Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-14

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Chairperson, if the operation had been successful then I would have informed the State that the operation went awry, I had to receive medical attention urgently so there wasn't really time for me to inform the State of the operation and as I said it was a failure, it did not succeed and then I don't think it is applicable to inform the State.

ADV GCABASHE: I understand what you're saying but then I may have misunderstood what you said earlier.  Whose duty would it be to inform the State of the successful mission, yours or your organisation's?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: The telephone number was made available to me to phone.  The BWB would obviously have taken responsibility for the deed, that is the organisation, because I had received an instruction to commit the act.

ADV GCABASHE: Now your co-applicants are members of the AWB.  What portion of that success would they be able to claim?  Would their organisation also be able to say "we executed that mission successfully"?  Again, what was the plan?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Chairperson, I don't really know what the AWB had planned in that regard.  They would have taken the one weapon, I would have taken the other and what they had planned I don't know.  They would be able to inform you.

ADV GCABASHE: But as the person who was in charge of this particular operation, you chose the target, you were their confidante.  It was a two way process, I understand that.  You did not plan with the AWB even with these particular colleagues how you would then inform the party you are fighting, the State in this instance, that you are the people who have done this thing and they had better take notice of you.  I just want to understand that communication because unless you communicate what you are doing, you can't get the correct reaction from your enemy?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: That is correct, I did not inform my co-applicants with relation to the number that I had, I didn't view it as relevant at that stage.

ADV GCABASHE: But that was a BWB telephone number anyway, not a general telephone number, is that right?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: I think the telephone number was of the crime investigation service, I don't know whether that is the case but I think that to be the case.

ADV GCABASHE: Then one last question.  This declaration of war I've been asking you about by your organisation, what exactly was said or written down or how was it communicated to the other side, to the people you declared war against?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: I don't really know what the government of the day's reaction was in relation to this declaration of war but it was put quite clearly to our members at meetings, especially at headquarters, that we were in a situation of war with the government of the day and the ANC/SACP Alliance so-forth and what the NP's reaction was I can't say.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes but I'm more interested in how your leadership communicated this declaration of war to you, what did they say, did they say we've written a petition, we've sent a letter, we've sent a telex?  How did they, as far as you know, to your knowledge, how did they communicate the declaration of war to the NP government, to the ANC, to the SACP?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Chairperson, I'm not a hundred percent sure, that happened before I joined the BWB, when I joined them they were already in a state of war against the government so I don't know exactly how they issued this declaration, whether it was published in newspapers or what they did.  No, I'm not a hundred percent sure.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you Mr de Meillon, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
	The call you received did you view that as the instruction for action?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes I viewed it as my instruction to act.

CHAIRPERSON: And you also understood it to be from the BWB?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: That is the BRL.

CHAIRPERSON: BRL?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: That is correct, that is the military wing of the BWB.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you later ascertain whether it was indeed an instruction from the BRL?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Chairperson no, I cannot really say.  As I say I don't know who the person was and I also don't know who of the other members were members of the BRL.  Now these members operate in cells, the only person that you have knowledge of that is also a member of the BRL and also operates under them, that would be your co-cell members, you don't know if any of the other members are members of the BRL and operate.

CHAIRPERSON: So you can't really say?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No I can't.

CHAIRPERSON: So you obtained one firearm?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And what happened to that firearm?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well because I had to receive medical attention quite urgently I then gave the firearm to Mr Holder and Mr van Zyl.  I later on heard that they threw it into a damn, why I don't know.  Perhaps they were scared.

CHAIRPERSON: So the whole operation was a total failure?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And the only weapon or the only result from your perspective, that was thrown away?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why were they worried, because of the crime?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No I wouldn't be able to say Chairperson, that's just my opinion, I can't say why they threw it away.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, they'll tell us I suppose.  If I understand you correctly, you didn't really want to shoot the policeman, you didn't really want to kill him?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No, that wasn't my intention, my objective.

CHAIRPERSON: If I understand it correctly it was more in the sense of an accident, the shot went off whilst you were busy trying to hold his weapon.

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes, as I said Chairperson, the first shot that was fired from my firearm, that was accidentally, that was whilst Mr Terblanche was struggling with me then the weapon was taken from my hand, it was grabbed and I was under the impression that I would be shot at and I reacted and then I shot before he could shoot.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words you defended yourself, you were afraid that he was going to shoot you so you shot him first?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well it happened so fast but one could say that yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So in other words it was not a situation that you deliberately decided that there is a policeman, I'm going to enter, shoot him, kill him and then I'm going to take his weapon?  That is something that happened in the situation that you found yourself in?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes.  If it had been my objective to enter and then to kill the policeman and then take his weapon then I would have made sure that I was in possession of unlicensed pistol instead of using my own firearm but then it would also not have been necessary to wear a balaclava because then there would not be anyone to identify me later on.  My aim was to enter and then to tie them up and that was my goal and also to gag them.

CHAIRPERSON: Now did you understand the situation that - this now concerns the declaration of war, that it would be the policy of your organisation that you get to a white policeman that you could kill him?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No that is not how I understood it.

CHAIRPERSON: What I mean is, did you understand the policy in any way to mean that you could kill any white person?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: To tell the truth Chairperson, no.  They never referred to the killing of any person, whether white, black.  They never specifically said that we may kill certain people and not others, no.  They never really talked about killing people.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you just explain it once again, I know reference has been made to this, but if you say that you have been disappointed because of the action what specifically do you refer to?