Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-14

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well I definitely don't agree with that because I can't see how I could have shot myself because if one looks at the degrees at which the projectile had penetrated my arm and if one looks at the course between the entry wound and exit wound it's impossible that I could have shot myself because the firearm would have been aimed at myself which is not something I would have done.

MR KOTZE: Mr van Zyl says that he looked at the pistol that had been taken in the robbery after Mr Holder had received it and had later been handed over to Van Zyl.  Van Zyl said that he checked the firearm and it was apparent that Mr Terblanche's pistol had never been cocked or fired that night.

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well I was aware that it had not been fired, I was aware of that but as I said I had the barrel in my left hand and not for a moment did I think that Mr Terblanche had fired any of the shots.

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, but I thought you said just a little earlier that that first shot that went off you assumed it came either from Terblanche or I beg your pardon, who is the other chap?  Who is the other victim?  Swart?  Swart or Holder?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: I was under the impression, Mr Chair, that the first shot had come from Mr Swart the co-guard with Mr Terblanche or from Mr Holder my co-applicant, I was under the impression that the first shot had come from one of them.

MR KOTZE: After the shooting incident did you pick up the firearm of Mr Terblanche?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: I picked it up, yes.

MR KOTZE: And you and Mr Holder then left the guard room without looking for R5 attack rifles?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Now in the guard room they don't have R5 weapons, they don't keep it there.  Now I was under the impression that it was airforce troops guarding it and they were always armed with R5's and 9 mm pistols but when we entered it was quite clear that these two guards weren't armed with R5's.

MR KOTZE: And you then returned with Mr van Zyl's vehicle from Devon to Secunda?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes that is correct.

MR KOTZE: In the car was the weapon given to Mr van Zyl?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR KOTZE: And you were then dropped close to Mr Gerhard van Rensburg's home with the clear impression that you would go there, get assistance and then also report on the event?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes, my intention was to go there for assistance but at that stage it didn't go through my mind that I had to report concerning this operation.  Mr van Rensburg was also not aware of this operation.  He did not give me the instruction.

MR KOTZE: Up to that point you didn't know it and you accepted that Mr van Rensburg would have had knowledge of the operation?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No, I knew that he would not have had any knowledge of the operation, he would have been informed there.
Afterwards I would have informed it if everything had gone successfully.

MR KOTZE: Now did you in fact inform Mr van Rensburg of what happened earlier in the evening?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes I did.

MR KOTZE: And did you also request him or did you get a commitment from Van Rensburg that Van Rensburg would report to Van Schalkwyk concerning the activities of the AWB members?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: I did not do it, if he had done it, it would be on his own accord, his own decision.

MR KOTZE: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOTZE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kotze.  Mr Schalkwyk?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: As it pleases you Chairperson.
	Mr de Meillon, did you leave right-wing politics?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No not at this stage.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Not at all?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you are still clinging to the principles of right-wing politics?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes, the principles I still believe in.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You also don't say that you have any remorse?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes I do have remorse.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you Sir, that in your testimony you have said that you were disappointed that you did not achieve your aims, you did not say that you were disappointed because you took a person's life?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: That was concerning the operation, that was not concerning the taking of a person's life.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, with respect, the applicant has said that he was very sorry for taking a person's life, that is how I heard it.

CHAIRPERSON: But it is so that in answering a question he said that he was disappointed because the operation did not reach it's goal.  He did in fact say that he was feeling very bad about the death of Mr Terblanche but he had indeed referred to his disappointment concerning the operation.  I think that is the point that Mr van Schalkwyk is making.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not activated.
The speaker's microphone is not activated.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that your attorney had asked if you had remorse and you said that you were disappointed that you were not successful in the execution of this act?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Chairperson, could I just confer with my advocate before I answer?

CHAIRPERSON: Unfortunately you may not.  When all the questions have been asked then your advocate will once again have the opportunity to put questions to you and then he will then try and clear any uncertainties but for the moment you will have to answer the questions.

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well I can't remember exactly what my advocate asked me whether I had any remorse concerning the event or not.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: How many weapons did you envisage that your organisation or the AWB would steal?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well, there were two guards.  Mr Holder and Mr van Zyl would have taken the one weapon and I would have taken the other one.  I would have given my weapon to the BWB.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now seen globally in this right-wing organisation, how many weapons did you foresee that you had steal?  A hundred, thousand, how many?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well I didn't really know how many I would have to obtain.  My aim was to get the weapons at places where it would have been the easiest.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir do you think it is justified to shoot a policeman and kill him for one 9 mm pistol?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: No I don't think so.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now the firearms that you had been using were they licensed?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes, my firearm that I used it was licensed.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: For how long were you in service of the South African Defence Force?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: I did a year service.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: When did it start?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: That was in the beginning of 1992.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You were trained in the use of weapons?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You say that if you had known that it would have been a South African Police member you would not have taken the weapon?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: What I said, that I would not have taken the risk to try and get the weapons.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you then say in other words that you don't care to rob a South African policeman of his weapon but that you only saw it as a danger?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well at that stage the South African Police was part of the government against whom the BWB declared war.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that in none of the written work of your organisation there was never anything said about attacking police?

OCHERT ANTONIE DE MEILLON: Well I can say that there was declaration of war and it was clearly put to us as members that there was war declared against the government of the day.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Was it said directly to you to shoot white policemen?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: No, not.