Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-14

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair this witness never testified about that list, under cross-examination the other applicants referred to the list.  This applicant said he was not aware of this list.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes it appears as if that cross-examination it had been some or other municipality who had prepared that list.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes that's correct, Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Okay, I'll state my question as follows.  Sir, are you aware that this list had been issued by a right-wing organisation?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well as I'd stated, I'm not aware of this list at all.  Today is the first time that I have seen this list.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well in your trying to find firearms, would you regard it as justified that for every firearm stolen one person had to be killed?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No I would not regard it as justified.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In other words, therefore so much the less you would have to kill one person for one 9 mm pistol of which you also had a licensed one?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would like to state to you Sir that this military base was not a defence force base but a normal civil radar base manned by police of the Internal Stability Unit and guarded by them?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well at that stage I wasn't aware of this at all.  When I was stationed there at the end of '92 it was still airforce property.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I am stating to you Sir or submitting to you that you said in your evidence that you were well aware of the set up at the bases.  Are you saying that you had never been there after completing your national service?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes that is true, I never visited the base after completing my national service.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I'm stating to you Sir that on the spur of the moment you selected that base as a target?

MR PRINSLOO: Is this stated as a fact or is it just an allegation?  Is my learned friend going to lead testimony to this effect?

CHAIRPERSON: Well I would say that it was then based on the probabilities.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Yes I would like to rephrase my question.
Did you reconnoitre this base at all before selecting it as a military target?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No I didn't.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.   Advocate Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions thank you Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
	Mr de Meillon, when you completed the application form for amnesty you were no longer a member of the AWB, am I correct?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: Were you still a member of the Conservative Party, KP?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: I was never enrolled as a member of the CP/KP or any other party.

MR SIBANYONI: I notice on page 1, that is the first page of your application for amnesty, under paragraph 7(a) you indicated there, you wrote KP and AWB and BWB.  Now my question relates to the two organisations there, CP and the AWB.  Why did you mention that you were a member of those organisations?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well I supported the CP, I supported the CP but I was never an enrolled member of the CP.

MR SIBANYONI: I see and then you said you were expecting a total war to happen, to be waged during the period, the elections.  Who would start that war according to your expectations?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Mr Chair as I'd stated, our objective was to bring about a political uprising in order to prevent the National Party government from continuing with the elections and to create fear amongst the general public so that they would not participate in the elections and that, I believe, would have been war.  That would have been open warfare between the people who had brought about the political uprising and the people who were would try to suppress us.

MR SIBANYONI: If I understand you well, therefore it was your organisation that was going to cause that uprising?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct, Mr Chair.

MR SIBANYONI: Therefore there was no need for panic amongst your members, members of your organisation. What do you say about that?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: There was no reason for panic among the members of my organisation, Mr Chair.

MR SIBANYONI: When I look at your evidence it would appear in most of the things you were doing, you were using your own discretion, in other words there was no specific instructions or orders from your organisation?  What is your response to that?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Mr Chair, as I stated, I received my instructions anonymously by telephone.  As I had been informed was the method of operation of the BRL.  A specific target had not been identified or selected for me, it was just stated to me that the time was right to obtain weapons and I would know where to find that, the target was left to my own initiative.  That is why there was no real planning to go beforehand and reconnoitre the Devon Base or Vermeulen Street and make sure what the circumstances were.  The target itself was left over to my initiative.

MR SIBANYONI: But it would appear your colleagues or the people who accompanied you were sometimes surprised about the decisions you took from time to time for example that they never knew before you went to Pretoria what was going to be done there and also when you were at Secunda they also didn't have the full knowledge of what was going to take place.  Therefore, that's why I'm saying it would appear you were using your discretion?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well I clearly told and explained to Mr van Schalkwyk my clear instructions which I had received, I don't know what he told Messrs Holder and Van Zyl and what they had expected but as far as I am aware, I never created the possibility that we were going to just reconnoitre or just to make observations.  From the start I made it very clear and I believed that they understood it as such, that we were going with the purpose that night of obtaining the firearms, of taking the firearms.

MR SIBANYONI: Did you expect any resistance from the guards?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well it would be natural from the guards side to resist and I to some extent I did expect resistance but I did not really expect shooting to take place but it was a possibility that rose in my mind.

MR SIBANYONI: Were you prepared to fight and remove their weapons from them by force or fight and defeat them?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: I was prepared to obtain the firearms whatever I had to do, yes I was prepared to do so by force.

MR SIBANYONI: To me it seems an impossible task which you undertook and for that I'm going to ask you this question only to understand your actions of the day, not to despise you in any manner and the question is, were you sober on that day?  Had you made use of any intoxicating liquor?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: I was totally sober, I had not used any alcohol at that stage, Mr Chair.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you Chair.
	I want to take you back to the trip to Pretoria.  I'm still a little unclear about that trip.  Let's start with the objective, that was to get weapons, is that correct?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: So you received this instruction to say the time is right.  On the same day you go to Pretoria to get these weapons.  How many weapons were you hoping to come back with?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well I depended on obtaining two weapons because the guards I had seen there on the previous occasions were two, there were two guards on duty there when I travelled past so I could depend on obtaining two weapons.

ADV GCABASHE: So you drove past Devon which is in Secunda all the way to Pretoria for two weapons, is that right?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: That is correct yes.