Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-14

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: At the time that you spent in the South African Defence Force, did you do it voluntarily or why did you spend it there?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well it was national service and I did that voluntarily.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Please explain to me, why do you do military service if you are against the government?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: It was national service.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But you had a choice, you could have gone to jail, you could have left the country, but now you are serving this country?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Now I perhaps had the choice but anything is better than jail or leaving the country.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you are saying is that you support the government enough to do your national service?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well at that stage I didn't really have much of a choice.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I want to put it to you that you had a choice.  You could have left the country, you could have sat in a jail, you had different options other than doing your national service?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well it would have been more advantageous to doing my military service because I was trained in weapons.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I want to put it to you Sir that in all situations you do what is to your advantage.  Now today you have remorse because it is to your advantage but you don't really have remorse.

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: But one of the reasons for admitting my guilt was because I felt remorse.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you testify against your two co-accused in the trial?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No I did not testify.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why didn't you testify against them?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Because each of them have a wife and two small children.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now if you say to us that you are a person who has remorse for your deeds and there are co-accused who have - why didn't you testify against them?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: It was also told to me by my investigative officer that I don't have to testify because they have sufficient testimony against them.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now I have been instructed by my client that there had been a specific discussion with the investigating officer, that was Captain Nel, where he then indicated that you don't want to co-operate and that you refused to co-operate because you referred to them as co-people with you in the struggle?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No, I put it quite clearly to him why I did not testify.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In other words you say that Captain Nel is lying if he says that you did not want to testify?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: I won't say that he was lying but that is not what I told him.  I did not tell him that I refused to testify.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I also put it to you that Mr Terblanche senior stopped corresponding when it became clear that you didn't break from right-wing politics where you initially indicated that you had remorse?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well I don't know, I never told Mr Terblanche that I was not prepared to break with right-wing politics.  I cannot do away with my heritage.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that Mr Terblanche specifically opposed this application that you had indicated to him that you felt remorse and that you wanted to break from your past but that Inspector Nel indicated to him that you are not prepared to co-operate or to testify in the criminal case of these two co-accused who had plead guilty?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: That is what Mr Nel told him, that is not what I told him and I also put it to Mr Nel that I would be prepared to testify should he subpoena me and he told me that it was not necessary if I don't testify I don't have to because they had enough evidence against the two accused.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you're saying is that you would testify against these two people?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes, if they had subpoenaed me I would have.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I want to put it to you that you are lying, that you are now changing the truth to suit you?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: I'm not agreeing, I don't have a reason here to lie, I'm here to tell the truth.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you agree with everything that is contained in the application here and the submission given here?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes I agree.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are there any other changes that you would like to add or anything that you would like to point out that is not correct?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Not anything that I can think of right now.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why were these changes made today to the submissions and the statements?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well when I read through it, it was briefly, it was only yesterday that I really went through it in detail and then I saw the different errors.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Would you agree with me that this is a very important application and it could save you ten years in prison?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes I agree.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I want to put it to you that no normal person would have just glanced through such an application and just handed it in without really ascertaining whether everything is correct.

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: I took it as correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you read through everything?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No I did not read through everything but I believed that it was correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that it is quite unlikely that any person would have had his application compiled, handed in and then also confirmed that it was his without reading through it thoroughly.

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well I had absolute trust in my advocate.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you're saying is that it was only today that you realised that there were certain mistakes in the application?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No, not today, I read through the application thoroughly yesterday and then I saw the mistakes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that you made the changes to then link up with the applications of the other two people so that there aren't any contradictions.

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: I have no idea what is contained in the statements of the other two.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Didn't you go through them at any stage?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No I did not read their applications.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I want to put it to you that in your application you made corrections where you said that they're not friends of yours and that you don't know them well?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No I don't know them well.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not activated.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: During the trial did you also say that you don't know these people well or did you view them as your confidantes?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: In the trial I did not testify.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you then deny that you in any statements referred to them as confidantes?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well they were confidantes in the sense that Mr van Schalkwyk told me that I could trust them.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In other words you want to say that a person that you've only met once and if a person is then indicated to be a confidante and someone you can trust that you then view him in that manner, in that way?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well they could be confidantes but not necessarily friends.  I believed that I could rely on his opinion of other people.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why didn't you join the AWB whilst in the army?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: At that stage it was prohibited if you were in the service of any State department or did any service that you could join any political movement.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you are a person who, doing your national service, but you then also comply with the rules of the Defence Force?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well I didn't have a choice, I didn't have a choice of complying with it.