Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-14

MR SIBANYONI: In fact I'd made a note, I forgot to ask it when I had the opportunity to ask.  Mr de Meillon, you said the National Party was giving away your heritage.  I just wanted to ask you a question, what do you mean by that?  What heritage were you referring to?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: I'm referring to my Christian heritage inter alia and they were handing over the country as I believed at the time into communist hands and the struggle was basically against communism.  The heritage which they were giving away concerned basically my Christian heritage, my national culture, those were the things which they were no longer recognising.

MR SIBANYONI: Are you saying they were giving it away by agreeing to go for elections?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Inter alia, yes.

MR SIBANYONI: The elections were held and the National Party is no longer in power.  Are you saying that heritage has now been given away?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well Mr Chair in the meanwhile I have come to realise and I am aware of the fact that various nations can live together in one country and that our heritage has not really been taken away from us but at that stage I believed that that was what was going to happen.

MR SIBANYONI: And in fact it has been protected by the Constitution because it guarantees the freedom of religion, culture, etc etc.

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: That is correct, Mr Chair.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.  No further questions Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair, on further question stemming from this, not stemming from this but with regard to a question you posed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes there is something I wanted to hear from your client but I assumed that to be so, those policemen were they dressed in uniform in that guardhouse?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes as far as I can remember Sir, they were.

CHAIRPERSON: And was there a window through which one could look into the guardhouse?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes one would be able to look in but as I had stated I crept below the level of the window so that I wouldn't be seen through the window before arriving at the door of the guardhouse.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chair.
	Mr de Meillon, just to understand the answer to a question that the Chairman had asked you.  Are you saying today or aren't you or do you still say today that you were guilty of the murder of the deceased?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes I have.

MR PRINSLOO: You are not saying you defended yourself, you deliberately shot him?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes I am guilty, at that stage I did do so deliberately.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you your Honour.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Can I just pose a number of questions in reply to a number of matters?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I had hoped that we could conclude the matter in the normal process but it is something which we'll have to allow.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Okay I will be very brief Sir.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: The documentation which you had issued, the proof of membership, what was the date of issue?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well that was just after I had joined.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: What was the date?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: I can't remember the exact date when I joined but it was quite early in 1993.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is there a date on this application or proof of membership?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No I don't think there's date on it, on this membership card.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: What proof do you have that this membership card was issued before this event or incident?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well according to the card there's no proof but I can assure you that the BWB still has my membership application form in their possession.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I refer to form 1, page 1 of your application, why didn't you fill in this number as your membership number on the application?

MR PRINSLOO: Which paragraph are you referring to?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I'm referring to paragraph 7(a) and (b) where his political affiliations have to be indicated but he doesn't state his membership number.

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: But Sir at that stage I was already a sentenced prisoner, I didn't have my membership card in my possession, it was in my parents' house.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In paragraph 8(b) you do mention your force number so you did enter some?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes my force number I remembered because I had to know it by heart.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you say your defence force number for which you didn't really want to serve you can remember but this organisation number you cannot remember?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No but it wasn't expected of us to remember our membership number, especially not by heart.

MR PRINSLOO: Sir is it doubted that this person was a member of the BWB because if that is the case we can obtain the documentation and submit it and we would possibly have to ask for an extension to go do so but evidence to the contrary can be led, we will investigate that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well it appears as if Mr van Schalkwyk is doubting the date of membership or debating it with your client.  I'm quite sure, it depends on you how you wish to deal with the application but if it is an important point you can then deal with it.

MR PRINSLOO: Your Honour, I don't wish to waste unnecessary time but if it is a material fact we will have to submit it.

CHAIRPERSON: Let us see how the point develops.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir the attack which you wanted to launch in Vermeulen Street against the guards, would you have tied up and gagged the guards?

MR PRINSLOO: Sir on what basis are these questions now posed?  My learned friend had the opportunity during cross-examination, he'd heard all the evidence and this is not stemming from another base, is everybody going to be allowed a second opportunity to cross-examine?  Is the applicant also going to be allowed to ask more questions because then we're not going to reach any finality.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes it is true, it is the danger which I referred to.  We do not wish to enter into unnecessary points and dwell on them but I don't want to be too technical, we're not a court of law here, we are trying to deal with the matter as fully as possible but it is indeed so that the point Mr Prinsloo is making is a valid point.  I understand that the membership issue is something which had struck you but he had asked you and he had said during cross-examination, he referred to the membership number, you did not ask him to produce it, he had it in his possession.  It was raised in re-cross but I don't wish to be too strict in this regard but I think you have to limit yourself to matters which really were raised afterwards, which you feel are really important to your client's purposes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Okay then briefly one concluding question.  I thank the Honourable Chair.	What is your number, can you remember it off by heart now?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No, as I said it was never expected of me to remember it by heart.  I am honest, I cannot remember it by heart.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo I don't know whether you have further questions, Mr Kotze is the only person who does not seem to have had as bite, perhaps I should ask him?

MR KOTZE: Thank you Mr Chairperson.  Well there are three matters on which I wish to comment.
	Mr de Meillon, my instructions are that at no stage during Messrs van Zyl and Holder's trial the ballistic report which at a stage was submitted here was held up to them.  Do you have any knowledge of what testimony was made available to them, how their trial proceeded or which evidence had been led there?