Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-04-07

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: No, no Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: In your evidence, you said the freeing of Sebe, you did not take part in it, all that you did was to recommend?  Do I understand you correctly?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Yes, I understand what you are asking, I only recommended that he be liberated or freed, I did not participate in it myself.

MR MAPOMA: And you did not order anyone to?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: No, I never gave the instruction to anyone, I just recommended it.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, have you finished General?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Yes, I suggested or recommended it to the Chief of the Defence Force in my Plan.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Mapoma, if I can just come in here.  In regard to that incident where Mr Charles Sebe was unlawfully liberated from Middeldrift prison, should we understand you to be making an application for amnesty?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That is correct Chairperson, I recommended it, it occurred.  Whether it was directly because of my recommendation and whether it was decided upon on another level, I cannot say anything about that, but I feel that I suggested, recommended this and therefore I also have a certain measure of liability in this regard.

MR MAPOMA: To whom did you suggest this plan actually, the freeing of Charles Sebe?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That was to the Chief of the Defence Force.

MR MAPOMA: And he had to consider it and either accept or reject it?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: Now, I understand on the 19th of February 1987 the attempt was made on the life of the President, Lennox Sebe, by the Transkei Defence Force.  You say that plan was not a Katzen Plan?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Chairperson, what I said was that the attack itself, was not explained in Katzen and also not suggested by me.  But what we wrote in Plan 2 was that a coup d'etat could be used as one of the methods of getting rid of Lennox Sebe and in that regard, the fact that I had written it, and then recommended it, I can accept that the February 1987 attack could possibly have been a result of Plan Katzen.
	I think it can also be accepted that a person such as Ron Reid-Daly had knowledge of the essence of Plan Katzen.  I would then accept the fact that Ron Reid-Daly then as an extension of Plan Katzen, then launched the attack in February 1987 on Lennox Sebe's house.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Mapoma, if I can once again come in here.
	General, the attack on the house of Mr L.L. Sebe, are you seeking amnesty for that also?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Chairperson, in as far as Plan Katzen could have served as a reason or perhaps as an excuse for the attack in February 1987, on the house of President Lennox Sebe, in that regard, I also apply for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: But General, you did say, correct me if I am wrong, that you had informed Gen Reid-Daly prior to that attack that your command in any event, was no longer persisting with Katzen?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That is correct Chairperson.  I also referred him to the Chief of the Defence Force, Gleeson, to take it up with him.
	But I know that the Defence Force wasn't involved in that attack.

MR MAPOMA: And even during the time when Katzen was still in operation, it was never a plan to eliminate President Sebe by killing him, is that so?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: No Chairperson, I never planned it, and during, when I wrote it, the Plan, I didn't intend that.
	I never gave the instruction for anyone to kill Lennox Sebe.

MR MAPOMA: On the abduction of Kwane Sebe, did you play any role there?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: No Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: And I take it that you don't apply for amnesty for that action?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Chairperson, in Plan Katzen it is mentioned that Kwane Sebe, there were also others referred to, created a problem.  I think it was Kwane Sebe, the Head of the Elite Unit and in that regard, he was a threat for people such as Namba Sebe and Charles Sebe and if I remember correctly, it also states in the Plan, that he should be removed.
	So, in so far as that removal or abduction of Kwane Sebe would flow from the Plan, I also then ask for amnesty in that regard.

MR MAPOMA: Who kidnapped Kwane Sebe?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: I wasn't personally involved, but my information was that it was Special Forces from the Defence Force.

MR MAPOMA: Who was the Commander of that Special Forces?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: It was Gen Joubert, that was at the time of Katzen.

MR MAPOMA: Do you know of any operative who participated there directly, with the abduction?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: No Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: Apart from these incidents which I have just mentioned to you, is there any act that you know of, for which you seek amnesty?

MR KNOETZE: Mr Chairman, may I at this stage intervene and indicate to you that in our view, it is not necessary for our client to specify each and every incident as my learned friend is now trying to indicate.
	The Act refers to acts, omissions and offences and Gen Van der Westhuizen's amnesty application clearly indicates that he seeks amnesty for everything in connection with Katzen, and everything that we have discussed, everything that we have placed before you.
	So that an enquiry such as this, firstly in my view, is unnecessary and secondly, would perhaps bind my client to those incidents that my learned friend is referring to, and we do not wish to be bound.
	It is possible if you take a Plan such as Katzen, that somebody thinking that he is exercising his official duties, and thinking that he has to act in terms of what was written there, does something of which my client is unaware.  
	It may come out later, and if we have then not mentioned such an incident and asked for amnesty for that, we can be held responsible for that, be charged subsequently.
	That is why, on purpose, we did not in this application specify offences, acts or omissions, we ask amnesty for everything, as a whole.  I may however, indicate Mr Chairman, that we have prepared a list of incidents which may either be delicts or offences and if you wish, we are prepared to hand that to you, but we would only do that on the basis that we make it very clear that we do not restrict our application to those incidents that we have identified.  	Somebody else may have another view, some Prosecutor, some Judge, some Magistrate and as I have already said, somebody may have done something that we do not know of and may then say but I did it in terms of Katzen and then by implication, the implication will be that we are also guilty of that.  We do not want to be in that position.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson.  Chairperson, with respect, I disagree with the submissions which have just been made.
	Chairperson, it is my submission sir, that it is the requirement of the Act, that is the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995, that the applicant must specify the act, omission or offence for which he seeks amnesty and that particular act or omission is the one sir, which has to be considered by this Committee, whether amnesty should be granted for it.
	As it is, Chairperson, now, I submit, the applicant applies for general amnesty and it is my submission that if that is the route that the applicant is going to follow, then he does not comply with the requirements of the Act, for he seeks a general amnesty.
	It is incumbent upon the applicant to specify to the Committee that I seek amnesty for this, that and that, and that has not happened here as it is now.