything, are you saying this out of conviction or did Mr van Schalkwyk who was a member of the AWB or Mr de Meillon who was not enter into a discussion there?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No I say that with conviction Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: Well Mr de Meillon will deny that it had ever been said to him that firearms would be collected in Vermeulen Street.

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Mr de Meillon said there were firearms in Pretoria and when we went there he said it was in Vermeulen Street.

MR PRINSLOO: But that was only raised when you were travelling there, not what Mr van Schalkwyk had said?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No Mr van Schalkwyk just said Mr de Meillon had observed a variety of places where we could find firearms.

MR PRINSLOO: You also replied to a question of the Honourable Advocate Gcabashe that it was semi-automatic weapons?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know what a semi-automatic weapon is?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I had used the wrong term, it was automatic weapons.

MR PRINSLOO: And those automatic weapons which you would go and collect there, you would take by violent means if necessary?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: According to what they had told me, Mr van Schalkwyk in the presence of Mr de Meillon, these guards were normally drunk or these people who were in possession of these firearms and it would therefore be reasonably easy to take these weapons.

MR PRINSLOO: So you were given to understand that they would be in possession of these people, that you would take it from their person?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No, I thought it was a place, a stand, a house where people lived and where these firearms were on those premises.

MR PRINSLOO: But there would be people who would be guarding them?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes there would be people present.

MR PRINSLOO: And they would be armed?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: He didn't tell us that they would be armed.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you in the defence force Mr Holder?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know of any place where arms weren't protected by armed guards?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: In my opinion, I wouldn't protect firearms that I had illegally hidden away.

MR PRINSLOO: Now where did you expect illegal arms to be found in Vermeulen Street?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Well as I'd stated, I don't know Pretoria.  We travelled to Pretoria, when we entered Pretoria, Mr de Meillon said we must drive up Vermeulen Street and he pointed out this building to us.

MR PRINSLOO: As I understand your testimony, you stated that Mr de Meillon had said that the arms had to be taken away from the guards and that this would have propaganda value for the BWB or the right-wing?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So by some or other means the guards would be robbed of the firearms?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So it was his testimony that it would be taken from these people?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So his testimony was never that they would remove firearms from a safe?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you have any equipment to remove firearms from a safe, like an ...(indistinct) torch or anything like that?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: So you knew that it would be taken from persons?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No I didn't, I thought it was a place where firearms were hidden away.

MR PRINSLOO: And if those people were to resist, you had a firearm to defend yourself?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: Or to carry out the plan?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I would have defended myself had I been attacked.

MR PRINSLOO: And you would also be able to carry your planning to effect by using that firearm to obtain those weapons?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Well if it had been my purpose to cold-bloodedly attack people would I have done that at the building in Vermeulen Street which Mr de Meillon wished to attack.

MR PRINSLOO: That's not the question, if the person were to resist or would refuse to hand over his weapon, would you use violence?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No, Mr Chair, I wouldn't try to take a firearm from any person.

MR PRINSLOO: When you arrived in Devon with Mr de Meillon, you went with Mr de Meillon, you got over the fence to the place where the act was committed?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: And when you entered that place did you see if there were people inside?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: What did you think then?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: At that stage I didn't think anything.  I thought nothing of it.

MR PRINSLOO: What do you mean you didn't think about it, you had a balaclava over your head and so did Mr de Meillon, you were both armed, you walked into a place which you know as a military institution, you walk into the place where the guards are sitting, what did you think was going to happen now?  Why were you entering there?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Well I knew there were problems awaiting but after I had seen what had happened in Pretoria I tried to convince myself of a way to stop this whole thing but it was too late when we entered there.

MR PRINSLOO: So your testimony is that according to Van Schalkwyk, De Meillon had already done reconnoitring?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: That is correct, Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: So when he went in there was no reason for any reconnoitring because that had already been done according to your own testimony?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Well Mr de Meillon told me and Mr van Zyl that we were just going to see what was going on there.

MR PRINSLOO: But your testimony was that reconnoitring had already been done, that's your testimony?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And now he enters a place where there are guards sitting?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So I propose to you that Mr de Meillon's version means that guards would be robbed of firearms?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: That is not what we were doing in Devon, Sir.

MR PRINSLOO: But you testified and I wish to state to you that Mr de Meillon was a person who had been trained in Devon, so he would certainly know where the arms safe would be, it wasn't necessary to go and search for arms because he would know where the were.  Do you agree with that?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes, that's what he said.

MR PRINSLOO: So there was no reason for any reconnoitring in that regard.  So when he entered that room where the guards were sitting, with reference to what he had said in Pretoria that the guards would be robbed of their firearms, did you assume that would happen there in Devon?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes when we went in there I assumed that is what would happen.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you agree with that?