Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1997-02-26

UNKNOWN: Well, I think we have a list of exhibits here and if we can, if it is possible for us to be 
consistent we must give it the appropriate ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: Yes, yes, whatever number you wish to ....

UNKNOWN: Yes, we will do that and as soon as I find it amongst the welter of these papers that are 
before me.

UNKNOWN: Yes. Well in that to-be-named "Annexure" Mr Chairman, page 3, paragraph 4 
...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: I think it is up to now, we have reached "Exhibit O" and I think this will be "Exhibit P".

UNKNOWN: You are going to do it that way, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Alright. The point being exactly as Commissioner Wilson pointed out.

UNKNOWN: Yes, do carry on.
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

UNKNOWN: 213

ADV DU PLESSIS: What we envisaged, Mr Chairman was were there are no serious dispute of fact but 
obviously where there are, we suggested that we will have to make other arrangements.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, but in any event, my learned friends argument is ill-founded for two reasons.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, I think we have indicated that we will allow you to ask questions.  If matters 
arise that would give need for another ruling we will make the ruling we will protect your rights and we 
will protect Mr du Plessis' rights.

UNKNOWN: Yes, I think for the time being ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: I just want to warn the Committee about one thing, perhaps you were aware of it Mr 
Chairman, there's been an Appellate Division decision exactly on this point, at page 39 of His Lordship,  
Mr Justice Corbett's judgment in DU PREEZ and VAN RENSBURG v TRC.

UNKNOWN: Yes.  Will you ask your questions then.

UNKNOWN: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Brigadier, I just want to hear 
from you, how was this instruction issued by Schoon and Steenkamp, was it done by both of them at the 
same time in an office, did the one issue the instruction and then the other, could tell us exactly how it 
happened?

UNKNOWN: As far as I can remember Brigadier Schoon gave me the instruction in his office. I cannot 
remember of General Steenkamp entered and if I later, was later summoned by him, but the instruction 
came from both of them.

UNKNOWN: The instruction from Schoon specifically, or let us say, from both of them, did they contain 
detail such that PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

UNKNOWN: 214

UNKNOWN: you should attack the house with stun grenades when you 
were going to find Nyanda?

UNKNOWN: I was left to my own devices as far as the circumstances which I would encounter there.

UNKNOWN: And you have already said that you knew nothing about McFadden prior to that, is that 
correct?

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: So, McFadden would not have come up in any of the discussions that you had had?

UNKNOWN: No.

UNKNOWN: To just take it a bit further on what Mr Currin asked you, as far as McFadden is concerned 
did you become aware after that of any evidence which indicated that he was a terrorist or a collaborator?

UNKNOWN: Later information was received that - I wouldn't say that he was a terrorist, but that he 
was indeed a collaborator with Nyanda.

UNKNOWN: Where did the information come from, could you tell us?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairperson, I do not know. I cannot remember.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know in which form this information came, was it verbal or was it by mean 
of documentation?

UNKNOWN: I suspect that it would probably have been done in writing by an informant.

UNKNOWN: Did you have any insight into the documentation which you people seized at the house 
where Nyanda was found in Manzini?  Did you go through the documentation yourself?

UNKNOWN: I went through it very briefly, Mr Chairperson.

UNKNOWN: Was there any reference in that document made to PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

UNKNOWN: 215

UNKNOWN: McFadden?

UNKNOWN: I do not believe that there was anything in there, as I said it was - it contained plans to 
attack defence force staff buses.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman that is all I wanted to ask. Thank you.

UNKNOWN: Any re-examination?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, thank you very much. Brigadier, the 
instruction which was given to you, let us just go through it again, what was the information available to 
you with regards to who could  possibly have been in that house.

UNKNOWN: The information was that only Nyanda and Cecil were to be there.  I can just explain 
further that this investigation spanned over a long period of time and when we held observations on 
Nyanda, when we followed him, he and Cecil were always together.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, was anything said at the time of the instruction being issued about your 
action in the case of anyone else being present?

UNKNOWN: Chairperson, not as far as I can remember, but as I said, I could not wait and still ask 
McFadden "who are you?" and possibly die in the process myself.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier Schoon and Steenkamp were they informed about the death of McFadden 
at the time?

UNKNOWN: Yes, they were.

ADV DU PLESSIS: What was their attitude at the time?

UNKNOWN: They accepted it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: During your training with regards to this type of operation, what did your training 
entail, what was 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 216

UNKNOWN: expected of you during such operations where you did not know what to expect?

UNKNOWN: You had to shoot first and then ask questions later. Just to put it differently, you had no 
chance to ask the person any questions, your training entailed the fact that where you were in a situation 
where you knew that there were armed men or armed persons in a house, you would attack the house and 
shoot without checking whether the person was armed or not.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well. Brigadier, the persons who you gave instruction to, were they also aware 
of that approach?

UNKNOWN: Yes, I should think so.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And did they tell you before the time that you merely had instruction to eliminate 
only two persons or was nothing said about that?

UNKNOWN: That's not the evidence,  The evidence was that there was an instruction to eliminate one 
specific person, not two.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well, let me rephrase the question. The instruction which you had received with 
regards to the elimination, was the instruction to eliminate Nyanda only or what?

UNKNOWN: Brigadier Schoon and Steenkamp were aware of the fact that this person, Cecil, was 
working with Nyanda.  It was contained in previous reports which were given to us so I could only assume 
that they knew that I would not have left Cecil there because I would have expected him also to have been 
armed.

UNKNOWN: Does this person Cecil have any name, any other name?

UNKNOWN: He does Chairperson, but I have since 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

JUDGE WILSON: 216

UNKNOWN: forgotten that name.   I cannot remember his surname.

JUDGE WILSON: The first question I have is for Mr Mpshe.
The woman in the house, has she been notified in any way? Has she been identified?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman the woman has not been notified because she has not been identified.

JUDGE WILSON: Has any attempt being made to identify her?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: The investigative unit has done that, they filed a report with me, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: In the case of McFadden, has his family been notified?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: The same applies Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: What?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That they have not been identified and notified Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Well he has been identified positively.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairperson, I am referring to where to locate him, to locate the families thereof.

JUDGE WILSON: And presumably there was an inquest held by the Swaziland authorities?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I may not know about the inquest in Swaziland, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Were inquiries made?

UNKNOWN: It was ten years ago this happened.