Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-06-22

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman, our submission still is that when all of his questions are taken into account, that not only does it refer to these alias,  and suggest that it was merely an alias it goes further.  It goes further.
	There are suggestions made that what these individuals were doing, that that was being done with at least the approval of the AWB and that the questions asked well, did you see it as part of the AWB's planning and agenda and again, the clear suggestion in my submission, in all of that evidence, is that I want you to say and I want you to understand that as I see this whole case, that everything that was done in connection with the Bree Street bomb and the other bombings, was part of the planning and agenda of the AWB.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Landman, the questioning and the attempting to take advantage of this opportunity to colour his evidence, may in fact operate against the witness, not so?

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman, it may well operate against the witness.  My submission, the enquiry really at this stage is an enquiry of an objective basis as to whether Mr Malan has indicated in his questioning, that he has formed a particular view that the actions of Mr Barnard and the others, on whose behalf those actions were done.
	Our submission is that this is clear that what Mr Malan was attempting to achieve here, was to attempt to destroy any suggestion that there might be in the evidence, that Mr Barnard might have been acting on his own, alternatively that Mr Barnard might have been acting on behalf of another group.
	What Mr Malan has attempted to do in this questioning, and these are the questions of Mr Malan, not of the witness, it is Mr Malan who suggests to the witness but those are only alias, what was being done by these so-called alias groups, was in fact being done as part of the planning and the agenda of the AWB.
	In our submission that indicates quite clearly that that is Mr Malan's view of the matter and that is Mr Malan's clear view, that that is in fact what he intends to find.
	Mr Chairman, the other aspect of the matter is of course that Mr Malan has asked these questions and clearly in his own mind, he will know what the effect of those questions must have been, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: And you discount the possibility of the questions being posed merely to clarify certain things?

MR LANDMAN: That is so.  We submit that in the context of the question and the manner in which these questions were being asked, that that possibility ought to be discounted.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all?

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman, just lastly, in our submission if one listens to the questioning, it is clear that this was an attempt to put words into the mouth of Mr de Wet, as well as Mr Fourie on an earlier occasion, in order to ensure that the evidence comes out in a particular fashion, which would be favourable to the applicants.
	That is all I have to say.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say that falsifies the submission of biasness?

MR LANDMAN: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prior, do you have any submissions to make?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, from the Evidence Leader's position, certainly there was no understanding from my position that there was any bias, in fact I think that Mr Malan, right at the end said when you now refer to these groups, to avoid confusion, refer to them as splinter groups, so that we know what you are talking about.
	Certainly I cannot support the application.  Certainly from where I am sitting, I did not understand the questioning by Mr Malan to convey any sense of bias, obviously that is from my position, thank you.

COUNSEL: Committee would be, whether we would have to start again or get a re-appointment of the three remaining members, if somebody could just think about that, because I would hate to have wasted a week of my life.

CHAIRPERSON: Anybody (indistinct) themselves, or himself or herself, the convenience of the Committee or the TRC is not a matter I must consider.  I must consider the application and grant it or refuse it.
	Conveniences of any particular individual or Committee, is not a factor I must keep into consideration.
	Yes, well the point is made and I will certainly check.  We will adjourn and I - we will take the early ...
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Before we adjourned, there was a substantive application for me to make a ruling in respect of an application for the recusal from the Committee, by Mr Malan.
	We have considered the matter and we have come to the conclusion that the application should not succeed.  The ruling is therefore that the application is refused and without wanting to sound topical we will give reasons if necessary at a later stage.

JAN B DE WET: (still under oath)

MS VAN DER WALT: (cont)
	Mr de Wet, can I take you back to your evidence.  You testified and you were questioned about this, this is with regards to the BKA who accepted the responsibility and that was in the media?

JAN B DE WET: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: The BKA, were they responsible for the explosions?

JAN B DE WET: As far as I was concerned, no, it was the AWB
who was involved.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why do you say so according to your opinion?

JAN B DE WET: Because the instructions came from Nico Prinsloo and Brigadier Van der Merwe.  Those were the instructions I received from them.
	And if it did not carry Eugene Terreblanche's approval, then I don't think Prinsloo would not have given the instructions if he did not carry the approval of Terreblanche.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were a member of the Ystergarde, what was Nico Prinsloo?

JAN B DE WET: He was the Secretary General of the AWB.  At one stage he was a Captain in the Ystergarde, but for this operation, he was placed in the position of General over the Ystergarde, that is how I saw it at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: From a Captain to General?

JAN B DE WET: He was a General in the Staff Generals and because he represented us on the Staff Generals, that is why I believe he became General over us.

MS VAN DER WALT: What you are saying is that when he was a member of the Ystergarde, before he joined the Staff Generals he was a Captain?

JAN B DE WET: When you are selected to become a Garde, you either become a Lieutenant or a Captain and then there will be later a promotion and that would happen if you work yourself up or certain concessions are made.
	He was a Captain in the Garde, even though he served on the Staff Generals before that, he was Secretary General of the AWB, but it was a requirement that everybody who worked for Terreblanche, had to have training in the Garde and that is why I said he was a Captain, because he successfully succeeded in the training.

MS VAN DER WALT: When did he become a General?

JAN B DE WET: Before he joined the Garde course, he was a General, he served as Secretary General of the AWB.

MS VAN DER WALT: So do I understand your evidence now correctly that he was a member of the Staff Generals?

JAN B DE WET: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then he had to do a course at the Ystergarde?

JAN B DE WET: Yes, he had to do that because he was directly involved in the security of Mr Terreblanche and the protection of Mr Terreblanche.

MS VAN DER WALT: And there he gained the rank of Captain?

JAN B DE WET: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: At that stage, when the operation was going on, where was he functioning?  Was he at Head Office or was he in another Division?

JAN B DE WET: He was working at Head Office, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Directly under Eugene Terreblanche?

JAN B DE WET: Yes, together with Terreblanche in his office.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Brigadier Leon van der Merwe, what was his position?

JAN B DE WET: He was a Brigadier in the Ystergarde and he was also responsible for the protection of Mr Terreblanche.

MS VAN DER WALT: Where was his office, in which area?