Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-03-24

HENDRIK LEEUW: The person who was with John Showa and accompanied him during all this training was Oupa Khotle and we were with him in prison.

JUDGE WILSON: Is he in prison?

HENDRIK LEEUW: Yes it is so.

JUDGE WILSON: What prison?

HENDRIK LEEUW: Grootvlei Maximum Prison.

JUDGE WILSON: So he's available there now?

HENDRIK LEEUW: Yes he's still inside in prison.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Leeuw you stole a motor vehicle in 1987, is that correct?

HENDRIK LEEUW: I was needing that car when I stole it.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, your answer, I couldn't hear you.

HENDRIK LEEUW: I did not steal a car in 1988 as I was in the Organisation, my joining the Organisation was with the intention of assisting the APLA army.

ADV DE JAGER: In 1987?  That was not this car, before this car.

HENDRIK LEEUW: Yes in 1987 I've got a car theft case.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja, and you were convicted of car theft, of stealing a car.

HENDRIK LEEUW: Yes it is so.

ADV DE JAGER: And in 1974 you were also convicted of stealing, theft?

HENDRIK LEEUW: Yes it is so.

ADV DE JAGER: And in 1984 you were also convicted of fraud, is that correct?

HENDRIK LEEUW: No that I don't understand clearly.

ADV DE JAGER: Didn't you try to change a document in 1984 in order to get money or falsification of a document?

HENDRIK LEEUW: No Sir I don't remember that.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Were you convicted of any offence in 1984?

HENDRIK LEEUW: I only remember the car issue and the theft.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Only two convictions?

HENDRIK LEEUW: Yes I can only remember the two.

JUDGE MGOEPE: When you say you remember only the two, what do you mean, are you implying that it is possible there might have been a third conviction but you might have forgotten about it?

HENDRIK LEEUW: That I cannot remember.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Is it possible then that you could have been convicted of some offence in 1984, quite apart from the motor car theft in 1987 and theft in 1974?  Is it possible that you could have been convicted in 1984?

HENDRIK LEEUW: No Sir I don't recall them.

JUDGE MGOEPE: But - thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Have you got the previous convictions?

JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Leeuw I would expect you to remember ...(intervention)

ADV THABETHE: Yes we do.  Can I refer the Committee to the relevant page.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Can I complete my question please if you don't mind.

ADV THABETHE: Oh sorry, sorry.

JUDGE MGOEPE: I would expect you to remember whether or not you were convicted, can you really forget that?

HENDRIK LEEUW: If there is a case, maybe if you can tell me where and when maybe I will remember.

ADV DE JAGER: According to the judgment you were convicted in 1974 for theft.  In 1984 forgery, page 7 of the judgment, and issuing a falsified document.   There was nothing like say a driver's licence or anything falsified, or your ID document or some sort of document?

HENDRIK LEEUW: I don't remember because I got my licence in 1982 in Randfontein.

ADV DE JAGER: What happened to this vehicle that you have stolen in 1987?

HENDRIK LEEUW: It is still at my uncle's yard.  I went to prison for that.  When I came back I took it to my yard.  It was in Botshabelo at that time.  And the person who was charging me for the case he never said it was his car, but it was similar to his car.  The engine is still in the car and the gearbox, in the boot of the car in Botshabelo.

ADV THABETHE: Mr Chairman the previous convictions
mentioned in page 7 of the judgment which is Section P 
...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: (Speaker's mike is not on)

ADV THABETHE: Ja, it's not in the SAP69, we've got the SAP69 but they only refer to Annexure A which I don't have.  So we don't have a SAP69 previous convictions.

JUDGE WILSON: Have you got an SAP69 form for this applicant?

ADV THABETHE: No we don't.  Mr Leeuw you say in your evidence your intention was not to rob Mr Fourie, exactly what was your intention?

HENDRIK LEEUW: My intention to take Mr Fourie's property was to find what was needed by the Organisation so that we would be able to continue with the APLA struggle.

ADV THABETHE: Mr Chair at some stage you enquired whether the victims were old or they were young, I just want to - I have no further questions for Mr Leeuw.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV THABETHE

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.   Neither of us put our microphones on for that, I think it should be recorded that there was no re-examination.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MTHEMBU
WITNESS EXCUSED

ADV DE JAGER: You wanted to say something about the age of the victims?

ADV THABETHE: Yes I did Member of the Committee.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

ADV THABETHE: In Section C, page 3, right down at the end there are particulars of the victims where it mentions that the man was 70 years and the woman was 74 years.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry where is that, I am sorry?

ADV THABETHE: Section C page 3.

ADV DE JAGER: Well perhaps then I would like to recall the applicant because he told us it was only adult people, they weren't elderly people.  Could the applicant please come....

HENDRIK LEEUW: (s.u.o.)

ADV DE JAGER: Would you consider a person of 70 years and a woman of 74 years of age as elderly people or only as adults?

HENDRIK LEEUW: I don't understand, because in a fight you don't - we don't regard age, how old are you.  In a state of war we don't case whether you are young or old.

ADV DE JAGER: So you didn't worry whether they were young or old?  You knew all the way round they were old Mr Leeuw, wasn't that the fact?

HENDRIK LEEUW: In our struggle PAC didn't make any division or any distinction as whether they are old or young.  We go on with the African struggle.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Leeuw that's not what I've been asking you, what the people considered in the struggle.  You knew these people were old, they were 70 years and over 70 years and you tried to give the impression that they were only adult people?

HENDRIK LEEUW: I would ask the Committee as to whether in during the fight, in a state of war do you make any distinction between those people who were young or old?

JUDGE WILSON: You picked this old man as a target, you have told us you chose him, I suggest you did it because you thought he was an old man who couldn't defend himself, and it has nothing to do with war.  It was your choice of him as a target.

HENDRIK LEEUW: To choose that farm we didn't pay any attention to the age, we only concentrated as to whether how can we
enhance our struggle so that we'll get some assistance in that farm so as to continue our struggle.

JUDGE WILSON: Well how did that farm get to the top of your list?  A farm that had one measly firearm in it, why was it the first choice amongst all the farms you had been told to attack, can you give any reason?

HENDRIK LEEUW: For us to prioritise this farm is because it has arms in it because Mr Fourie was one of those people who were senior within - or let me say during the weekend when they were collaborating with the police together with other White people.

JUDGE WILSON: That was 15 years ago or more, 15, 16 years ago, you hadn't been back since then you told us.  He was now an old man, that you must have known.

HENDRIK LEEUW: That's not true Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: What's not true, had you been back there?

HENDRIK LEEUW: After that I didn't go back to that area.

JUDGE WILSON: After you left there in 1975 had you been back after that?

HENDRIK LEEUW: Yes I didn't go back again after that.

JUDGE WILSON: So you had no idea what he had been doing after 1975, except that he was now 15 years older?

HENDRIK LEEUW: What was important to us was not the age, what was important was to go on with the APLA struggle against the farmers.

JUDGE WILSON: You have not given one valid reason why you should have made him your first choice, can you do so?

HENDRIK LEEUW: I did explain that for us to prioritise this farm was that Mr Fourie had many arms, for us to get these two arms was not important for us to get other arms or to search for other arms.