Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-10-03

MR FORD: When did your trial, the trial in which you were convicted and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, when did that commence, Mr Du Toit?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: During the period February to November 1995 to July 1996.

MR FORD: Judgment was handed down on the 14th of June 1996, is that right?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Correct.

MR FORD: Did you testify in that trial?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Yes, indeed.

MR FORD: And you denied your involvement in this matter?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Correct.

MR FORD: And you then presumably instructed your legal representatives to note an appeal on your behalf?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Correct.

MR FORD: That appeal is still pending?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Correct.

MR FORD: When did you decide to apply for amnesty, Mr Du Toit?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Beginning of December 1996.

MR FORD: Why didn't you decide to apply, if you were genuinely regretful, if you genuinely wished to make amends for what you had done, the facility was available to apply for amnesty before then, why did you wait so long before you applied for amnesty?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: At the time of our arrest, this process or procedure had not yet been thought through properly and we hadn't yet built up any trust, confidence in the process, and that's why we decided not to deal with it on that basis.

MR FORD: Would it be unfair to say, Mr Du Toit, that your decision to apply for amnesty only came some time after it was clear that you had been convicted and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, and if one has regard to the judgment, I would suggest to you it is unlikely that you will be acquitted on appeal.

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: I don't know what ...

MR FORD: I'm sorry, you don't understand the question?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: No.

MR FORD: I will repeat it.

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Please do.

MR FORD: Yes.  You applied for amnesty only after it was clear to you that you had been convicted and sentenced. Correct?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Correct.

MR FORD: In that trial you lied, you said that you had not been involved. That's correct?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Correct.

MR FORD: You noted an appeal, you have agreed to that, and what I am suggesting to you, and you are not a "regsgeleerde" as they say, so you don't have to comment if you don't wish to, that if one has regard to the judgment, there is not much chance of you succeeding on appeal.

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: On the basis upon which we should have or would have conducted the appeal, we had no other reason at that stage or other options. We had to put the process in motion to get to this point.

MR FORD: Isn't this just a last-ditch attempt to avoid being in prison for 15 years, Mr Du Toit?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: That might be.

MR FORD: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR FORD

CHAIRPERSON: It is a choice the law gives him, Mr Ford.

MR FORD: That is so.  That is so, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: No, thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Du Toit, the section in which you worked, was that a part of the security police, the security branch?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: It was the technical section within the security police?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Yes, it was a section of the security branch.

ADV POTGIETER: It was a section of the security branch.

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you ever have any doubts as to whether the mission or authorisation had been given from up high for this operation?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: I never had any such doubts.

ADV POTGIETER: Who was your immediate superior at that stage?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: The chiefs varied at the time. I think it could have been Brig Hellberg.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you inform him of this incident?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: No.

ADV POTGIETER: Or this request to carry out an order?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: No.

ADV POTGIETER: Why not?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: I can't remember the detail exactly.  The 14th of December is a time when a lot of people are on leave and even if he had been there, I wouldn't necessarily have gone to him with this request.

ADV POTGIETER: Why not?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: It was a covert operation which was carried out on a one-to-one basis and on a need-to-know basis, and only people who were actively involved would have known about it.

ADV POTGIETER: But you had to use one of the members of this section in the carrying out of this operation and in regard to certain devices and things which belonged to this unit, you had to use these in the carrying out of the operation.

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Correct.

ADV POTGIETER: Didn't you require permission for that?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: I was a sub-commander of the unit and I did have some leeway to act, and to use equipment of that kind.  I didn't need specific permission to use that.

ADV POTGIETER: So you could just take whatever you liked and use members and launch an operation somewhere else, in another division?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: No, I don't think it was that simple. All I am trying to say is that to put the matter in perspective, the technical section wasn't office-bound.  We functioned on a national basis, and we had a multiplicity of tasks. In other words, there was a great interaction of people, and movement of people in and out of the office, and it wouldn't have been strange if people weren't in the office.  There was a constant interchange of people.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you tell your chief, your superior, that you would be absent from the office and that you were taking Mr Kok with you?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: No, I didn't.

ADV POTGIETER: Why not?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: I saw fit to limit the information and not to share it with just everybody.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you sneak out of the office?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: No, I wouldn't describe it as sneaking out. We left there during normal office hours. We just weren't in the office the next day.

ADV POTGIETER: But the people who worked with you?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: No.

ADV POTGIETER: That you weren't going to be there?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: No.

ADV POTGIETER: Why not? How did it come about that they didn't know that you were going to be absent?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Well, the next day I simply wasn't present at the office and I think it would have been unwise to publicise an operation of such great sensitivity, so we limited the information to the members directly involved.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you try to be absent from the office in an inconspicuous way and then sneak back quietly?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: I wouldn't describe it as going back on the quiet. We travelled a lot and it wouldn't have raised many eyebrows if we weren't in the office on a particular day.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, but you wanted to take part in this operation in a totally inconspicuous way.

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Why?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: Well, an operation of this nature is something which one can't carry out in secret, if a lot of people know about it, I tried to limit the number of people that knew.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, but what about your superior?  Why was it necessary to be absent from the office in an inconspicuous way, so that even your superior wouldn't know about it?

WYBRANDT ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: We travelled round a lot, we were often absence from the office.