Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-27

MR MOERANE: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman, that is correct.  The statement of Mr Hayes was completed in Pietermaritzburg on the 13th December, I beg your pardon.
The statement of Mr Deetlefs was completed in Delmas on the same day.

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Tell me, how did it come about that all of you were at Delmas, those that I've mentioned and those that you have confirmed, were at Delmas on the same day?

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: We were consulting with our Advocates, person to person, in Delmas.  I'd already left the force.  Somebody took me there.  I cannot recall who the person was that took me there.

MR MOERANE: When did you leave the force?

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: 1992.

MR MOERANE: I see.  As far as the attesting of the affidavit that you made on the 13th December 1996 is concerned, how did that come about?

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: It took place in Delmas in Mr Prinsloo's offices.

MR MOERANE: And did you know that the affidavit that you made was in identical words with that made by the other people I have mentioned?  Pienaar, Hayes, Barnard, Theron and others too who were not there, Rorich and Deetlefs.

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: I haven't read any one of the statements made by any of the other persons.

MR PRINSLOO: That's not quite correct that it's identical words.  If you look for instance at page 271 in the fifth paragraph,
"The left passenger door swung open and a person jumped out with an AK47 and opened fire"

CHAIRPERSON: Compared with?

MR PRINSLOO: Or am I mistaken about that?

CHAIRPERSON: Compared with what, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: I'm sorry, I made a mistake there, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's also a question for argument.

MR MOERANE: In any event it's exactly the same, page 117, identical and it's the same paragraph.  They all consist of six paragraphs and each paragraph is exactly the same.  The only difference, as I've pointed out, are the names.  Obviously the person can't say that so-and-so, for instance you couldn't say van Zweel, you say myself, and then you mention the others.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, is the suggestion, with respect, that these statements ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We seem to go through this with each and every witness.  I think we can leave it for argument.  We know, it's been pointed out that they are the same, except for that one aspect which is different.  We know that they were taken all at Delmas on the same day.  I think it's fair that you ask how it happened that they got there the same day, but I think we can deal with this in argument, if you want to raise it in argument.

MR MOERANE: That is so, I will raise it in argument, but I think in fairness, I have to put it to each of the witnesses, particularly, Mr Chairman, in the light of the statements that were prepared for the inquest, I do not want to be accused of not having put it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm not disallowing the questions, I'm just saying that each time we get the objections and there's the same interjections, we're just losing time.

MS VAN DER WALT: I beg your pardon, these are my clients who are also being implicated.  This is my greatest problem.  I know it is not my client and it is not my turn to speak, but as a result of the insinuations which Mr Moerane is making, especially with regard to what he has just said, that the statements were all taken by Mr Pienaar for the post mortem inquest, Mr Moerane is now alleging that the legal representatives, as both witnesses have just given evidence, the incident was set out to indicate that there was dishonesty on behalf of the legal representatives and I would like to object to that because the same sort of point has been put to the Committee before and his Honourable Justice Wilson has stated beforehand that everybody knows how legal representatives compile statements.  We have technology available to us in the form of a computer and if the form of the document is universal, why should that be a problem?  If there is a measure of dishonesty, then Mr Moerane must put it as such.  I request that this be the case.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know what Mr Moerane is going to argue, but I must say that this form of application when there are several applicants and there is very similar wording, is very common, not only with regard to Security Force personnel but with regard to other applicants as well.  I've come across it quite often that there's the same wording used, the same political motivation keeps coming over and over again in different applications from different people.  But I don't know what the point Mr Moerane is going to be arguing and I don't know if there is any insinuation that the legal practitioners were part of a conspiracy to make the same story, I don't know.

MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, anyone who has been present here will know that I have made no insinuations against the legal representatives.  I am concerned with the applicants themselves and their credibility.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we have wasted quite a lot of time on this point about this.  If we can move on now.

MR MALAN: Mr Moerane, with your permission.  May I just determine from you, Mr van Zweel, when you made your application did Mr Pienaar or anybody else contact you to tell you about everybody who was involved in this matter and who had to apply for amnesty?

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: I had already left the force, I cannot recall.  I think that a person from Ermelo, if I recall correctly, a Maj Marais, took me to Delmas in order to make my statement, but I am not certain.

MR MALAN: You cannot recall that Mr Pienaar contacted you or Mr Deetlefs?

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: No, I did not travel with them.

MR MALAN: And this Mr Marais, or whatever his name was, did he simply get to you himself and tell you to apply for amnesty for this incident?

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: Yes, he told me that the Generals had decided, or that this was the decision that came from Head Office, I cannot recall exactly, that we should apply for amnesty and all of us should go to Delmas.

MR MALAN: And then you made a statement to your legal representatives there?

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that's correct.

MR MALAN: And you then signed it on a different day?

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: No, it was signed on that day.

MR MALAN: On the very same day that you made the statement?

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR MOERANE: Thank you, I am indebted, Mr Malan.  So in short, Mr van Zweel, you were requested to make an application?

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: And you came up to Delmas?

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: You had this consultation and you signed the affidavit and you went back?

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Yes.  Now, let's come to the incident itself.  Do you recall what you were told when you were invited by Mr Deetlefs to come and join him, to come to Piet Retief?  What did he say to you?

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: He picked me up at Ermelo and I went with him to Piet Retief.  In the office I was present for a while when the matter was discussed and from there we went to the scene.

MR MALAN: Mr van Zweel, the question is, can you recall what Mr Deetlefs said to you before he picked you up and why he came to pick you up, the reason why he came to pick you up.

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: He said we were going to Piet Retief.  He said that there were people infiltrating from Swaziland and that we had to go and assist.

MR MOERANE: Yes, and when you got to Piet Retief there was a briefing session, not so?

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: What was said to you about the operation?  What was going to happen?