Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-10-04

MR WILLIAMS: Gakkie, on page 240 of the same bundle there is a statement which states
"I, Hardien, date of issue: 1989/08/07 (that's the 7th of August), Windhoek to Johannesburg.  Date of flight: 1989/08/10"
meaning that on the 10th of August 1989 you were on flight from Windhoek to Johannesburg.  Would you dispute that?

ISGAK HARDIEN: I cannot dispute it because I know I was in Windhoek.

MR WILLIAMS: So if I recall correctly, Mr Lubowski was shot two days later.

ISGAK HARDIEN: Mr Williams, I don't know.

UNKNOWN: Sorry Mr Chairman, that was the 12th of September, if I'm correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, 12th of September.

MR WILLIAMS: Would you dispute that a month before his death you were in South West Africa?

ISGAK HARDIEN: I cannot dispute it, I cannot say yes or no.  I don't know on what day the man was shot, I just know that I was in South West Africa, and that's all.

MR WILLIAMS: Did you monitor him at any stage?

ISGAK HARDIEN: Never, I don't even know what the man looked like.

MR WILLIAMS: I will leave it at that.

ISGAK HARDIEN: I don't even know if he's black, blue or pink or yellow.

MR WILLIAMS: I will leave it at that.  Gakkie, you have told us that you knew that if we used the hall, most of the time people would be using the front entrance.

ISGAK HARDIEN: I beg your pardon, what front entrance?

MR WILLIAMS: The front entrance to the Early Learning Centre building.  Just for the sake of clarity, the front entrance is situated on Springbok Street and the back area with the parking area.  Do you know what I'm talking of?

ISGAK HARDIEN: Yes, I understand.

MR WILLIAMS: And you suspected more-or-less that people would be using the front side or front entrance of the building, or that they would be exiting the building from the front entrance.

ISGAK HARDIEN: Once again Mr Williams, I knew that if people came to the hall they could use the front entrance or the back entrance.  I thought that once the cars were moving and people were driving off, the people would be using the back entrance of the building and not the front.

MR WILLIAMS: Let us look at your statement.  Earlier you stated that you lied about some of the facts in the statement and so forth, but there are certain facts which are reflected in your statement on page 155, and I just want to test whether or not this is the truth.
	From the fourth paragraph onwards it says:
"After approximately 5 minutes, or even shorter, I got up and entered the hall of the ELC with the bag.  I know that the UDF used this hall for meetings.  A trestle table was standing inside the hall against the wall.  There was an empty apple cardboard box which stood on top of the table.  I put the bag into the box and walked out.  There was no-one in the hall."
Is that correct?

ISGAK HARDIEN: It's not correct.  I beg your pardon, it is not as you have read it.

MR WILLIAMS: Yes.  Can you tell us how your version differs from what appears in this statement?

ISGAK HARDIEN: Must I reiterate it?

MR WILLIAMS: Please just tell us in what regard.

ISGAK HARDIEN: Can I tell you how I planted the bomb?

MR WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR LAX: Just tell us what's different between what's said here in the statement and what actually happened.  What's the difference?

ISGAK HARDIEN: Mr Williams, I arrived at the hall, I planted the thing and I left again.  It is correct about the trestle table and the box, all of that is correct.  And then I left.

MR WILLIAMS: So that is what I have just read out.  It is correct then.

ISGAK HARDIEN: It is correct regarding the fact that I set the thing down on the table and that there was a box on the trestle table.  That is correct.

MR WILLIAMS: But is it also correct that an empty cardboard apple box was situated on top of the table against the wall?

ISGAK HARDIEN: Yes, I put it in the box.

MR WILLIAMS: And then you left?

ISGAK HARDIEN: That's correct.

MR WILLIAMS: And there was no-one in the hall at that stage, is that correct?

ISGAK HARDIEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR WILLIAMS: So in other words, you would agree with me that what I've just read out is in fact correct?  That it is the truth.

ISGAK HARDIEN: Yes, what I just said.

MR WILLIAMS: So what you just said corresponds with what appears in this statement, is that so?

ISGAK HARDIEN: I don't agree with what appears in the statement, I agree with what I've just said.

MR RHEEDE: Sorry to interpose, Chairperson ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Rheede, if I could just ask Mr Hardien.
	What you've told us now is the same as what was read out, except for waiting for five minutes.

ISGAK HARDIEN: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Or a shorter period.

ISGAK HARDIEN: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So how long did you wait, or didn't you wait at all?

ISGAK HARDIEN: I put the thing down and I left.

MR LAX: So the only difference is that you walked straight into the building, through that door, went into the hall, put it down and left.

ISGAK HARDIEN: That is correct.

MR WILLIAMS: So in essence, the section that I just read out is basically what occurred.

ISGAK HARDIEN: That is correct.

MR WILLIAMS: And the person who took this statement from you, where would he have obtained those facts?  Are these facts that you gave him?

ISGAK HARDIEN: Who compiled this statement?

MR WILLIAMS: Yes?  I'm referring to a statement.

CHAIRPERSON: This is the statement that was made when you were in detention after your arrest.  It was signed at Secunda.

ISGAK HARDIEN: Now I understand.  If you tell me where the statement was made, then I understand.

MR WILLIAMS: Could I just give you somewhat more context.  At the beginning of the statement it says
"I have already made a previous statement but that statement is not the truth.  I'm about to tell the truth, because it is better to tell the truth than to tell lies."
That is the statement to which I am referring, do you now have a better idea of which statement I am referring to?

ISGAK HARDIEN: Yes, I understand now, the statement that I made under Section 29.

MR WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR LAX: Can I just clarify?  It may not be the only one you made under Section 29, we don't know that for a fact, because it says in this statement that you have made other statements, but it's the only before us and to clarify it beyond doubt, it's the one you made to Lieut-Col Eager.

ISGAK HARDIEN: Correct.

MR WILLIAMS: So you would agree that the section that I just read out is indeed what you said to Col Eager, is that correct?

ISGAK HARDIEN: Yes.

MR WILLIAMS: And then in the same paragraph, at the bottom on the page you state
"We sat in the parking area for approximately 10 minutes.  De Wet looked at his watch and said that he wanted to see when the people came out of the meeting."
My question is, all of us know that when you refer to De Wet, you are actually referring to Slang van Zyl.  Is it correct that Slang van Zyl glanced at his watch and said that you had to go because he wanted to see when the people would come out of the meeting.  Do you recall that he said that?

ISGAK HARDIEN: I cannot recall.

MR WILLIAMS: But by nature of the situation, would he have said something like that, that he wanted to see when the people came out of the meeting?

ISGAK HARDIEN: I cannot recall, I cannot tell you whether he asked me or told me.

MR WILLIAMS: And the statement says
"I drove to Kewtown and parked in Lower Klipfontein.  From there we could view the entrance of the ELC."
Is that correct?

ISGAK HARDIEN: No.

MR WILLIAMS: Why do you say that?

ISGAK HARDIEN: Because it didn't happen that way.

MR WILLIAMS: Did you make such a statement to Col Eager?

ISGAK HARDIEN: Mr Williams, I don't know what I said to the man, I just wanted to get out there, they weren't really worried about me, they wanted to know who the big fish were.  They said: "Gakkie, you are just a small fish, say what you want to say."