Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-18

MR WEBSTER: I looked at paragraph 3 of yours, it was identical to paragraph 2 of Botha.  I looked at paragraph 4 of yours, it was identical to paragraph 3 of Botha and so on and so on, I'm not going to belabour the point but what I can say without fear of being perceived to be misleading this hearing is that your applications are substantially the same to a point where they are identical word for word, do you agree?

GEN STEYN: Chairperson, that is correct, there are certain aspects which are similar.

MR WEBSTER: General, you must have testified in trials over decades?

GEN STEYN: Yes, in many cases.

MR WEBSTER: And you know that it's important in a trial that you should stick to your statement, is that not so?

GEN STEYN: Yes.

MR WEBSTER: Because if you make a statement you're going to stick to the statement, is that not so?

GEN STEYN: Yes.

MR WEBSTER: You depart from the statement you destroy your credibility, don't you?

GEN STEYN: Yes.

MR WEBSTER: Likewise you also know that it is improper for a police officer to sit and discuss evidence with a colleague and thereafter draw up a statement, you know that is improper?

GEN STEYN: Chairperson no, in this instance with the drafting of this document for this application we refreshed our memory and we spoke to each other to see if we can arrive at the correct facts because as I've explained previously we could not obtain any documentation.

MR WEBSTER: But my question still General is, that you are aware that it is improper for police officers to sit together and decide what the facts are and then make statements in accordance to their discussions, you know that that is improper?

GEN STEYN: I don't know in this case that is applicable, Chairperson, because we did not have all the facts to our availability and it was years ago.  We wanted to place an amnesty application before the Amnesty Committee to the best of our abilities and in this process we negotiated with each other and discussed the matter to see if we could arrive at the facts.

MR WEBSTER: Then you've all pooled this together, you then write it as I say, statements which are substantially identical, is that not so?

GEN STEYN: In certain instances, yes.

MR WEBSTER: I can just point out to paragraph 26 of your application and say that it is only there where I found some difference because you spoke of four AKs and you didn't mention hand grenades.  Except those two points over the limited period I had over the lunch break, I find no substantial difference whatsoever in your application.  Does that surprise you?

GEN STEYN: No, I've already explained why I had done so.

MR WEBSTER: In other words these applications are a combined application where all three of you have contributed and not necessarily remembered the facts as they really were?

GEN STEYN: No, during our negotiations and if one discusses a case it is true that certain aspects would arrive and somebody would remind you of something that one has forgotten and in this process one is reminded of the aspects.

MR WEBSTER: I take it General that you'd be reluctant today as you always were in the past to disclose the names of these informers, is that correct?

GEN STEYN: I don't know who these particular informers were.

MR WEBSTER: I'm saying you'd still be reluctant to disclose their identity today?

GEN STEYN: I said I don't know who the informer in this case was.

MR WEBSTER: You did not know any of the people that you ultimately found in the car, is that correct?

GEN STEYN: I've never known them before but I knew of them.

MR WEBSTER: You did not know whether any of them were terrorists or not?

GEN STEYN: I knew that Mamela was a trained terrorist and at the best, according to the information which I had received, had operated with him and was trained locally.

MR WEBSTER: In fact you just were told by Sittert or Taylor of these facts, is that not so?

GEN STEYN: I was informed so by several persons.

MR WEBSTER: And not that you had any other personal knowledge there about that?

GEN STEYN: No.

MR WEBSTER: And you'd agree with me that doesn't mean that because a person has been trained and is as what you'd like to call him a terrorist, that the others are also terrorists or according to you that naturally follows?

GEN STEYN: Would you please repeat?

MR WEBSTER: Would it naturally follow that because a person is a terrorist as you call him that any other person who'd be in his company would also be a terrorist?

GEN STEYN: But that was the information that Brian Mamela was a trained person and the group who was with him were locally trained, in other words they were terrorists, that was our viewpoint at that stage.

MR WEBSTER: I'm asking you whether a person who is in the company of a terrorist as you call him is also a terrorist, Sir?

GEN STEYN: No, it would depend on the circumstances but here the evidence was available that these persons were trained so I regarded them as terrorists.

MR WEBSTER: But it was not evidence, General?

GEN STEYN: It was information ...(intervention)

MR WEBSTER: It was information and there is world of difference between reports ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just give him a chance, the difficulty is that I don't get enough time to put this down.

MR WEBSTER: Sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Now he's relying on the fact that the information was that these people were trained terrorists.  Your question is the fact that one man is a terrorist does that mean that everybody who accompanies him is a terrorist, is that the gist of that question?

MR WEBSTER: That was the basic gist of the question.

CHAIRPERSON: In this particular case?

MR WEBSTER: In the particular case, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Sorry I disturbed you but I wanted to take it down but if you want to elaborate on those questions please do so.

MR WEBSTER: Thank you, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: It's just that I'd like to have a little time to write it out.

MR WEBSTER: I will remember to look in your direction, thank you Mr Chairperson, my apologies for forgetting.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

MR WEBSTER: General, you were given information and that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: From Van Sittert that Mamela was a trained terrorist?

GEN STEYN: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You went on to say that your information was that his companions, those who were with him were also trained terrorists?

GEN STEYN: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I see.

MR WEBSTER: And that information came from an informer?

GEN STEYN: It came from Col Taylor and from Van Sittert and their members who worked with them.

MR WEBSTER: That information came from an informer, had it not, did you know?

GEN STEYN: That may be so, yes.

MR WEBSTER: If you would bear with me please, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR WEBSTER: Very well, General and you say, if I understand you, that a meeting of some sorts took place at the kwaMashu Police Station?

GEN STEYN: Yes.

MR WEBSTER: At which the entire operation was discussed?

GEN STEYN: Correct.

MR WEBSTER: And according to your application it was the reaction unit which was going to attempt to intercept those people after they had left the house.  They would arrest them but you would not expose your lives to danger?

GEN STEYN: That's right.

MR WEBSTER: And according to you it was Breytenbach who was in charge of that operation?

GEN STEYN: Correct.

MR WEBSTER: At no stage did Breytenbach give any order to either you or to the occupants of the kombi insofar as you are aware?

GEN STEYN: I don't follow the question?

MR WEBSTER: You are aware and as far as you know, Breytenbach did not issue any order either to you or to Mr Botha or to the kombi in which Wassenaar was?

CHAIRPERSON: What kind of order?

MR WEBSTER: Any type of order regarding the arrest or apprehension or anything about the vehicle that you were pursuing?