Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1996-07-01

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Die oggend toe ek by mnr Gerber se kantoor was, het hy my meegedeel dat hy oor inligting beskik dat hierdie man wel 'n lid van die PAC is of 'n ondersteuner van die PAC is. Ek het dit nie nodig geag om dit by ander mense navraag te doen nie, want mnr Gerber was my onmiddellike hoof en dit is inligting wat hy aan my verskaf het.  Ek het geen rede gehad om die inligting wat hy aan my verskaf het, in twyfel te trek nie.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: U het getuig dat hierdie aangeleentheid, die gewapende roof was op daardie tyd deur die Moord en Roof ondersoek.  Is dit reg?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Dit is korrek, agbare Voorsitter.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: En u was ook bewus van die feit dat daar 'n sekere ondersoekbeampte besig was om die saak verder te ondersoek by Moord en Roof?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Dis korrek, agbare Voorsitter.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: En is dit korrek dat die ondersoekbeampte was ene Dempsey?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Dis korrek.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Goed. Nou as u geweet het dat die saak deur Moord en Roof ondersoek was, en verder u geweet het wie die ondersoekbeampte was, hoekom was die oorledene nie aan die ondersoekbeampte oorhandig vir verdere ...

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Agbare Voorsitter, soos ek reeds getuig het, was die ondersoekbeampte die oggend in kennis gestel en hy het gese dat ons moet voortgaan, aangesien hy besig was.  En as gevolg van my verbintenis met hulle en die samewerking wat ons gehad het, het ek dit ook my plig geag om voort te gaan met hierdie ondersoek.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Ja,  maar u het geweet op daardie tydstip dat die aangeleentheid nou geheel in die hande van die Polisie was, nie so nie?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Agbare Voorsitter, soos ek gese het, ons het baie nou saamgewerk.  En die man het, die ondersoekbeampte het vir ons gese gaan voort.  Wat vir my 'n aanduiding was dat ons kan voortgaan. Anders sou hy dit nie gese het nie. Anders sou hy vir ons gese het bring die man na my kantoor toe laat ek hom hier aanhou of wat ook al die geval mag wees, maar hy het gese gaan voort met die ondersoek, en op grond daarvan het ons voortgegaan.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Kom ons gaan bietjie ... (tussenbeide).

UNKNOWN: U het die man na die bosse geneem en die hele dag hom daar in die boom gehang?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Dis korrek, dis korrek, agbare Voorsitter.

UNKNOWN: En was hierdie polisieman, was hy besig vir die hele dag, het julle probeer om met hom weer te praat?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Agbare Voorsitter, ek het glad nie die dag met hom gepraat nie, mnr Gerber het met hom gepraat en ... (tussenbeide).

UNKNOWN: En hy het niks verder gedoen nie, hy het daar by die bosse gebly vir die hele dag?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Dis korrek.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: En volgens u kennis geen poging was aangewend gedurende die dag om die ondersoekbeampte op te spoor of om hom te se wat nou aan die gang was?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Nee, agbare Voorsitter, ek dra nie kennis daarvan nie.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Nou kom ons keer 'n bietjie terug na Benoni toe. Toe u die liggaam aan die brand steek, was die liggaam nog in geheel gewees?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Dis korrek.  Dis korrek.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Nou hoekom was dit nodig vir u asook Piet Niemand, om die hand af te kap?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Dit was om die identiteit van die oorledene te verbloem.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Te?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Te verbloem.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Was that the only way you could do it?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: That was the only part of the body that didn't burn, that's why.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: How did you remove the arm or in which way?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: As I have indicated, Piet Niemand and myself went to a shop.  Piet bought an axe and we chopped off the hand with the axe.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: The photos I have just caused to be tabled are not the original photos. I could not lay hands on the original photos. My apologies for that. Could you have a look at the photographs?  Let's look specifically at photograph number 3.

JOHAN VAN EYCK: I assume that is the arm of the deceased.  The photograph I have here is not very clear, but it does suggest an arm.

ADV DE JAGER: Is it very unclear?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: This problem, I wish not to take any further point on these photos because he cannot see them clearly. I won't even tender them as evidence at all.

HASSAN MALL: Any further questions?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairperson, just one moment, please.   You testified that there were no head injuries to the deceased?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Yes, that is correct.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Are you assuming that there were not head wounds or did you actually see that there were no wounds and no injuries?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Are we talking after the time the deceased had been removed from the tree? He had no wounds to his head at that stage. I saw that.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: How far was the deceased's head from the ground when the fire was made?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Approximately one metre.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE

UNKNOWN: Mr Van Eyck, do I understand you correctly when you say that you had nothing to do with the murder?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Yes, that is correct. I had no firearm with me on that day.

UNKNOWN: And you did not know that the other two would shoot the deceased?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: No, as I said in my testimony, I was actually disappointed that he had been shot. I had not foreseen it at all.  It seemed to be a defeat, as far as I am concerned.

UNKNOWN: And you did not assist in the shooting at all?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: No, not at all.

UNKNOWN: But you did not testify and the Judge therefore did not know that you had not assisted in the shooting?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: That is correct. Had I given evidence during the trial the possibility would have been that I would not reveal the true facts as I have done so today, and I don't know what the Court's attitude would have been in that case.

UNKNOWN: But must we now accept these as the true facts, and say that you did not commit murder?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: That is correct, honourable Chairperson.

UNKNOWN: And therefore you cannot ask for amnesty because you did not commit the murder?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Well, I disposed of the body.

UNKNOWN: Yes, but that's something different. Thank you.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: You can listen to the interpretation in Afrikaans.  Actually, how did you dispose of this hand?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: We discarded the hand whilst driving in the vehicle.  We threw the hand out of the vehicle whilst we were driving.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: What did you want, what information did you want from the deceased?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Chairperson, I wanted to determine the identity of the people involved in the robbery at Fidelity Guards.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: And for what purpose?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: That was to ascertain which organisations were involved in this onslaught.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: And you did not get that information?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: No, Chairperson, I did not obtain the information.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: So to date you don't know which organisations were involved because you did not get that information?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: That is correct.  I believe though that it must have been one of the liberation movements, but which one I cannot say.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: And because the deceased did not give the information you wanted, to this day you don't know whether he was connected with any of the so-called liberation movements?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: Chairperson, as I have already testified, Mr Gerber informed me that the man had been a member or a supporter of the PAC and I had no reason to doubt that.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Didn't Mr Gerber in your presence, question the deceased as to whether the deceased was a member of any such organisations?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: That is correct.  During the interrogation it was put to him or he was asked whether he was a member of that organisation or any organisation.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Did he admit that he was any such member or did he deny it?

JOHAN VAN EYCK: I never heard him admitting it.