Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-06-22

UNKNOWN: So Sunday evening was the 25th or the 24th, just remind me?

JAN B DE WET: The 24th Chairperson.

UNKNOWN: What did he say to you in response?

JAN B DE WET: He didn't give me any comments when I told him what was going on there.

UNKNOWN: He said nothing at all?

JAN B DE WET: He only asked me if I would make my vehicle available.

UNKNOWN: Now the people from Natal arrived on the 25th, that is correct isn't it?

JAN B DE WET: That is correct, when I returned from the Germiston bomb mission, the people from Natal were there.

UNKNOWN: I asked this of one of the other applicants, and I will ask it of you.  In your opinion, isn't it strange that Nico Prinsloo didn't mention the activities of your little grouping to those people from Natal, just to motivate them and tell them that we are really going for it this time, wasn't that strange?

JAN B DE WET: Chairperson, I wasn't involved there so whatever General Prinsloo told them, I cannot say what he told them, I was not present.  I do not know what he told them.

UNKNOWN: You misunderstand my question, I want your opinion as somebody who was fairly highly placed in the Garde.
	Wasn't it strange to you or is it not strange to you even today, that he would not have mentioned this very important little motivational issue to the chaps from Natal?  I mean you had seen the bomb in the making, you had mentioned it to him, so it wasn't a State secret or an AWB secret, yet he said nothing at all, he actually referred to the BKA, the Boere Krisis Aksie, as the people who had been setting off bombs.  He said nothing about the Koesterfontein grouping and what they were getting up to?

JAN B DE WET: Chairperson, I do not know why he didn't tell them that we were involved with that, I cannot give comment on that.

UNKNOWN: Slightly different aspect, you continually refer to instructions that you were given, you were following orders, yet at the same time you were allowed to set conditions as a member, a committed member, you were allowed to say to them, I will only give you my motor vehicle if, now how does that conditional participation, how do you marry that with the fact that you were there to take orders?
	Sorry, just help me understand why you could pick and choose when to take orders or follow orders and when to say to them, go and jump, I will only do it if?

JAN B DE WET: Chairperson, it was my vehicle and at that stage I said I will make my vehicle available if I could be the driver, because it is my car.  It is not that I put an ultimatum to him.  It wasn't that I said if I cannot drive my car, you cannot have it.
	I only said I wanted to drive the car.  No ultimatum was put.

UNKNOWN: But essentially this is what I have understood you to be saying, that you said to them, you are the person who is going to drive that motor vehicle, at the same time you have continuously said to us you were there to follow orders, you did very, very serious things because you were following orders, but the minor matter of who was driving your car, you dictated the terms on, essentially.
	I am just trying to marry the part of you that takes orders unquestioningly and the other half of you that will say to them, you can have my car if I drive it.  The two halves, put them together for me.

JAN B DE WET: Mr Chairperson, Prinsloo needed a car, he did not have a car.  The stolen vehicles which he had to give to Barnard was not available, and because of that I told him my vehicle, I will make it available to you if I can be the driver of the car.  It is not an ultimatum, it is nothing like that.
	If he said you cannot be the driver, then I wouldn't have made my vehicle available.  If that is what you are asking Chairperson.

UNKNOWN: A final aspect, you have said to us today that you lied in the Supreme Court to prove your innocence, that is the way you put it, both in English and in Afrikaans?

JAN B DE WET: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

UNKNOWN: You are giving evidence here today to prove your guilt essentially, the exact opposite?

JAN B DE WET: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

UNKNOWN: Why should we accept what you are saying to us today when you were quite happy to lie before a Judge in the Supreme Court, having taken the oath, about your participation in these events?  Why should this Committee believe what you have to say today?

JAN B DE WET: Chairperson, in the Supreme Court, if I then spoke the truth, I would have not gotten 25 years, I would have gotten longer.
	Here in front of the Truth Commission I feel that if I speak the truth, you can reduce my sentence, and that is why I am telling you the truth.

UNKNOWN: You see before both forums you take the oath, you have taken the oath here, you took the oath then, and the dilemma I am left with just as an individual panel member is, which oath are you really, when did you tell the truth, was it then, is it now?	I still have a bit of a difficulty there?

JAN B DE WET: Chairperson, when I was told that I can tell the truth at the Truth Commission and I can get amnesty, that is what I heard, and when I came here today, I am speaking the truth as far as I can.
	I have already said that in the Supreme Court I told a lie in order to prove my innocence.  If I spoke the truth in the High Court, I would not have received 25 years prison sentence.

UNKNOWN: Thank you Mr De Wet, thanks Judge.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Wet, this war that you talk about, and if I understand your evidence it took on the form of planing bombs?

JAN B DE WET: Yes bomb planting and taking up weapons, to take up weapons where you shoot someone like in a war, in the Defence Force.

CHAIRPERSON: When would this have happened?

JAN B DE WET: With the speeches that was made, we will not negotiate, we will negotiate over the barrel of a gun, and I saw that the planting of bombs was the run up to this revolution and that in the end, with the elections, we will then take up arms.

CHAIRPERSON: But according to you, the only reason for the war at that stage, was to stop the elections?

JAN B DE WET: That is correct Mr Chairman, that was my reason.

CHAIRPERSON: No other reasons?

JAN B DE WET: No, I had no other reasons.

CHAIRPERSON: You gave evidence that you were asked to choose between the Ystergarde and the Wenkommando?

JAN B DE WET: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Your answer was that you would rather choose the Ystergarde because it was your work?

JAN B DE WET: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you paid for that?

JAN B DE WET: No Mr Chairperson, I did it freely.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean when you said you made the choice, because it is your work or what you did at the Ystergarde was a job?

JAN B DE WET: I did the course of the Ystergarde, because for me it was important that the people who were with me in the AWB, I wanted to train them and I wanted to become an instructor within the Ystergarde.

CHAIRPERSON: You just answered that the reason why you make this application is to help yourself getting out of jail?

JAN B DE WET: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me Mr De Wet, after everything that happened, did you go through the trouble of finding out who is the families of the people who died?

JAN B DE WET: No Mr Chairperson, I did not go through the trouble, because outside I've got no one to ask except the AWB who supports me at this stage to do any jobs for me.  There is no one within the Prison Service who supports us.

CHAIRPERSON: I am asking you did you go through the trouble to find out who were the families of the people who died by the actions of the AWB?

JAN B DE WET: No Mr Chairperson, I only read in newspaper articles that were available to me, I only learnt their names there.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you feel about that?

JAN B DE WET: My personal opinion at this stage is that I feel sorry for people who had to die within a lost cause, because we did lose this struggle.