Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-06-12

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: That is correct yes.

MR DREYER: In the light of that, I would like to read four parts of that article, the first is the beginning of the report where it says that military leaders under Constand Viljoen, former Head of the Defence Force, had made up the total commando of almost 7 000 soldiers.  This force would have, with its full military structure, including the military arsenal, would have taken that decision.  It is a statement that it would have happened, but you agreed that it never happened?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: No, I do not agree.  What then led to our actions before the 1994 elections?

MR DREYER: I am asking you, this action of complete or total military of more than 150 000 people, did that take place?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: No, that did not take place.

MR DREYER: That is my statement, it did not occur.  Let us go to the next part.   The extent of the terror, it did not take place and it came to light now in this week and once again I ask you, do you agree that it did not - it may have been planned, planning regarding this?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: Yes, Constand Viljoen's, yes.

MR DREYER: But various of the witnesses gave evidence and they referred to the central role that Constand Viljoen would have played in the incitement and the leading of this far right organisations?
	This is the evidence of for example Mr Kloppers, or would you like to deny that?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: No.

MR DREYER: Then it continues and it emphasises that the purpose of this resistance was not to take over the government, but to obtain land and to keep it?
	I would like to, I think Mr Badenhorst, one of the applicants, gave evidence, it is also how he understood it that it is almost like the same manner in which the blacks had homelands, that that was the whole goal, that if there would be a take over and I am talking now specifically about black people, that the objective would then be and if we can then refer to it as a Volkstaat?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: Yes, more or less, in broader terms.

MR DREYER: How does that correlate then, are you saying to me that apart from this plan, it was not integrated with this plan, there was a revolution planned by the AWB that did not coincide with this plan?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: Yes.

MR DREYER: I am asking you the same question sir, if this revolution would then have happened, according to Mr Kloppers, on the 12th of December 1993, because that is the instruction that he had received, then I am asking you can you explain to us why does your evidence begin today, which is close, or your relationship close with Eugene Terreblanche and the Generals in Staff on a daily basis you met them, and it is clear that you have the intelligence that the other people may not have, why do you begin in your evidence that this revolution would not have started on that specific day?  Where does this contradiction come from?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: If you understood how the structures of the AWB worked, if Japie Oelofse said to the men listen, you must start acting, there is a revolution being planned, these people's reaction would have been, what would their reaction have been, they have wives and children, they wouldn't have left everything and just half-heartedly gone in because the chances of arrest was very big.
	In other words, he would not have done it with his whole heart.  But if Japie Oelofse motivated them and if they said it was a country wide revolution and tonight everything starts, then they definitely would have acted differently.  They would not have acted as if they did.

MR DREYER: Mr Myburgh,  I do not want to discuss this in an emotional way, what your sentiments were or were not or what Japie's sentiments were, that is not the purpose of my question.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer, I don't know whether this will help us quite a lot, but I just want to let this witness at this point - he is expressing certain opinions and apparently he is saying that they must have gotten the order, why did they have to do this.
	Why then if you think so, why after they shot these people and immediately they saw the first car arriving, why did they jump into the car and run away?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: Well, obviously they did not want to be arrested.  At that stage the South African Police Services as we knew them, were mostly white.

CHAIRPERSON: And then what happens to the revolution that they were setting upon that evening?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: Our revolution was not aimed at white Policemen.  If white Policemen were in that vehicle, it would have been a shoot-out between white and white, I was not there, but I would have acted in the same way.
	I would not have stayed there and taken the chance to shoot at a white Policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't help us you to cross-examine this witness on his opinions.  I am going to ask you to put questions which will elicit facts, to him and not his opinion.

MR DREYER: As the Court pleases Mr Chairman.  Sir, I put it again to you, I am not interested in your opinion regarding sentiments.  As the Chairperson indicated, it would not further this case.
	My question to you was, that you did not answer was, why was there a contradiction between your version, who had contact with the top structure of the AWB, that on a specific date the revolution would start, in contradiction with the evidence of Mr Kloppers that it would have started on the 12th of December?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: I cannot - I can only speculate on it because I wasn't there.

MR DREYER: The next question is that if Japie Oelofse said this and that, you would have in other words, everything that you say about that, is speculation?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: No sir, it is logic.

MR DREYER: You began to say that if he did give the order and you make certain assumptions?

MR MALAN: Mr Dreyer, let us now not disagree about what is logic or whatever.

MR DREYER: As the Court pleases Mr Chairman. I will make the following statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer, I think, I don't think we should go on along those lines.  The witness was not there when the order was supposed to be given.
	We are not interested in his opinions and please don't ask him, don't invite him to give his opinion, opinion evidence.

MR DREYER: As the Court pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: If he is an expert at all, on anything, you should have been told that he is an expert on whatever, we would then have been obliged to suffer the opinion of an expert, but he must give factual evidence, and please don't invite him to keep on telling us what his opinions are.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, I respectfully take note of that, but obviously it is impossible for me to foresee the ambit of his question as far as it relates to opinion, but I take and I respectfully take note of that.  I will conclude with one last statement.
	Mr Myburgh, I put it to you that everything that you gave evidence on today, rests upon your sentiments and opinion which you had at that stage, and nothing of it rests on factual knowledge of what the real events were.

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: Then why did Japie Oelofse then come to me and boast about an ear?

MR DREYER: As you can remember, it was denied.

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: That is what you deny or is that what your client deny?

MR DREYER: I do not want to disagree with you, I am a legal representative, I put the case before you.  You will just have to answer or comment on the statement.  Is that your comment?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: Yes, it is my comment that he lied.

MR DREYER: I've got no further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DREYER

CHAIRPERSON: How old were you Mr Myburgh, when you committed the offences for which you were convicted?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: 21.

CHAIRPERSON: And when was this?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: 1994.