Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-14

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: With regard to the events according to which he said that you were in the building with a firearm, do you differ from him?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes I do.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In which regard?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I did not have a firearm in my hand.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Where was your firearm according to you when you entered the building?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: In the side pocket of my brown trousers.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Can you explain then why Mr de Meillon would present a lie to us?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I can't explain that.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: When you looked through the window did you see that there were SAP members in the building?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I saw that there were white people inside the building.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: At that stage did you see the uniforms of these people?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I saw the uniforms when I entered the room.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you think it is justified to shoot a policeman dead for the sake of his 9 mm pistol?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No I don't think so.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you think that any political organisation could account for itself by saying that it is justified to shoot one policeman in order to gain one 9 mm firearm?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did Mr de Meillon at any stage when he was with you give an indication that he did not undertake reconnaissance of this base before the time?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No he did not.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Emanating from the discussion where you, Van Schalkwyk an De Meillon were present would you say that he would have said so if he had not undertaken reconnaissance of the area at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: I must lodge an objection here, he cannot ask the applicant what a reasonable person would have done in that situation, it is a speculative question.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Let me rephrase my question.  If you had been Mr de Meillon at that stage and he testified today that since his military service he had never again entered that base would you have made it known to any other person that during that time you had never been there?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: If he had informed me of this I would not have gone with.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did Mr de Meillon have the opportunity to disclose that he had not undertaken reconnaissance shortly before this incident?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I think that he had the opportunity, yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In as far as you were concerned were you ever aware or under the impression that you would be stealing personal weapons from people?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You've said that you want forgiveness for the incident, is that correct?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: How have you expressed this forgiveness or indicated this forgiveness to the family of the person who was killed?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I have had no contact with the family of the person who was killed.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But if somebody says that they are sorry you could have sent them a card, a gift, flowers or something similar during the funeral, but you didn't do anything like that?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No I didn't.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that if in fact you had shown real remorse you would have approached the family some or other way and indicated your remorse through this?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I can only say that if someone - if I had been in the same position, if someone had killed one of my family members I'm sure if I would be able to forgive them.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir were you ever in a position where you could have testified against some of your co-accused?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No Sir.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Were you ever approached by Inspector Nel to testify against Mr de Meillon?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you ever offer to testify against him in the court case in the criminal court?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: If you ever had remorse about a situation which you wish to defuse yourself, why didn't you go and testify against the person who had committed the murder?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Nobody had asked me to testify against him so I assumed that there was adequate evidence against each and every one of us.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But you were in a position where you could have testified against him or could have offered to testify?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Mr de Meillon pleaded guilty to the charge so it wasn't necessary to testify against him.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I state it to you that he had only pleaded guilty after Constable Swart had testified?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: That is correct, Constable Swart's testimony had been led.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Could we therefore deduce that he had first looked whether or wanted to see whether there was enough evidence against him before he turned around and pleaded guilty?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I wouldn't know Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir, a person who feels remorse and who wishes to plead guilty does so from the beginning, he doesn't wait until the State had called for the chief witness and the chief witness's testimony had been accepted by the court and then turn around and then plead not guilty?

MR KOTZE: Well I think this is a legal argument about how people who feel remorse would have acted and Mr Holder, who clearly doesn't have knowledge of legal processes and to ask him about why Mr de Meillon and his legal team had acted in a certain way I think is unreasonable.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I will leave it at that, I will not take it any further.
	You yourself did not plead guilty initially?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: At which stage did you plead guilty?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: During my court case I did not plead guilty.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And ultimately you were found guilty, is that correct?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: As a person who is telling us that you are remorseful why didn't you plead guilty from the beginning?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Upon the advice from my legal team I pleaded not guilty.  I felt that I myself did not pull the trigger that killed the victim.  As an accomplice I would have pleaded guilty.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: What sort of vehicle did you use to travel to Pretoria?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I did not use my vehicle, Mr van Zyl used his vehicle.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: What sort of vehicle was that?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: It was a three litre Ford.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that it is improbable that you would have had enough time to travel to Pretoria and back in the time available to you?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: We were in Pretoria.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: This action beforehand where you had done exercises in the protection of vehicles which you have given evidence about, was that undertaken in order to attack vehicles as well or only to protect vehicle convoys?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Only for the protection of vehicle convoys.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you undergo any training in the period prior to the incident in attacking places or arsenals or the disarming of people?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Was your training strictly defensive?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are you going to call Mr van Zyl to testify on your behalf?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why not?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: He has been informed that his name will not be mentioned and he is not present.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you have any other evidence with regard to your participation in right-wing politics, any information which can prove this participation and involvement in right-wing politics other than your attendance of meetings of these organisations?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I believed that there are people who will testify that I was indeed a member of the AWB.