Amnesty Hearings — Pietersburg — 1997-07-03

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, you were about to call Mr Van Dyk.

ADV VISSER: Van Dyk.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  We are trying to see whether we cannot finish taking evidence today of all the witnesses.

ADV VISSER: Yes.  Mr Chairman, perhaps I should give you an indication.  Mr Van Dyk will testify inter alia about the tape recorder, then we have Mr Dreyer and Mr Swarts who will testify in regard, specifically to the issue of the inquest and at that stage, we would have reached the point where none of the other witnesses would be able to contribute anything new.
	As we told you at the outset Mr Chairman, we will then make those witnesses available, but bearing that in mind, it really is three witnesses to go during the course of the day, we may be able to finish early Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, the inquest in not a great violation.  He could confirm his application.

ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, if you want to take that route, we certainly could save more time because that would cut out two further witnesses, then this would really be the last witness which can materially assist you as far as any of the facts are concerned.

ADV DE JAGER: I am not suggesting that they shouldn't come and confirm under oath, they must be available.

ADV VISSER: No, I accepted that that is what you meant, each of them will come and confirm under oath obviously, but the point being that it wouldn't be necessary for me to lead evidence from them fully as we have done so far, Mr Chairman.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Visser, I thought that that is the route you had already taken in view of the fact that indeed you have not led any evidence in respect of the two other incidents for which amnesty is being sought by Mr Erwee, in view of the fact that it is a non-gross violation of human rights and we don't need to really have evidence orally led before the Committee?

ADV VISSER: Indeed Mr Chairman, that is correct.  There was a suggestion from my learned friend, Mr Rodney Black at one stage, that perhaps while Mr Erwee and some of the others perhaps may be here, may be present, that it may be as well to take evidence on that score as well.  He later than informed us that apparently he had spoken to members of the Committee and who had felt that it wouldn't be necessary, but as you correctly point out, it is a matter which can be dealt with administratively and they can confirm.
	The only point about that Mr Chairman is that Erwee hasn't confirmed his application in that regard and it may be necessary just to call him back to do that.  If you want to deal with it administratively.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not so sure that we should call him back.  You see I must confess that Mr Black phoned me about those other matters and I think it was the end of last week and I said to him you know, if once we tried to hear evidence about those other applications, it is too late now, we are going to run into problems.
	We haven't informed COSATU, we haven't informed other people who is also going to be brought in, once we bring that in, we are going to run into other difficulties, which may prevent the hearing from taking place and perhaps maybe we should just leave it there.

ADV VISSER: It certainly seems to be the pragmatic approach Mr Chairman, we agree with that.  Mr Van Dyk, you have not been sworn in yet.

JOHANNES HENDRIK VAN DYK: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, we have gone so many times, we have travelled so many times from Pietersburg to Alldays, we virtually know the road off by hard.

ADV VISSER: I take that to be a suggestion that I must move it, Mr Chairman?  Mr Van Dyk, you have heard that we must now push it a little bit.
	You have also lodged an amnesty application for certain offences which you may have committed or which may be found that you have committed on the 10th of July, on the Beslau/Alldays road and you have the application form in front of you.  Have you read it and is the information contained therein, correct?

JOHANNES HENDRIK VAN DYK: Yes.

ADV VISSER: You have incorporated into your application, a reference to the submission of the Foundation for Equality before the Law and of General Van der Velde Van der Merwe's submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
	And you will also refer to Erwee's statement relating to the facts of the matter, do you agree in principle with those facts as set out in his application and as he testified about it here?

JOHANNES HENDRIK VAN DYK: Correct.

ADV VISSER: Also, additionally on page 96, in paragraph 9(a)(iv), the last sentence of that you say I also attested to the statement of Andries Erwee, knowing that he committed perjury.
	Now, it is so that you administered the oath for an affidavit, made by Erwee and that is to be found on page 16 of C.  We have already clarified that point with you that it is your signature, you may just confirm it again under oath.

JOHANNES HENDRIK VAN DYK: Yes, I confirm it is my signature.

ADV VISSER: And according to the oath administered at the bottom there, it was on the 11th of July 1986?  What did you mean Mr Van Dyk when you said that you administered the oath knowing that he was committing perjury?

JOHANNES HENDRIK VAN DYK: When I wrote these words that he committed perjury, I didn't have the statement in front of me.  I couldn't remember exactly what was said in the statement, I would rather say that I was aware of the fact that he had made a reasonably watered down version in the statement.
	To use the word perjury, well I was unaware of exactly what was said in the statement, I would like to replace it with a more watered down statement which could possibly give rise to perjury.

ADV DE JAGER: It wasn't the full truth which he said in that statement?

JOHANNES HENDRIK VAN DYK: If I said that I remember the whole statement, I wouldn't be speaking the truth.  At the time that I administered the oath, to say that it isn't the full truth, would be correct.

ADV VISSER: We have already received an indication from the Committee that we shouldn't lead evidence on that.  Would you then immediately proceed and tell the members of the Committee about how you became involved in the events which took place on the 10th of July?
	My Attorney tells me that I didn't understand what you have just said.  Is the idea that we can leave the run up to the scene and just start with the actual incident?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV VISSER: I am a bit slow this morning, pardon me.  Mr Van Dyk, on the 10th of July, please tell us where were you on that day and what did you do?

JOHANNES HENDRIK VAN DYK: Chairperson, if I could start with the specific scene.  I wouldn't start with where we got up and got dressed and so on.
	My position on that day was in the river bed, in a sandy ditch.  Please could you refer to Exhibit C.

ADV VISSER: Would you please look at Exhibit C, it is a sketch, more or less to the points of a compass which indicates a road and two combi's and a sandy ditch.
	Can you indicate on Exhibit C where you were placed?

JOHANNES HENDRIK VAN DYK: I was placed in the river bed.  It is north on this map, there are three little dots there, about 30, 40 metres from where the path crosses the river bed and according to this map, in a northerly direction.

ADV VISSER: Who was with you in the river bed?

JOHANNES HENDRIK VAN DYK: Piet Dreyer, Joop Venter and I think Johan Bressler.

ADV VISSER: That is one of the people who did not apply for amnesty?

JOHANNES HENDRIK VAN DYK: Yes.

ADV VISSER: And what was the purpose why you were there?