Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-25

MR LAX: Well, was it such a problem?  You had to drive 50 minutes to the river mouth, you could have had an accident on the way, you could have broken down on the way, you could have been stopped at a road block on the way, anything could have happened on the way.  You would have had to explain what you were doing with these two people in your vehicle?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: No Chairperson, if we were stopped at a road block we would have shown our police identities and driven on.

MR LAX: It was just as risky to go to a river mouth a public place rather than your safe house, your safe farm where no one else was going to be on that farm to interfere with you?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Chairperson, there were houses across this farm and there was movement on the farm, a movement of labourers, that was a possibility.

CHAIRPERSON: And the Tugela River Mouth is a popular fishing spot, isn't it?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Yes I assume that to be the case.

CHAIRPERSON: There would certainly be a possibility of movement in that area?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct, that is why we observed it and there was reconnaissance done beforehand.

CHAIRPERSON: When was the reconnaissance done?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Van der Westhuizen went earlier the day and he went to the mouth and when we left and we stopped there Wasserman and Van der Westhuizen first made sure that there's no one.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes the problem was not that there was no one there, that some one drives up behind you, finds you in the process of tying bars onto bodies with hessian and baling wire.  It would be extremely embarrassing?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That would have been Van der Westhuizen's duty to keep the people for some time or to keep them busy.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr du Preez, when you decided to throw the bodies into the river did you then discuss it that you would cover it in hessian and that you would put weights onto it?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That was discussed at the house and we made the preparations at the house.

ADV BOSMAN: When did you determine that all these things that you would need that that would be readily available?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Chairperson, when the plan was conceived we had a look at what was available and then we also looked at the different options of what was available on the farm.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR WILLS: Sorry Chairperson, there's one issue that arises out of Advocate Bosman's questions that I'd like to put to this witness, if I may?  Thank you. 	Sir, I want to refer you to page 21 of the bundle where the clear position is that you and according to Colonel Botha, you and he agreed that these people should be killed.  My understanding from your evidence given to Advocate Bosman was that it was basically his discussion, there was no agreement from your point of view in the sense that you both came to the agreement together, he'd already reached that opinion and he told you that's what we were going to do, is that the truer position?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: About the killing of the persons?

MR WILLS: Yes that when this discussion to kill took place Botha had already come to the conclusion that he was going to kill and then he just basically revealed this decision to you and then you agreed with him?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WILLS: Yes, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WILLS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: You have one more witness?

MR VISSER: Alas yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And we have one more hour?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: From my experience so far it seems an impossible ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: And this is the one witness I wanted to get rid of in a sense because this is ...(indistinct) for himself.

ADV BOSMAN: That's an unhappy choice of words there.

MR VISSER: Yes I immediately checked myself.  Nowadays, particularly with these amnesty proceedings, one has got to be careful how you express yourself.  Chairperson, what about perhaps sitting this afternoon?  I know that your position is now compromised as a result of you wanting to go to Pretoria.  I'm just wondering whether we can't continue with Mr - perhaps take a short break and then continue with Mr van der Westhuizen, see how far we get?  It's now 1 o'clock, you've got to leave at what time Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: At half past 2.

MR VISSER: At half past 2.  Well I wonder whether one shouldn't try to get as far as we can, Chairperson?  Perhaps take a short break?

CHAIRPERSON: I would suggest no break, or well a five minute break.

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, a very brief break and then go on with Van der Westhuizen and see how far we get?  I'm sure that we can rely on some co-operation from our learned friends to deal with the matter with more dispatch?  I hope so, anyway.

CHAIRPERSON: I wish to explain and to apologise to members of the public here.  As you all know I was not the original presiding officer but came in a stage of emergency and I had hoped and understood that the matter would finish by midday today.  It has not done so.  I am due in Pretoria to preside over a pre-trial meeting where there are 59 applicants and I do not feel it possible at this late stage to cancel my participation in that meeting.  It would be I think unfair to the next applicant to get him to start his evidence now and then be subjected to cross-examination at some later stage.  I understand that there are matters set down for next week which most the present parties are engaged in and that they will perhaps take, from what they tell me, they will have to work hard to have completed it by next week and I do not wish in those circumstances to interfere with the programme for next week.  We have unfortunately got not only the last applicant to hear but two witnesses from the victims before we even approach the evidence that may become available as a result of information very recently made available.  A Pandora's box appears to be opening up, we were told witnesses indicating that the version put or evidence available to indicate, the version so far put is not true and correct version and further information was made available today indicating that there may be other witnesses who would have to be traced and interviewed and in those circumstances it seems to me that the only logical and sensible conclusion is to adjourn this matter to a date to be arranged on the strict understanding that if further information of the nature I have described becomes available it will be distributed through the Amnesty Committee to the interested parties so that they can properly prepare themselves to deal with it and that the matter thereafter be set down on a date to suit the convenience of all parties.  It will involve a great deal of co-operation between the lawyers concerned and between the Amnesty Committee itself to get - reconstitute the same panel but it's something that can be done and will have to be done.  It will however involve quite a long delay I fear and unless anyone has any strong views to the contrary of any representations they wish to make, I think the matter will have to accordingly be adjourned.

MR VISSER: Visser on record, Chairperson.  We agree with you that that is the only pragmatic approach to adopt at this stage.

MS POSWA: We agree Chairperson.

MR WILLS: Agreed Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: I agree Chairperson, I'll do all the arrangements to ensure that the matter is heard at a later stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, I'd like to thank all of you here who have helped us with the hearing so far.