Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-10-03

ADV POTGIETER: I understand that, but I am trying to get you to answer the question, as far as your chief is concerned. Why was it necessary for you to slip away from the office unnoticed to take part in this operation?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: As I have already said, I can't remember whether he was there or whether he had already gone on leave. I can't recall the specific circumstances.

ADV POTGIETER: That may be, but you are saying that you wanted to be absent from the office without anybody noticing, and that applied even to your chief, that he shouldn't be aware of that. Is that what you are saying?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: So I am trying to understand what the reason for that would have been.  If you were convinced there had indeed been authorisation for the operation, why was he not supposed to know.  That's the point I am trying  to clarify. Or did you perhaps have some doubt as to whether the operation had indeed been authorised?  Perhaps you knew that this was such a radical operation, that it was actually a special favour which you were doing for your comrades?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: No, I wouldn't have seen it in that light.  It was certainly not a favour, it was a high profile operation, and the participants in this operation had to be limited to a small a number as possible, for secrecy purposes.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you not trust the chief?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: No, I trusted him implicitly.

ADV POTGIETER: But then, I still don't understand your answer. I will try again. Why didn't you tell him what you were going to do?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: He wasn't to take part in the operation and I was going to take part and had I conveyed the information to him and had something gone wrong with the operation, then there would just be extra evidence against us.

ADV POTGIETER: So in the normal course of events, if you were to take part in operations, you would have notified him?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: As far as normal technical tasks are concerned, yes, but in the case of extraordinary operation such as this, information was always limited to the minimum.

ADV POTGIETER: Was this the first occasion on which you acted in such a way, namely to keep your chief in ignorance of what you were doing?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: I don't know whether that was the first time, it was probably not the only time.

ADV POTGIETER: Was it necessary for Mr De Kock, with whom you said you had a special bond of trust, was it necessary to convince him to help you, to assist you in this operation?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Do you mean by persuade, do you mean by means of an explanation?

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, were you sceptical or critical or was it necessary for him to argue with you, and to justify the operation, et cetera?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Well, he explained the matter as in much detail as he could, and I accepted that the matter had been dealt with on the divisional ground level and even higher up at head office.  And justification for the operation was not considered by me at all. I accepted that a decision had already been taken.

ADV POTGIETER: You said that you actually saw this as an order in those circumstances?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Correct.

ADV POTGIETER: So it wasn't actually necessary to try to convince you of the desirability or the justification for the operation?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Well, it was explained to me, but it was not necessary for them.

ADV POTGIETER: So they actually did it purely as a courtesy from a colleague, but it wasn't actually necessary?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: No, they did explain the desirability or the necessity for this operation. I didn't decide of my own accord to take such drastic action.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr De Kock testified that during a discussion where Nieuwoudt was present, there was at no stage any reference to the ANC and alleged contact between the ANC and the people who were to be eliminated.

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Yes, that's what I heard and that is what I can recall.

ADV POTGIETER: Is that your recollection?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: But it wasn't necessary for them to give you any details regarding the justification of the operation and so forth?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Well, they did sketch it to me.

ADV POTGIETER: So it wasn't an important aspect for you?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Yes, it was.  What was told to me basically, was that these people would go over to the ANC and that that would jeopardise the whole intelligence network and people's lives would be endangered.

ADV POTGIETER: Or Mr De Kock could have told you look, Mr Du Toit, we have to take part in an operation, head office has sanctioned it and it is important, it is an urgent matter and you have to help us with an explosive device.  Would that have been sufficient for you?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: I assume that that would have been good enough for me, if I had to hand it to him for own use, yes.

ADV POTGIETER: So the reasons and the detail, et cetera, that wasn't of such critical importance to you.  You had a very special bond of trust with De Kock and you could simply take his word for it?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Did Mr De Kock testify against you at the trial?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Did he contradict your version that you didn't know anything about this incident?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Was that during the criminal trial?

ADV POTGIETER: Yes.

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: So he contradicted your version?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to re-examine?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KEMP
	Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Kemp on behalf of Mr Du Toit. Only one aspect.
	Mr Du Toit, if you look at page 152, it is page 8 of your submission to this Committee.  The 11th line from the top it starts, at about line 8 -
"They told me that it was a matter of extreme urgency since there was a lot at stake and the people had to be eliminated as soon as possible, according to head office instructions."
Is that correct, is that how it was conveyed to you?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Yes, that's correct.

MR KEMP: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KEMP

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You are excused, Mr Du Toit.

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Thank you, Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED