Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-11-09

CHAIRPERSON: As I said earlier, van der Merwe is in volume 1, General van der Merwe.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR MALAN: Mr Ngubane?

MR NGUBANE: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR MALAN: What you read from starts on page 169 in bundle 2 and that is a submission compiled by Stadler on behalf of the Foundation for Equality before the Law.

MR NGUBANE: No, I'm sorry that I misled the witness, I thought that was van der Merwe.

MR MALAN: It's the same statement, it's just a different author.

MR NGUBANE: Major General S D Stadler, do you know him?

I D BOSCH: Yes, Chairperson, I know him.

MR NGUBANE: And do you agree with what I've read to  you?

I D BOSCH: Chairperson, I agree with the piece that you have read now, I did not read the whole thing.

MR NGUBANE: Now you have tried to explain paragraph 2 of page 15, the name Spyker, and in my mind an impression was created that you were trying to create the picture that this Spyker you were talking about was a Vlakplaas man.  You made a mistake and referred to Spyker who was in Vlakplaas, is that what you were trying to do?

I D BOSCH: No, Chairperson, not at all.  A person next to me asked if there was a Spyker at Vlakplaas and yes, there was a person there but he was not involved with this incident.  I did not refer to him when I said this Spyker is Vlakplaas's Spyker, I said that my suspicion or I remember that Spyker from Durban was on the mountain with us.

MR NGUBANE: Well what do you mean if you say your suspicion was that Spyker from Durban was involved?

I D BOSCH: Chairperson, at the time when I wrote this statement in my mind I had a picture that Michael and Spyker were involved.  It was proven incorrect here today but I then made a mistake.  ...(transcriber's own translation)

MR NGUBANE: Do you know Spyker Mhieza from Durban?

I D BOSCH: I did see him once or twice Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Do you know where you had seen him?

I D BOSCH: Chairperson, he was always with - if there were routine investigations then he worked with the black members of Vlakplaas, the Askaris and they handled them, not handled but they worked in groups and that is how I know Spyker.

MR NGUBANE: Were you ever involved with him in any murder of any person?

I D BOSCH: No, Chairperson, no operations nothing.  I just knew of his existence and I knew he worked with Lawrie Wasserman.

MR NGUBANE: If this man was never at any stage involved in any murder with you, can you explain why you would make such a huge mistake and involve him in this outstanding encounter in your life and say he was there if that was not so?

I D BOSCH: Chairperson, that's the chance one takes when one writes something like this after so many years.

MR NGUBANE: When you compiled this affidavit were you taking chances or were you coming clean of what you know?

I D BOSCH: Chairperson, at the time I wrote this I thought that I want to write down everything that I can recall and if I did not put down Spyker's name here and he was there and I might have forgotten about it, it would also be a problem for me.  I do not want to implicate him in something but according to my thoughts my head tells me that he was there but I could be  wrong.

MR NGUBANE: You have spoken about taking chances, a chance that one takes.  Were you taking a chance when you compiled the affidavit or were you coming out clean?

I D BOSCH: Chairperson, I want to come clean, I'm not taking any chances.

MR NGUBANE: So why now refer to that's the chance that a person takes if he makes a statement?

CHAIRPERSON: If you made an affidavit about something that happened 10 years ago, would you be confident that everything in it was correct?

MR NGUBANE: I'm worried about the word "change", Mr Chair, I think it's important.

CHAIRPERSON: He's relying on his memory and he says "My memory is not 100% accurate", isn't that taking a chance?

MR NGUBANE: My worry, Mr Chairman, is that in his affidavit he doesn't say that "from my recollection I think this is correct", he's very positive about these facts and today he says that that's a chance that one takes.  And in the light of the fact that one is required to make a full disclosure, I respectfully submit ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He's made a full disclosure and he's told us today he still thinks that man was there, he has been contradicted by a previous witness.  As I understand his evidence it is that he still believes that Spyker was there.

MR NGUBANE: Mr Chairman, his recent evidence was that he said he still believed that that man was there but he has just said that since the first witness said that man was not there, he concedes that that man was not there.

MR MALAN: I wonder as a person whose first language is Afrikaans, I understood him to say: "When I made my statement I had to make as full a disclosure as possible.  The risk involved is that one may put in things that then turn out not to have been so because you to rely on your memory".  So "chance" might as well have been a synonym in this instance for risk taking.  I hope that helps you because I didn't see anything - but you may pursue if you want to, I didn't see anything intended to go beyond stating the obvious there.

MR NGUBANE: Thank you very much.  I got it as "chance" then I was worried about that, then for the explanation I thank you for that.

I D BOSCH: Mr Chairperson, on page 20 I wrote
"In closing I would just like to mention that I cannot recall the incidents totally because it was a long time ago.  Some of the facts might be mentioned as hearsay or something that I might have heard after the incident.  Since above-mentioned incidents I have tried to forget about these incidents and to rid myself of memories thereof."

MR MALAN: My trouble there is because most of the applicants make this submission in their application, but you can continue.

MR NGUBANE: Thank you.
	You still maintain that you are not sure whether you were informed about the details of Mr Bhila on your way back from killing him or before you could kill   him?

I D BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson, I am still not sure.

MR NGUBANE: Did the first applicant at any stage tell you that Mr Taylor had given him a request to kill Mr Bhila?

I D BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: So you were not aware of an order or an instruction or a request form Mr Taylor to kill this man?

I D BOSCH: Chairperson, I received my instructions from Mr McCarter and as far as I know, and it has also come to light here, that Mr McCarter and Colonel Taylor made the arrangements for this.

MR NGUBANE: And are you still positive that at the park Mr Taylor at no stage told you that this man should be killed?

I D BOSCH: Not Mr Taylor, I cannot tell.

MR NGUBANE: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NGUBANE

ADV PRIOR: Mr Bosch, what was your role or your purpose at this shooting range, I do not understand it clearly.  What were doing there?

I D BOSCH: Chairperson, I didn't have a function, I was just there.

ADV PRIOR: Until almost sundown as you say, you just sat there in the park?

I D BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson, and I did drive up the mountain with them.

ADV PRIOR: What were the arrangements for lunch, did you braai there?

I D BOSCH: As far as I can recall they bought cold drinks for us, we did not eat.  I cannot recall us eating there.

ADV PRIOR: And this detainee, Bhila, did he receive anything to eat?

I D BOSCH: Not to eat but to drink, yes.  I don't even think we had something to eat.

ADV PRIOR: But how did he drink, he was handcuffed?

I D BOSCH: If I recall correctly, at that stage he had chains around his ankles.  I cannot recall correctly but I think he had chains around his ankles.

ADV PRIOR: Was he questioned?

I D BOSCH: No, he was not questioned.

ADV PRIOR: Do you recall if he was questioned?  Would you remember if he was questioned?  Was he assaulted?

I D BOSCH: No, Chairperson, he was not assaulted.