Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1997-02-26

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman I don't have the answer to that. I wasn't informed that the Steenkamp that is 
implicated here is one of my clients, but I am not saying that he isn't.  We are in early days still and we are 
trying to sort out precisely what - who our clients are and what the situation is.

UNKNOWN: Do you know whether you are representing General Steenkamp at this stage?

UNKNOWN: I am not sure whether this is the Steenkamp which is my client, certainly that doesn't 
accord with my information at the moment.  But may I say that I am going to ask a few questions and the 
questions will relate to both Schoon and to anybody else that may have given an order so I don't foresee 
with respect that any undue time would be wasted even if it is not my client.

UNKNOWN: Mr Currin.

MR CURRIN: Thank you sir.  We have instructions from the Nyanda family, I just want to mention that 
they were here at the last hearing when we were in Johannesburg and we haven't been able to find them 
here today or earlier in the week and they don't seem to be here, however, I just would like to place on 
record that their instructions are to place on record that they are in favour of the amnesty process and that 
they are in favour of reconciliation subject to full disclosure, and that is an area which they have instructed 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR CURRIN: 207

UNKNOWN: me to ask questions and also subject to information obtained about the killing of McFadden which concerns 
them as a family since he was a resident in the house at the time and the attack wasn't aimed at him.  I just 
put on record what the objective of my cross-examination objectives will be.

UNKNOWN: Yes.

MR CURRIN: In your evidence Brigadier, you mentioned that you got 
information from an informer and in your written document you stated that it was an informer in Piet Retief 
and then you changed that in your evidence-in- chief. Please repeat that.

UNKNOWN: I changed it because it was not an informant who lived in Piet Retief, Mr Chairman, but 
it was an informant who was dealt with by Warrant Officer Pienaar in Piet Retief and that is why he was 
also involved in the operation.

MR CURRIN: His family, for no other reason other than full disclosure would like to know who the 
informer was?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairperson, I don't know who the informant was. I think Warrant Officer Pienaar 
would possibly be able to answer that question.

MR CURRIN: Could I ask you to take steps to try and obtain that information.

UNKNOWN: I can do it, I undertake to do it.

MR CURRIN: Because it is important for the family in the context of reconciliation to have all the 
information which they feel they need to deal with the process within themselves.

UNKNOWN: I understand that.

MR CURRIN: With regard to Keith McFadden, in your written submission, nowhere do you mention that 
you sussed out the 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR CURRIN: 208

UNKNOWN: house beforehand to find out how many people were in the house, then later you indicated that you had 
information. Please explain what you found out about the house before you attacked?  Shall I repeat the 
question?

UNKNOWN: Please.

MR CURRIN: In your written application you make no reference to having sussed out the house before 
you attacked to find out who was in the house, how many people were in the house, yet in your evidence-
in-chief you indicated that you had information that there was more than one male in the house, where did 
you get that information from?

UNKNOWN: This information came from the same informant. We knew that Nyanda and Cecil 
worked together and when we entered the house and I saw McFadden, when I entered the house and saw 
McFadden I was under the impression that it could be Cecil.

MR CURRIN: Tell us about Cecil?

UNKNOWN: It was him who jumped out of the window and got away. I heard afterwards that it was a 
man who worked with Nyanda. I can't remember his surname.

MR CURRIN: Was he a South African or a Swazi?

UNKNOWN: No. He was a South African.

JUDGE WILSON: Did he live in that house?  Was your information that he lived in the same house as 
Nyanda or as you have just told us that "they worked together"?

UNKNOWN: No, he worked together and he lived together in the house with Nyanda, Mr Chairman.

MR CURRIN: But in your evidence-in-chief, you said you didn't know who this person was that you were 
chasing around the house, correct, you didn't know who he was, McFadden?

UNKNOWN: I didn't know that it was McFadden, I was 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR CURRIN: 208

UNKNOWN: under the impression that it was Cecil.

MR CURRIN: Why didn't you say that in your evidence-in- chief?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman he did.

MR CURRIN: Sorry, I must have misunderstood you. Okay, my apologies.  Why did you assume that 
this other person, who was a male was a guilty person, but yet another person in the house who happened 
to be a female was innocent, I would just like to know the basis of those assumptions?  And that the male 
could be armed, but the female couldn't be armed.

UNKNOWN: Is it because he had information that there were two people in the house, two men, who 
were possibly the targets?

MR CURRIN: Possibly. Is that the answer?

UNKNOWN: Yes.

MR CURRIN: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Have you found out subsequently who Keith McFadden was?

UNKNOWN: I later heard that he was also a member of the ANC who worked with Nyanda.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairperson, excuse me, before Mr Visser starts cross-examining the witness, I 
would like to make one point.  I have read the Act, Mr Chairman, and the Act as we all know is a little bit 
ambiguous, I do not have any problem with Mr Visser questioning my clients.  What I, however, can 
foresee is that in an incident where there are perhaps five or ten, maybe, persons implicated all represented 
by lawyers that the applicants will then be cross-examined by a representative of each of them.

UNKNOWN: What about dealing with the problem as it arises.
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 209

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Chairman, with respect, the problem in principle is here now, the question 
is if a person who is implicated and is represented at the hearings is entitled to subject the applicants to 
cross-examination, I want to repeat we do not want to object to that, I am not objecting to that, all I am 
asking is, I am asking a ruling of the Committee pertaining to this, Mr Chairman. I read Section 30 as 
referring to a person that he should be afforded an opportunity to submit representations to the Commission 
within a specified time with regard to the matter under consideration or to give evidence at a hearing of the 
Commission.  Now the fact that there is reference to giving evidence at a hearing of the Commission might 
also include the right to cross-examination. I just cannot let this go by without raising the point because of 
the fact that the Act is not clear on this.

ADV DE JAGER: The Act doesn't implicity authorise you to cross-examine.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, that is true, Mr Chairman, that is ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: There is no explicit authorisation in the Act anywhere, it only states that we could limit 
you in cross-examination.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, the Act also does not state specifically that Mr Currin has a right to cross-
examination.  Now as I can recall this issue was dealt with in October when Mr Currin appeared and the 
ruling was made in that regard and I accept that ruling. I am simply making this point because this is a 
different situation than a representative representing the victims. It is a legal representative representing 
somebody who has been implicated PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 210

<UNKNOWN>: and I am just asking the Committee to make a ruling in this regard.  I am not trying to be obstructive.