Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

CORNELIUS PETRUS DE LANGE: Yes, I did, one, I attended one.  It was the one where I was together with Koole, Mogoai, Ellis and de Jongh, we flew down to Port Elizabeth.

MR BOOYENS: Did you go to Cradock?

CORNELIUS PETRUS DE LANGE: As far as I can remember we went to Glen Connor and returned to P.E., I do not know whether it was on the same day that I went to Cradock.

MR BOOYENS: I wonder if you just want to assist us and look in your diary, perhaps we can clear that up.  When were you here.  Do you have the diary with you?

CORNELIUS PETRUS DE LANGE: It's in my car outside the building.

MR BOOYENS: I doubt that I'll finish with you before one so if you can just possibly fetch this after this.  What I'd like you to find out or check in your diary is: (1) - where you here once or twice for an inspection and on the occasion that you were here as well, did you go to Cradock and more specifically to Post Chalmers.

CORNELIUS PETRUS DE LANGE: I will determine that and get back to you.

MR BOOYENS: Of the things that I find rather surprising is that the witness, Mr Koole, alleges time and again that the name Niewoudt has been added incorrectly into this statement, it's not just a single reference, it is time and again or regularly that he says he did not see Niewoudt.  In other words the implication is that you added that name.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I do not think that this completely correct.  Mr Koole - I think Mr Booyens must be more specific, but Mr Koole testified that he referred to Mr Niewoudt in his previous statement as well.

MR BOOYENS: That was not my question, I did not say every time that reference was made to Niewoudt, I said reference is often made to Niewoudt in the statement and if it is necessary I will point it out.
	Reference is often made to Niewoudt where it should either have been Venter or that Niewoudt was not there.  Let us start, page 7 - paragraph 7, the second line from the bottom.  There it says:
"Niewoudt said however that he did not want to become - us to become involved in a shoot-out"
On page 1239 Koole says, right at the top - Mr Chairman, do you want to follow while I'm doing this or is it not necessary?

CHAIRPERSON: I think there are such instances, there are Mr Lamey.

MR BOOYENS: There are several.

CHAIRPERSON: According to my notes, I mean paragraph 8 as well.  I mean if we - where the Niewoudt and Beeslaar, there's something, there's a query there.  According to your client he says only Venter and then again at page 3, I don't know what that paragraph is, it looks like 3 but it can't be three, the third line from the bottom where the word Niewoudt appears he queried that, so I think it's a fair question to say, perhaps not every time but there are a few instances.

MR LAMEY: No, that I'm aware of Mr Chairman.  I understood my learned friend to say in general you know, there's various instances where Mr Niewoudt's name is mentioned which he denied afterwards and I just said you, but he also said, also referred to Mr Niewoudt's name in the previous statement and confirmed also his name with a certain respect after that.
	Yes, I agree that in his evidence before the Committee he also said in certain instances the name of Niewoudt is wrongly stated in that ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: But I thought Mr Booyens was, for now at least, dealing with Exhibit O?

MR LAMEY: But my point is there are also other instances where Mr Koole confirmed that the reference to Niewoudt is still correct in a particular paragraph and sentence.  So we've got a situation that he said: in certain instances the name of Niewoudt with regard to a particular fact is incorrect and in other instances it is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, well, that's something else.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I don't understand the objection quite honestly.  I don't understand the objection, the question was ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think for now we are now dealing - even if he might have testified elsewhere about that, for now we're dealing with Exhibit O I think.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, maybe I can be of assistance.  I've counted quickly the amount of times that happened in the evidence, that he said: "No, Mr Niewoudt was not - was wrongly referred to.  There were five instances in the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: I have no doubt in my mind that it has happened on quite a few occasions.

MR BOOYENS: Mr de Lange, I'm just going to point out to you where Koole says that the name Niewoudt has been inserted incorrectly.  It is on page 2, paragraph 7, second line from the bottom
"Niewoudt does not belong there, it should be Venter"
Paragraph 8, the last line:
"Roelf Venter, Niewoudt and Beeslaar, instructions were given by Roelf Venter, Beeslaar and Niewoudt"
that instructions were not given by Niewoudt and Beeslaar, it was only given by Venter although Niewoudt was present.  
	At the top of page 3, the continuation of paragraph 8, the third line:  the Niewoudt which appears there, he says it's not Niewoudt who did the talking.
	In paragraph 11, it is not Niewoudt's name that belongs here.  
	He says that the contents, the whole content of paragraph 15 is incorrect because the assault which is described there did not take place, so by implication this is also an incorrect reference to Niewoudt.
	Paragraph 21 on page 5, Niewoudt took them to the cells, he says that this is not correct, the only thing that happened the next day is that an unknown man arrived there and brought him breakfast.  There is no story that Niewoudt took people to the cells. 
	I think these are the five cases which I can think of.  I find it extremely coincidental and perhaps you can tell us why there are so many references to Niewoudt in this statement which the witness denies having ever made and in the second place says that this statement is wrong and he has no reason to have any love for Niewoudt but in this statement Niewoudt is implicated more than the witness he ever did, do you have any explanation for this?

CORNELIUS PETRUS DE LANGE: I took Mr Koole's statement and wrote it down as it said, I have no use to implicate anybody, I wrote what Koole told me.

MR BOOYENS: You are part of the team investigating the Motherwell bomb, is that correct?

CORNELIUS PETRUS DE LANGE: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Where Mr Niewoudt was charged?

CORNELIUS PETRUS DE LANGE: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: What I want to suggest to you Mr de Lange is that you know the old saying: "Give a dog a bad name", isn't that what happened here?

CORNELIUS PETRUS DE LANGE: I deny this most strongly.

MR BOOYENS: You see what often happens with these statements is that statements are compiled which implicate people, people are made to sign these things and the moment they get to court and they start saying: "I'm not satisfied with this statement", then they are threatened with perjury and is this not exactly what is happening here?

CORNELIUS PETRUS DE LANGE: That's not what is happening here, I'll keep to the fact that I took his statement and I wrote exactly what he said.

MR BOOYENS: Can you give any reason as to why Mr Koole would lie and say that you did not attest to this statement?

CORNELIUS PETRUS DE LANGE: I can give no reason why he says that.

MR BOOYENS: Can you give any reason as to why on five instances he says that you put Niewoudt's name incorrectly, he said that you put it down incorrectly?

CORNELIUS PETRUS DE LANGE: Where would I have got his name from if he hadn't given it to me?

MR BOOYENS: That's very easy.

CORNELIUS PETRUS DE LANGE: You are suggesting that I was dishonest and I deny that strongly.

MR BOOYENS: I'm not saying that, it's the witness that's suggesting that and he's not my client either.

CORNELIUS PETRUS DE LANGE: ...[No English translation]

MR BOOYENS: As far as I'm concerned he's just a witness but the witness says Mr de Lange that you wrote these things.  I think that I am right if I say that the witness you're dishonest.