Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-14

ADV GCABASHE: And the premises that you were headed for as far as you knew was a camp where these particular people were holding these illegal arms as far as you were concerned?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: That is correct, or a house or a location or something like that.

ADV GCABASHE: It had nothing to do with the government of the day?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No.

ADV GCABASHE: Or any declaration of war against the government of the day?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.  Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kotze any re-examination?

MR KOTZE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
	And when you had taken these weapons do you still say that these weapons would then be used for protection of the safe houses with the people you have already mentioned?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR KOTZE: And did you believe at that stage that it was a political and military order?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: That is correct.

MR KOTZE: Mr Holder, you had been questioned regarding the finding of the judge as to where you agree and you don't agree.  Part of his finding was that you and Mr van Zyl and Mr de Meillon on that particular evening didn't go to Pretoria at all.  What is your attitude about that?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I still agree with the finding of the Judge, but we were in Pretoria, I know we were there.

MR KOTZE: Then it was also found that Mr Swart could have seen your blue eyes through a vest, what is your opinion about that?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Well I don't believe Mr Swart could have seen my eyes.

MR KOTZE: You were also cross-questioned or questioned regarding Mr Swart's evidence during the trial and your comment was that there were certain aspects with which you didn't agree, a matter with regard to where your firearm was.  Do you think Mr Swart would have been in a position to make an observation in this regard?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I don't know whether he could have made this observation because he was busy drawing his firearm, he was wasn't really looking at what was going on at the door.

MR KOTZE: You also remarked just now that this couldn't contribute to a political objective, if we now look at the isolated incident of the 23rd April, that sort of senseless killing of a police officer, is that what you're referring to?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: But the broader idea of trying to obtain firearms, do you believe that that could have a political influence?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes that is correct, Mr Chair.

MR KOTZE: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOTZE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kotze.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I have one brief question if the Chairman will allow me to reply?  On page 66 the judge says in his finding with regard to Swart the policeman, that he was an honest and impressive witness, do you agree with that?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I agree with what the judge had found.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is there any reason why you could believe that he was not an impressive and honest witness?

MR KOTZE: I have to object against this question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think it is a well founded objection, he has replied to your question Mr van Schalkwyk.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Yes I'm satisfied that he has replied, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK

CHAIRPERSON: I see we've almost reached the end of the day.  You have one client whose case you have to offer, I don't know whether you have any further testimony or evidence in this regard?

MR KOTZE: Mr Chairman, no further evidence on behalf of Mr Holder.

CHAIRPERSON: So you conclude his application?

MR KOTZE: Yes I do conclude his application.

CHAIRPERSON: I think under those circumstances, time has caught up with us at any rate and we therefore will have the matter stand over.  We'll adjourn this application until tomorrow and we will reconvene at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.  So we are adjourned.
WITNESS EXCUSED
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS