Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-11-11

ADV PRIOR: We've resolved the issue on the following basis, there was no formal investigation report.  There are however certain witnesses that have been contacted either telephonically or via intermediaries.  Certain notes were made of those conversations.  I have not yet corroborated any of the information in those notes with witnesses who apparently are arriving during the course of today and insofar as that may constitute an investigation report, I'll make those available to all the parties with the provision, with the reservation that they are simply notes, they have not yet been substantiated and there's no indication at this stage whether any of those persons who will be present here today will be called.  Obviously that decision may change.  Photocopies are being prepared and I will distribute them to all the parties during the course of the morning.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: In the event of the witnesses not being called, I take it they will remain confidential?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, Visser on record, might I just make our position clear?  It has never been the intention to ask any confidential notes of any consultations, that's not the point at all.  The only point is simply this, that if witnesses are going to be called, we would hate to ask for the matter to stand down for us to prepare at that stage, we would like beforehand just to be prepared so that if a witness gives evidence, one can cross-examine him immediately, it's as simple as that.
	If that is all Mr Chairman, may I then proceed?  First of all Mr Chairman, you will find before you two bundles, copies of Exhibit A, we gave you one yesterday which I would ask you just to uplift to add the two covering pages to it.  I'm not sure where it is floating around at the moment but I recall that we handed you one copy without the covering pages yesterday.  If I could uplift that for a moment, I could add the two covering pages for you and then you would each have a copy, Mr Chairman.  The problem which we have is that we don't seem to be able to have copies made with the facilities of the TRC here, but we have been able to recover some copies so that at least each of the Members of the Committee will have a copy.  We won't address that document now, Mr Chairman, we will do so when Mr Botha appears before you as a witness.
If I may then continue with Mr Wasserman, Mr Chairman?
	Mr Wasserman, you are still bound by your oath which you took yesterday to speak the truth, do you understand that?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: (s.u.o.)

MR VISSER: (Continued)  Mr Wasserman, you were present yesterday in the hall when Mr Rosslee gave evidence, is that correct?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And did you listen to his evidence about how he saw experiences of policemen in the security branch during the years of the struggle, the political background and the influences which were exerted upon members of the security branch including pressures brought to bear, did you hear that evidence?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: I heard that.

MR VISSER: And are you in agreement with that evidence?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: I agree with that evidence Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I have no further questions thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MR ROUSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman, Rossouw on record.
	Mr Wasserman, just a couple of questions.  When you arrived at the shooting range late the afternoon according to your evidence, you testified that you saw Mr Bosch there?  That's correct?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: That is correct.

MR ROUSSOUW: Did you discuss with him what was to happen?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: No Mr Chairman.

MR ROUSSOUW: Did you see anybody or were you present in a discussion with anybody else who might have taken the lead in explaining what was to happen?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: No.

MR ROUSSOUW: You weren't party to a discussion where for instance Mr Lembedi was told that he had to select the place where you were going to go?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: No I wasn't.

MR ROUSSOUW: So as far as you were aware, from the time that you were present at the shooting range that no such discussion took place?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: Not in my presence.

MR ROUSSOUW: Now in the vehicle on the way there did such a discussion take place?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: No discussion like that.

CHAIRPERSON: If I understand it, you drove there in your own vehicle?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You stopped on the way and had a discussion with Major Taylor?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was in his vehicle?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: He was in his vehicle, yes Mr Chairman.

MR ROUSSOUW: Sorry Mr Chairman, maybe I should just clear that up.  I was referring to the people all in the Combi when they left from the shooting range on the way to the location where the actual killing took place.  Did any discussion in the Combi take place?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: In regards to what subject?

MR ROUSSOUW: What was going to happen.

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: No, no discussions took place by them.  We were not going to discuss in front of Mr Bhila anything.

MR ROUSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROUSSOUW

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you Mr Chairman, Van Schalkwyk for McCarter.  Just a single question.
	Do I understand your evidence correctly that the night in question or the day in question a person by the name of Aubrey Mogadi was never present?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: He was never present, Mr Chairman.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK

MR HUGO: Thank you Mr Chairman, Hugo on record.
	Mr Wasserman, just one question, you heard I suppose that mention was made of a Honda vehicle that was hired and that was also used in the operation.  Were you aware of this vehicle?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: I wasn't, Mr Chairman.

MR HUGO: I've got not further questions, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO

MR NGUBANE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
	Mr Wasserman, you say that you participated in the conflict in Zimbabwe before you could come to South Africa, is that correct?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: And when you participated in that conflict you say it was a war situation, is that right?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: And when in Zimbabwe did you participate in the killing of innocent people?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: No I did not.

MR NGUBANE: Although it was a war situation you never participated in the killing of innocent people?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: Not innocent people Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: And unarmed people, you never?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: Not unarmed.

MR NGUBANE: Did you participate in any act, criminal act, when you were in Zimbabwe?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: No criminal acts.

MR NGUBANE: Your beliefs before you could come to South Africa, did you believe that you could kill in order to pursue a political motive?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: The killing would have only been in - any killing is only justified in a war situation and I was bound by that ethic.

MR NGUBANE: But could you kill for pursuing a political belief in unjustified circumstances, like self defence?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: I don't quite understand that fully.

MR NGUBANE: Well, would you kill a person who was opposed to your political belief in illegal circumstances, just to kill him, just to advance a political belief?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: No Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: And in South Africa was there a stage where you could kill a person in pursuit of a political belief?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: Not as a political belief per se but in normalising a situation and descaling a war, yes.

MR NGUBANE: Now are you suggesting that you would kill in circumstances when it would be legal for you to do so?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: To kill who when it's legally to kill?

MR NGUBANE: Pardon?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: I don't understand the question.  To kill when it's legally to kill?  What do you mean by that?