Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-06-17

MR LE ROUX: That is correct.  At that stage the Volksfront was the vehicle they used and they made decisions with regard to the elections and how it would be stopped and General Viljoen was the one who did all the planning concerning that and he involved the CP and the AWB also fell in with his plans.  They even gave certain posts and positions which the leaders would take up.

MR PRINSLOO: And Viljoen's people, would they take part in the violence?

MR LE ROUX: Yes, definitely.  The "BKA", several times we were informed that the BKA would launch several actions.

MR PRINSLOO: Now the BKA was the "Boere Krisis Aksie"?

MR LE ROUX: That's correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And that formed part ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What is the BKA?

MR LE ROUX: Chairperson, BKA stand for Boere Krisis Aksie.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm asking the answer from the interpreter.

MR LE ROUX: Chairperson, the BKA, I was under the impression that General Viljoen was the Chairperson of the BKA and they would have been responsible, as I said before, for the rural areas in order to protect people and also for certain operations.  These operations would entail making sure that a Volkstaat would be obtained.

CHAIRPERSON: Where do you get this information?

MR LE ROUX: It was published in several papers of the right-wing and it was discussed at meetings.  I was also approached by certain BKA members who informed me on certain things.

MR PRINSLOO: Now the Volkstaat you're referring to, is it so that a Volkstaat was already determined beforehand, where it would be?

MR LE ROUX: The first Volkstaat was marked but the second one which would have been in the Western Transvaal, it had its lines, its boundaries around the Johannesburg border, that was one of the borders but  otherwise it was quite broad, it might have changed.

ADV BOSMAN: Just a moment Mr Prinsloo, I just want to some clarification with regard to a previous question.
	You said that you wanted to create a psychosis of fear and this was discussed at meetings and in the papers, were they discussed in details, specifically with regards to the loss of life, was that discussed?

MR LE ROUX: Chairperson, as I said, any resistance movement would not say these things in public but these things were discussed for us and then when we do take power the day that was one of the distinguishing things which we always said and it was also conveyed in such a fashion by our leaders.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr le Roux, I think you misunderstood my question.  I'm already talking about meetings, I'm not talking about newspapers.  The whole question of loss of life that you know of, was this discussed?  The potential for great loss of life with the planting of bombs, was attention paid to this that you know of?

MR LE ROUX: It was addressed, this issue, Chairperson.  The loss of life works both ways.  If we first look at the side of ourselves, it was said at the meetings that certain right-wingers would be taken out, that means they would be killed.  These were the people who threatened the country or the power which was in control at that stage.
	And on the other side, at meetings it was said that there would be a revolution and that death and destruction would reign and the enemy would then be killed.

ADV BOSMAN: What I'm trying to get from you Mr le Roux, is that despite whoever's life would be lost these bombs would explode?

MR LE ROUX: Chairperson, I don't think any political party would ever admit that but in our circles there were talks about the fact that certain people do die in crossfire and it was discussed.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr le Roux, in 1993/'94 at that stage, did you see that there was a war or was there peace?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, is there anything in dispute with regard to the applicants you are representing and looking at the evidence of this applicant?

MR PRINSLOO: There are certain aspects which I want to ask this applicant and which have to be clarified.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but for the benefit of your applicants?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Why can they not give the evidence themselves?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson with respect, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Unless you consider certain things in dispute with regards to what he testified.

MR PRINSLOO: I'll continue with that aspect Chairperson.
	Mr le Roux, this person Koekemoer who was responsible for the building of the bombs, I put it to you that he was also a police reservist and he was also an informant, do you agree with that and he gave evidence to that extent in Court?

MR LE ROUX: We heard this in Court, he admitted that he was a police informant and reservist and he was a source for the police's Intelligence Unit.  At the Court case he also made a great deal out of this, that he was a great spy.

MR PRINSLOO: Now I put it to you further that he was paid by the police for the work he did in this specific case.

MR LE ROUX: In the Court case he admitted that he received certain amounts of money from them, that they paid for his clothes and also for his fiancee.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm putting it to you that he received informant money.

MR LE ROUX: He was paid informant money.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, how relevant is that?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Chairperson, it's very relevant in this case, there must be complete disclosure and it's relevant to what extent the State was involved in these specific bomb explosions because Mr Koekemoer was an agent of the State and what he did he did with the knowledge of the State.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] Koekemoer could have been a police reservist and he was a possible informant?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Chairperson, there was a question from the police as well as the person who led the evidence for the Commission and they were informed that that informant file of Mr Koekemoer, they wanted this because instructions were given by the police.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but Mr Prinsloo, that is not your client.  If the Advocate who acted on his behalf thought it good not to submit that evidence then it's that person's case.
	If you want to submit it you have to do it by means - if you want to submit evidence of this kind you must do it by means of your own clients.  Are you not going to call your own clients?

MR PRINSLOO: With all respect Chairperson, Mr le Roux was directly involved with Mr Koekemoer, he was there when certain instructions were given etc.

CHAIRPERSON: How does it affect your clients?

MR PRINSLOO: With all respect Mr Chairperson, Mr Koekemoer's involvement influences the conspiracy in this whole case.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, I have the same problem.  We received the evidence of the third applicant here, he testified with regards to his involvement with Koekemoer and his suspicions, we have the record, it part of the bundle in the Judgment which was also referred to.  U can get all the information through your client.  He cannot say more than he's already said.  He said that he learnt these things at the Court case, and I think we can save time if you do not lead the evidence, it's not going to be in conflict with the evidence of your clients.  I think you can put this by means of your own clients please.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I saw it as my duty to bring it under the attention of the Committee.  Then I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

MR LANDMAN: Mr le Roux, I'm going to ask you questions in English.  If you wish you can make use of the earphones.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr le Roux, I prefer that you listen to the interpreted questions.  Just see if it works please.
	Mr Landman, for the purposes of the record you are Mr Landman now going to ask questions?

MR LANDMAN: Thank you.
	Mr le Roux, has anybody on behalf of the AWB publicly acknowledged responsibility for the bomb that was planted in Bree Street by yourself and others?