Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-06-12

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We can, yes Mr Kriel?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: Mr Chairperson, I would just like to say that on the 20th of April I wrote this statement because I had death threats of the AWB, my tyres were slashed and for certain people I said keep these things because if I may die, that it can be presented, and that is why I wrote this statement earlier on.

MR MALAN: I would just like to ask a follow up question, did you say that the statement was dated the 20th of April?  You are aware that the first hearing of this application was heard on the 22nd of April, that is two days before the applicants for the first time gave evidence?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: That is correct yes.  As I said, I did receive death threats.

MR MALAN: I would just like to ensure and I would put the question as follows:  Did you not write this statement with the idea to use on the 22nd of April, was that not the primary purpose in order to support the applications?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: I wrote it with the idea that if Mr Terreblanche do not appear or Mr Oelofse do not take responsibility, I will then submit it.  The last time we did not discuss this.

MR MALAN: I did hear you correctly, you said that earlier on but you said now that you wrote it because you received death threats and that I would like to put it to you that as I read it, it is not why you wrote it, you did write it in support of the applicants?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: That is correct.

MR MALAN: That is all that I want to know, thank you.  It is another perspective.

CHAIRPERSON: In the light of the witness' answer by Mr Malan, that he had prepared that statement specifically to come in and support the applicants' application, and then if it is his wish or your wish Mr Prinsloo, that we should accept that statement, then it should be handed in.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.  I will just have to get the original copy.  Do you intend to adjourn now Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, you led the witness.  Obviously you had a copy of that statement with you.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And we, before we have it formally admitted, earlier on I asked you what the purpose was because I had thought that the purpose was to meet possible criticism that the witness said certain things to us which he did not mention to you, which purpose could have been served if you only confirmed that.
	No, in fact the witness did mention those things even earlier on, although he did not mention them, or might not have mentioned them in chief, but he did mention them to me earlier on.  You see on the other hand, well really at the end of the day, you know what the contents is.  If you think it will be fair to the witness to accept that statement and not open a can of worms, I think you should think seriously about that.   We don't know what the contents is, but we don't want to have a situation where we should open a can of worms and whereas the witness must then be re-cross-examined all over again.
	It will have to be done if it has to be done, but I think you will obviously have to give good thoughts to that.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the witness did testify as to when this document was drafted by him and various other aspects which emanated from cross-examination and questions by the Committee itself, which he answered.
	If it is not going to serve any other purpose Mr Chairman, then it would serve no purpose to hand it in.  The document is available, that is what I am saying, particularly with regards to, the one particular aspect which he was asked in cross-examination which wasn't mentioned in evidence in chief, at that stage, I was then prepared to hand over the document, being a document which he compiled himself, which I did use during consultation, it wasn't an aspect which I led in the evidence in chief, it was really an oversight on my part.
	I am not trying to, at that stage, the impression was created that it wasn't said to me, but I want to make it clear to the Committee that it was done by means of a document, which he drafted.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you wanted to rebut the allegation of recent fabrication, I suppose?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: But I thought you would identify the problem  and say well as far as this aspect is concerned, it is not recent fabrication because he told me, it stands in the statement.  It can't be too many things, I think it is one or two things?  If you still remember it.

MR PRINSLOO: Well, the way my learned friend, Mr Dreyer put it to the witness, most of the questions originated, most of the facts originated from cross-examination and not from evidence in chief.  That is the way I understood him, although he did not elaborate what it really meant.  At this stage I don't know Mr Chairman, as to what Mr Dreyer was referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, are you for your part, are you satisfied, for your part, are you satisfied that the witness has substantially put across to us what is in that statement?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, at some point we indicated that we would admit, this shows how a little bit undecided we are on that aspect, but I think that we will hold this aspect over and unless, well if you come back again to press that we should admit it, we would give serious thought to accept that statement, but I think that if it is just to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication in respect of one such and such an allegation, that can only be - it can be resolved by simply saying to us no, those things are contained in the witness' statement.  Then we will accept that.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect I think the witness with further questions by the Committee, subsequent to me tendering the statement to you, have clarified it properly saying the document was drafted by him on the 20th of April 1998, prior to the Committee starting with the application of these applicants, and that the statement was compiled by himself and I think that removed that particular problem, as far as I am concerned at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Van der Walt, are you just to let us know what to expect when we come back at two o'clock.

MS VAN DER WALT: I will have to call the witness, it will not be a long evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the witness here?

MS VAN DER WALT: The witness is here, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, then we will adjourn until two o'clock.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: You are excused Mr Kriel.

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED

MS VAN DER WALT: The next witness I am calling on behalf of the applicants is Abraham Myburgh.

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: (confirmed)

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Myburgh, you were found guilty of the bomb explosions in Johannesburg in Germiston and other towns just before the elections in 1994, is that correct?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you are currently serving your prison sentence?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: That is correct yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Myburgh, you were a member of the AWB and you were also a member of the Ystergarde, is that correct?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: Yes, that is.

MS VAN DER WALT: Your relationship at that stage with Eugene Terreblanche, how was that?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: It was very confidential, I was a confidant of him.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you when it was known, or as it was known under the AWB Headquarters, you served at the Headquarters in Ventersdorp, is it also correct that you travelled with Eugene Terreblanche throughout the country and was his bodyguard?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: That is correct, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you receive training during your period as a member of the Ystergarde?

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: That is correct yes.