Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-15

CHAIRPERSON: Do we have to turn down Mr Swart's evidence with regard to the firearm?

MR COETZEE: I would like to refer to the fact that Mr Swart's observations were made in very limited time, under extremely stressful circumstances, that Mr Swart's general impressions, well, it is easy for him to testify that Mr Holder had taken his firearm from his holster, but when it is investigated, it becomes apparent that there is no basis for him to say this.
	It is just a deduction that he made from the fact that he found himself on the ground at one stage, without his firearm in the holster, when he looked back, he found the firearm under the table.  That is the type of deduction that Mr Swart makes.
	I say that with respect, but that is what he was prepared to make as far as his deductions are concerned.  If you asked if he had seen Mr Holder taking it from his holster, he says he couldn't, but when he testified, he was very certain about that.
	When he was asked whether firm pressure had been exerted on his left shoulder, it appeared as if he wished to agree with it, but when he was asked how movement could have taken place, then it is clear that Mr Swart is very uncertain about these aspects.
	For Mr Swart for example to allege that that very limited time span under those stressful circumstances with Mr Holder with a vest without holes for the eyes, he had been able to see Mr Holder's eye colour, I would submit respectfully that it wasn't possible.
	I would like to submit that Mr Swart in the brief time that he had been here before the Committee, had proven himself to be somebody with a very quick imagination, who also from time to time, was able to change his evidence.
	I can refer you to where he had said in the first court case that he had initially thought that it was a joke and that he had smiled.  My instructions had been that what had happened at Mr Holder and Van Zyl's court case, he didn't want to agree with what he had said at the first trial where he had said he had smiled when they entered.
	I would like to submit honestly that even though Mr Swart hadn't been cross-examined very long, it had become thoroughly clear that he was attempting to make a reconstruction of the events and for him to agree and that is a suggestion that I am making to the Committee, for him as a trained police officer to say that he had done nothing there, while nobody was aiming a firearm at him, that is just asking a bit too much from a policeman.
	He also had to justify his actions, and what is easier that to say firearms were aimed at our head, and when Mr Prinsloo then undertook an investigation of this aspect, under cross-examination it became clear the fact that he had said that a firearm had also been aimed at Mr Terreblanche's head.  That was not proved correct.
	I think that is enough evidence that we have no reason  to take the point of departure of Mr Winch, Judge Winch, to accept Mr Swart as a totally dependable, or very dependable witness, because if this Committee were to make its own judgment regarding the dependability or truthfulness of Mr Swart, I would say we have to reject this aspect.
	Should it not be rejected, I would submit that it doesn't mean that Mr Holder as an applicant, should be found to be untruthful or not having made a full disclosure of the events.
	It is very clear that everything that happened in the guard house, took place in a very brief period of time, under circumstances where various people made various observations regarding what had happened, and even if he had testified erroneously in this regard, it does not mean that he is deliberately misleading the Committee in this regard.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Coetzee, might I interrupt you.  Are you saying that Mr Swart's evidence that Mr Holder held a gun against his head, is a fabrication?  That it might have been a figment of his imagination?
	He repeated it more than once, that indeed that had happened.  How do you say we should deal with this evidence?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, my respectful submission is that and I must point out that I did not have the opportunity to appear during the court a quo but my instructions has been and it has been put to all the witnesses, that when Mr Holder was approached initially by the police, that they asked for a pistol.
	Now, if Sergeant Swart at the outset or Constable Swart at the outset, knew that a revolver was being used in this process, one would not have expected this kind of conduct from the Investigating Officer.
	Furthermore it was further put that during the trial, the question of the back dating or back timing of a statement and what information was available to Mr Swart at the time of the giving of the statement, that that was properly perused.
	I was not in a position to personally investigate that matter, and I could not take it further.  My instructions had been that in view of the back dating of the statement and the fact that the police at the time when the statement had been finalised, already knew what kind of firearm was involved, that the police had the opportunity to inform Mr Swart that a silver coloured firearm or revolver had been used.  My instructions are that this pointing of the firearm did not happen and my argument with respect is that given the totality of Mr Swart's evidence and the unreliability of his observations, that there is no basis to reject Mr Holder's evidence in this respect.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.