Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-18

GEN STEYN: Chairperson no, Breytenbach would have given the order to his people as to how they should conduct themselves, he wouldn't have given me an order.

MR WEBSTER: He did not give any order to you?

GEN STEYN: No, not to me.

MR WEBSTER: And if I understand you correctly after you had identified or at least spotted the vehicle, it was then expected that Breytenbach and his team would then take over and do the necessary?

GEN STEYN: That is correct.

MR WEBSTER: Because they were trained to do so?

GEN STEYN: That is correct.

MR WEBSTER: But you never allowed Breytenbach to exercise that right?

GEN STEYN: No, I didn't prevent him from doing that.

MR WEBSTER: What I'm saying is you never afforded him the opportunity to do that.

GEN STEYN: The circumstances did not allow him the opportunity, the circumstances which I mentioned in my evidence in chief.

MR WEBSTER: No circumstances, General, up until the stage that the firing commenced which could have prevented you or any of the Special Branch people from notifying Breytenbach and leaving it to Breytenbach to put into operation whatever plan that he had in mind with his people, is that not so?

GEN STEYN: No.  I think I should explain the situation.  After we received the message we all left in quite a hurry in an attempt to catch up to the vehicle ...(intervention)

MR WEBSTER: Yes but it would be ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: May the witness be allowed to answer?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please.

MR WEBSTER: I was allowing him Chairperson, it's not a problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

GEN STEYN: I'll start again.  After we'd left we each one of us left in our own vehicles in an attempt to try and catch up to this fleeing vehicle.  I've explained to the Chairperson and the Committee that things happened very quickly, there were a lot of vehicles on the road and each one tried, Breytenbach tried, I'm sure Wasserman tried, I'm sure all of them, all of the people involved tried to catch sight of the vehicle.  The ideal would have been that Breytenbach should intercept or catch up to this vehicle ahead of us but due to the traffic and the circumstances it so happened that the vehicle in which I was caught up to this vehicle first so I did not prevent Breytenbach purposefully from doing his work.

MR WEBSTER: General, I'm trying to picture this episode and something in your explanation doesn't make sense to me, please help me?

GEN STEYN: I'm listening.

MR WEBSTER: You were in danger, you did not want to expose your lives to danger, hence the reason that Breytenbach take charge of the operation, is that not so?

GEN STEYN: Yes.

MR WEBSTER: Having seen the vehicle, two of your vehicles on either side of it, you were in radio communication, you could have asked him and you would have known where he was, you could have waited until he was right behind you, you could have waited till you knew exactly where he and his team were before anything was done because this vehicle was in the centre lane, it was boxed in by two of your vehicles, is it not so?

GEN STEYN: No, I think I should explain that this incident did not take place in a lounge where one person walks in the other person walks out, this was a high speed chase in which we tried to catch up to the vehicle and one moment you're approaching them and the next moment another vehicle butted in front of you, the next moment you had to swerve to your left or to your right and those circumstances applied to all of us, it wasn't a matter of leisurely driving and then eventually we would catch up to it and stop the vehicle and then proceed with the procedure, that's not how it happened, it wasn't as easy as that.

MR WEBSTER: General, I would have expected, I would have expected what you have just said to be incorporated in your application.  Can you show me where that appears in your application?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Webster, you're a sufficiently experienced man as a lawyer, these statements are not made ipsissima verba in the words of the man, these are in the words of their legal representatives, isn't it?

MR WEBSTER: I appreciate that Sir, but at the same time ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There is a similarity in language phraseology in all these statements and quite clearly it seems so obvious that they were done in the language of the legal people?

MR WEBSTER: Sir, the "jagtog", the chase, whether it's in English or Afrikaans "hy bly 'n jagtog", it remains a chase.

CHAIRPERSON: I agree with that.

MR WEBSTER: And it is an element because it has certain consequences.  As the General has now described, with respect Sir, what he has then described now is something which is completely at variance with what appears here and I dare say that those representing him having been told by the General of the "jagtog" would not have relegated it to non-existence in the entire application, it would have been there.

MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, now I'm obliged to reply to that, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm not going to prevent that, I think that point is not really relevant for present purposes, really.

MR VISSER: Thank you.

MR WEBSTER: Thank you Sir.  Now ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There are differences but in essence the handwriting of the author is in all these documents is the same hand.  You know, there is a co-ordination between these people who all got together, this wasn't the case where each individual separately worked and made his statement.  I'll imagine there was joint consultation and in the presence of each other, notes are then taken and then statements are drawn.

MR WEBSTER: Sir, I'm loathe to engage in a debate with you, Chairperson, I'm most loathe to do that but may it be recorded, Chairperson, that my view is that what the General now says is so materially different from what appears from his application, that had that in fact been the position it would have been incorporated, that's a point that I just wish to make.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand, in other words why doesn't he say ...(intervention)

MR WEBSTER: There was a chase?

CHAIRPERSON: There was a chase?

MR WEBSTER: Because if there was a chase, Chairperson, then some of the conduct which he now talks about would have been justified but that chase is nowhere visible despite the fact that three of them over a period of time went through this and even when his evidence was led he didn't speak of a "jagtog".

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR WEBSTER: Thank you Sir, that's the point that I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I've cleared it up, I think that you are entitled to that question to put once again, to put to him.

MR WEBSTER: I'm indebted to you Chairperson.
	You've heard, General, what my problem is?

GEN STEYN: Can you repeat please?

MR WEBSTER: I'll do it for the fourth time for you.  Why is it so patently lacking and why is it that you make no reference whatsoever to such very important aspect of what took place that day, namely the chase.  Why is it that any reference is missing altogether?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I'm going to object to the question, it's an unfair question.

CHAIRPERSON: Let him answer the question.

MR VISSER: Yes but I just want to refer you to paragraphs 21 and 22 Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You can re-examine him on that.

GEN STEYN: Chairperson, during the drafting of our documentation, I've already explained that we had to act with great haste and if I had to describe word for word what happened in each part of my amnesty applications it would have run to pages and pages in length.  It is normal that you simply lift out the essential points as you remember those and then that by means of the evidence which you give before the Commission you would then elaborate on those essential factors.

MR WEBSTER: Are you finished, General?  I want to get to paragraph 21.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?