Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-11-11

MR MALAN: Yes but there was no message to be sent, it wouldn't have led to a reduction necessarily in bombings, in terms of your responses, I'm referring to your answers and you said that he would never be able to bomb again.  I think those were more or less your words and that was the objective and result?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: Well Mr Chairman, the Chair had asked me why specifically him and that was my answer to that portion of the question.

CHAIRPERSON: But on the evidence you've been giving in respect of Bhila you said you don't know if he took the bomb there, you don't know if he was part of the unit so the military work that you had now say he had proved was merely that he was member of a unit of which we are told there were many members which had committed a bombing.  Why pick on him?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: That's not quite correct, Mr Chairman.  He take the bomb to the Lamontville offices.

CHAIRPERSON: You said a few minutes ago you don't know if he took the bomb there?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: No, that was the Amanzimtoti bomb Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, Amanzimtoti.  So you knew he had taken one bomb?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: Yes I was aware of that.

CHAIRPERSON: And that was all?  And you knew other people had done similar things?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: I knew of other people yes.

MR MALAN: The question still in my mind is, he was killed because he was dangerous and could have or would have continued with his activities or did?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: That is correct, sir.

MR MALAN: He could have been charged if you had knowledge of continuation of activities, is that not so?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: That is so, sir.

MR MALAN: So why did you decide not to charge him?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: It wasn't my decision sir, to charge him or not.

MR MALAN: No, but you agreed with the decision of Taylor that he had to be taken out, that was your evidence?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: Yes.

MR MALAN: Why did you not ask Taylor "should we not charge him?"

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: I can't really answer that, I cannot answer you there.

MR MALAN: Is it not so that there was no indication that he had continued with any activities, that he was simply killed because he was acquitted and if you had evidence that he should have been convicted but you couldn't lead that evidence because you would be exposing informers or witnesses were intimidated or whatever?  Isn't that the real reason?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: No, I wouldn't say he was eliminated merely because he walked away from a court room, I feel that that would be an incorrect thing to say.

MR MALAN: No, no, let us assume then for the moment that he was that dangerous person, with the whole record, his historical record of involvement that you are holding up to us, let's assume that for the moment.  Wasn't that exactly the reason why he was killed?  Because he was acquitted and he had this track record, he should have been convicted?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: He was killed because he was going to continue with his activities.

MR MALAN: You said that you and this was read to you, we also had reliable information that after his release indeed did continue with his activities and you told us under cross-examination that that was what Taylor told you, that he indeed did continue with his activities?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: That's what Taylor told me, yes sir.

MR MALAN: Now on that score, if I take you back to page 42, Bhila bundle, if you could just refer to that?  That's Taylor's application and unfortunately, we have only his statement under oath.  Taylor said
"Bhila was acquitted"
That's 3.3 on page 42.  Taylor says in his application:
"Bhila was acquitted because we had information, although he was acquitted, we had information of a nature which could not be used in evidence."
Do you read that?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: Yes I do sir.

MR MALAN: Then 3.4 he says"
"I realised that Bhila would not stop."
Not "was continuing" - "would not stop"
And 3.5:
"I thereupon requested certain parties for Bhila to be killed."

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Now does this accord with your evidence of Taylor's communication to you?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: I feel it does.

MR MALAN: Didn't you just tell us that Taylor told you that he had to be eliminated because he was indeed active again in terrorist activities, that he did not stop?  I mean this was held up to you, the notes that you referred to and surely as was pointed out, they're simply the notes of your counsel as he drafted them.  He might have made a mistake but it was put to you and you confirmed that specific part, that Taylor indeed told you that he was still active?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: Yes, that's what I was informed Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Why did Taylor not disclose that in his application?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: I have no idea why Taylor did not disclose it sir, I have no idea.

MR MALAN: Don't you think that should have been a crucial part of it as far as Taylor is concerned because otherwise we have to read it as blunt as it stands here "he was acquitted".
We knew he wouldn't stop so we couldn't stop him through a conviction and therefore we would eliminate him?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: It does look like that Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: If you would stay with Taylor's application, that's page 42.  3.6 he says
"I was not present when Bhila was killed."
Now surely he wasn't present in terms of all the evidence here, he was the only one staying behind at the shooting range according to all evidence.

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: Yes, Major Taylor wasn't present when Mr Bhila was killed.

MR MALAN: But he was present at the shooting range when the others left to kill Mr Bhila?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: Mr Taylor - yes when I left.

MR MALAN: He stayed behind?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: He was behind yes.

MR MALAN: And when you returned he was still there and there was a report to him?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: Yes.

MR MALAN: So - but he was the only one staying behind on the evidence of the applicants?  Everybody else and I put that question to you yesterday, everybody else went into the Combi but Taylor stayed behind?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: I have no idea about the other people Mr Chairman, I didn't know the Vlakplaas people down at that stage or they left shortly after, I have no idea.

MR MALAN: But the Vlakplaas people went with you in the Combi, I'm not talking askaris, I'm talking the three members that you were talking about.  Let's talk about the white members.  He was the only white member staying behind?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: Yes to my knowledge he was.

MR MALAN: If you read paragraph 3.6, well if you read his whole affidavit there's not indication at all that he was involved at the shooting range, at the interception, simply that he put out a request and it was complied with.
"I have heard"
he says in 3.6
"That others were involved and that he was killed."
If he was indeed at the shooting range would he have not have said "I have knowledge that they were involved because I sent them, I stayed behind when they went out, I gave instructions for them."?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, I was not with Mr Taylor when he made this affidavit, I have no - I cannot comment on what was going on then.

MR MALAN: Alright.  The day at the shooting range, I still have not the slightest idea of what possibly could have been discussed or talked about in conversation because we have no information as to any topic discussed in the whole of the time that you were present at the shooting range.  Can you recall any discussion, any topic discussed?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, I only arrived late at the shooting range in the first instance so I'm unable to state
...[inaudible]

MR MALAN: ...[inaudible] You only went out to kill him after dark.  You drove in the dark and then that was the general ...[inaudible]

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: So you must have been there for at least three hours at that time of year?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: Correct.