MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman the very following one, the killingof a policeman and his wife in Hammanskraal, the same applies,it has been complied with. Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: Is this compliance notification to boththe victims and to all interested parties?
MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee at thismoment, and as far as the three are concerned compliance willmean notification to the victims and their legal representatives. We did not form those affected in the application.
JUDGE WILSON: But doesn't the Act require that, that'sthe point raised yesterday?
MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman the Act requires that, but giventhe time constraints Mr Chairman that I could not do between yesterdayand today, because I had to make sure that the victims of theirlegal right and legal representation which has been done, butI did not have the time to do the rest Mr Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: Perhaps by the time we reach these applicationswe may be able to have complied with those requirements.
MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman we may be able to do that by then.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Mpshe I did not understand you, whenwere the requirements complied with? By complying with the requirementsI assume you mean serving them with the necessary notice, whenwas this?
MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman this was done yesterday. As I havealready indicated the time constraints to which I was subjected,I had to depend entirely on the Investigating
1A Officers/...
115
Officers who were doing the job right around the clock includingeven yesterday, but they informed me later while the session wason that the people that I said there was no compliance are alreadyhere and they introduced them to me. They were present yesterday. But in the morning I was not aware thereof. They could have donethis over the weekend. JUDGE NGOEPE: Do you have anyindication from them what their attitude is towards the application?
MR MPSHE: That is so. I spoke to the victims, or ...(indistinct)victims their attitude is opposing the applications and they havetheir legal representatives with them.
JUDGE NGOEPE: In all these three instances that you havementioned?
MR MPSHE: In the Hammanskraal one.
JUDGE NGOEPE: There is a legal representative present?
MR MPSHE: There is a legal representative, Mr Brian Curren. In the Nyalunga one I explained to them yesterday they said thereis none and they don't need any. And the Committee can confirmthat as soon as they take the stand. In the killing of Joe Tselethe same applies, the six children were here, I explained to them,and they said they don't need any legal representation.
JUDGE NGOEPE: That is number 8?
MR MPSHE: That is number 2 from the top, the killing ofJoe, it's spelt - it's supposed to read Joe Tsele.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Oh I see. Thank you.
MR MPSHE: The policeman I am sorry in Hammanskraal, theyhave a legal representative.
ADV DE JAGER: Are they satisfied that they had ampletime to prepare and consider their position?
1A MR MPSHE: /...
116
MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman I did not get into that one becauseyesterday I made available copies of the relevant events to themin the afternoon as agreed between me and them and they did notindicate to me that they still need time or that they are notsatisfied. Perhaps if they are not they will have to state itas soon as they take the stand for cross-examination purposes,but I did not ask them as to that.
CHAIRMAN: Yes may we proceed.
MR MPSHE: Further Mr Chairman the last thing I want tomention is that in terms of this schedule the hearings are dividedinto two, the hearing in Johannesburg as well as the hearing inPretoria. May I just make it known to the honourable membersof the Committee that we shall not be sitting in Pretoria dueto lack of venue as indicated to me by the TRC regional office. All matters will be dealt with in Johannesburg, at this hearing. Thank you.
JUDGE NGOEPE: In Joburg at which venue, do you have asuitable venue in Joburg.
MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman I am looking around for it all invain. Unfortunately Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee I amnot responsible for arrangement of the venues but the logisticoffice in Joburg was responsible for this type of a venue andwhen I indicated to them that can't we have something else andthey said this is all they have, and I have to make do with whatthey've got.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mpshe has the changed of venue been explainedto the victims?
MR MPSHE: Yes Madam.
JUDGE WILSON: That is the victims who were notified thatthe hearing was going to be next week in Pretoria, have they beennotified already that it will be here?
1A MR MPSHE:/...
117
MR MPSHE: All of them have been notified.
JUDGE WILSON: And do I understand you to say that youwere told, and I know it's not your responsibility, this was theonly venue available in Johannesburg?
MR MPSHE: Indeed so, that is the information given tome.
JUDGE WILSON: And that there is not a single venue availablein Pretoria, including the universities and other such places?
MR MPSHE: That is what was conveyed to me by the logisticofficer as well as the manager of the office, Mr Patrick Kelly.
ADV DE JAGER: Pretoria seems to be overcrowded.
MR MPSHE: It seems so.
CHAIRMAN: Alright. Let us proceed with the hearing.
MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman I think that is all. I will handover to my colleague.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Before we proceedMr Chairman I would just like to hand up copies of the documentsI promised which I will have available this morning. The documentsare firstly the telephone list and then the article to which Irefer to during cross-examination. Mr Chairman it is possiblethat reference might later be made to the telephone lists specifically. It sets out quite clearly the structure of the Northern TransvaalSecurity Branch.
CHAIRMAN: These telephone lists will be handed in asExhibit C.
EXHIBIT C HANDED IN - TELEPHONE LISTS
MR DU PLESSIS: As the Court pleases.
CHAIRMAN: And the article in the journal will be ExhibitD.
1A EXHIBIT/...
118 BRIG CRONJE
EXHIBIT D HANDED IN - ARTICLE IN JOURNAL
MR DU PLESSIS: As the Court pleases. Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman if the Committee agrees with the procedure that mylearned friend and I have agreed upon we will now go ahead withcalling Brigadier Cronje with the purpose of giving certain backgroundevidence. The purpose of this evidence Mr Chairman would be thatI don't have to lead this kind of evidence in respect of eachof the five applicants. Some of the evidence overlaps and I don'twant to burden the Committee with the extra evidence. So I willonly lead Brigadier Cronje on the general background and thenI am informed by my learned friend that we will then deal withColonel Venter's application and specifically with the Pepco 3incident. But firstly I beg leave to call Brigadier Cronje.
BRIGADIER CRONJE: (sworn states)
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis before you start do I understandit correctly you will not lead the evidence indicated in the scheduleas schedule 4, 6, 3, 5, 8 and 7?
MR DU PLESSIS: Correct.
ADV DE JAGER: You are not leading that evidence?
MR DU PLESSIS: No the evidence which I am now going tolead will deal with the general background which is set out inBrigadier Cronje's application and I will start on page 2 andtake it up to the first schedule, in other words page 29, thatoverlaps with some of the other applicants' evidence so it willnot deal with specific events. My learned friend told me thathe plans in respect of Brigadier Cronje's specific evidence toadduce that right at the end. I don't quite understand why thatshould be so but we don't
1A have/...
119 BRIG CRONJE
have a real problem with that procedure. May I continue? Thankyou.
Brigadier Cronje could you start on page 2 of your applicationplease. I would like you to comment on your involvement in anypolitical party during the period that you were a security policeman.
BRIG CRONJE: Chairperson I was not a member of any politicalorganisation. I was a supporter of the National Party until 1994. Since the 1994 elections I am no longer a supporter of the NationalParty.
MR DU PLESSIS: Could you then turn to page 3. I wouldlike you to give a short explanation of your career so that therecan be a general idea of how your career progressed. BRIG CRONJE: I joined the South African Police on 1 January 1956, six monthstraining, afterwards transferred to uniform branch in Durban forone year, Overpoort station and then transferred to Ermelo forabout a year. Then I underwent a detective course in Pretoriaand then transferred to Springs. There I was also promoted inSprings. I was then transferred to Brakpan as divisional chiefof the detectives. I then passed my officer's course and I wasthen promoted to lieutenant. I was transferred to the safetybranch in Johannesburg first Gray? then John Vorster Square. Three months order duty in the Caprivi. Two years later transferredto Umtata as a captain. I was second in command of the divisionsecurity branch in Transkei. Two years service in Rhodesia afterthat. I was then transferred to the John Vorster Square afterthe independence of the Transkei. I was stationed for three monthsat John Vorster Square. After that I was transferred to EastRand Springs where I was second in command of the
1A security/...
120 BRIG CRONJE
security branch as a major then promoted to lieutenant coloneland transferred to Headquarters. I was commanding officer ofVlakplaas under Brigadier Schoon from 1983 to '85. I was thentransferred as divisional commander to Northern Transvaal, Pretoriauntil June 1987. Then I underwent a heart by-pass operation andwas declared unfit. MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier Cronjethis general background which you have given us and which youset out in your application covers certain aspects which are notrelevant to the acts committed by yourself but they serve as ageneral background which could be important. I am now going todeal with these incidents in the order in which they appear inthe application. Page 6, the first aspect I would like you tofocus on and to comment is the issue of your recollection of thisapplication.
BRIG CRONJE: Unfortunately this is subject to lapse oftime. I don't have all the particulars regarding each and everyincident, I only have a vague memory. In certain cases I can'tremember it at all and I would like the question of whether Imade full disclosure to be considered in the light of this, becausemy memory could be defective in certain cases and if certain factsare omitted it's for no other reason that I simply cannot rememberwhat exactly happened.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you. If you turn to page 7 I wouldlike you to tell the Committee, we heard General van der Merwe'sevidence yesterday, which is of a more objective nature from theperspective of the Commissioner of Police and of General van derMerwe's perspective regarding the struggle in which the SAP wasinvolved, what I would like you to do, I want to make it veryclear that you are also
1A doing/...
121 BRIG CRONJE
doing this on behalf of the other applicants before the Committee. They were all, to some extent, they all served under you to someextent, I'd like you to sketch to the Committee from your subjectiveperspective how the development of the struggle of the South AfricanGovernment against the liberation organisations developed.
BRIG CRONJE: Chairperson during the Rhodesian war I performedtwo years service in Rhodesia. The South African Government decidedthat the South African Police had to be used in support of theRhodesian Defence Force and Police.
ADV DE JAGER: Brigadier when was this, the two-year period?
BRIG CRONJE: This was during - I can't remember the dates.
MR DU PLESSIS: Chairperson I may mention here that duringthe preparation of this application Brigadier Cronje's memorywas a bit vague as far as certain events which took place a longtime ago are concerned, so in some instances the dates have notbeen filled in because we weren't able to determine the exactdate and we couldn't obtain his file.
BRIG CRONJE: I may also just mention that I lived inRhodesia until the withdrawal of South African troops.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis why I am asking this is thatit may become important to determine who had perhaps given theorders during that period and who the responsible person or personswere.
MR DU PLESSIS: I understand that. From the early 1980'sonwards there is no problem as far as time periods are concerned. It's actually just the period before that that we have a bitof a problem with. There are no applications for amnesty as faras that period is concerned except for one incident concerningSwapo. Brigadier Cronje as far as
1A I/...
122 BRIG CRONJE
I am aware you were involved in the Rhodesian war towards theend, in other words the late 1970's, the end of the period?
BRIG CRONJE: That's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Could you continue.
BRIG CRONJE: The South African Police became involvedin the 70's in the guerilla war and counter-insurgency operationswhich did not involve normal functions of policing. The factthat the South African Police was used in such a way made quitea difference in the training techniques. The police had to beable to also combat guerillas and take part in a military war. This included all elements of combat, guerilla warfare and counter-insurgencyactivities. It also included training to kill, self-defence andmilitary tactics. It also included training relating to interrogationof terrorists and planning of military operations.
The ANC/SACP alliance during the 1970's further started a full-scaleguerilla war against the Republic of South Africa. The populationwere indoctrinated to believe that there was a full-scale waragainst the Republic of South Africa. The way in which the guerillawar developed showed that this was a correct view of the situation. The ANC/SACP alliance was supported by the Eastern block countriesand specifically the USSR.
MR CURREN: My apologies for the interruption Mr Chairman. We don't all have the benefit of a copy of the statement whichis being read. Without the copy I must say I am finding it difficultto follow everything. If I could just ask the witness to reada little bit more slowly it would really help. Thank you.
1A CHAIRMAN:/...
123 BRIG CRONJE
CHAIRMAN: I think that for the purpose of the Interpretersas well you should give them a little time so that they can catchup with what you are reading, please.
MR DU PLESSIS: I beg your pardon.
JUDGE WILSON: Have you a spare copy of the statementbecause I understand there is photostatting equipment availablehere and if we could have another copy of it we can get it photostattedand then made available to counsel.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman just give me a minute I amtrying to locate ...(intervention)
CHAIRMAN: Nevertheless I think that when you do readkindly read sufficiently slowly to enable the translators to catchup so that people at the back who don't understand Afrikaans mayfollow.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Mpshe I see that the legal representativesare writing on their laps, there is no table available. Mr Currenis trying to make notes and he's doing it on his lap. I reallythink that this is not the way in which we should proceed withthis trial.
MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee a commenthas already been made by an honourable members of the Committeeabout this venue. Mr Chairman if I have to make a table availablefor everybody it means this table will go right down towards thedoor and that is what I was trying to avoid. Mr Chairman I havearranged this with the legal representatives that when it comesto cross-examination they will take the table. But if it is thefeeling of the Committee I will ask that we adjourn for a whileand then I can fit in other tables, for all lawyers to be on tables.
CHAIRMAN: It does seem that this hall has its limitations
1A and/...
124 BRIG CRONJE
and it may be a bit awkward and difficult for attorneys and counselin this matter here. Unfortunately we will all just have to dothe best we can. We have heard that there are limitations andI don't think that Mr Mpshe himself can do very much. Maybe hewould be able to push a wall or two but I don't think he can domuch more than that. So let's just see how far we can go in thedifficult circumstances in which we find ourselves. So pleasebear with us.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr du Plessis we have prepared guidelineswhich govern proceedings, the way that this Committee runs itsproceedings, I don't know whether you have had a copy thereof?
MR DU PLESSIS: I have a copy yes.
JUDGE NGOEPE: One of the provisions is that any partywanting to make use of documents will ensure that all other interestedparties receive all copies of such documents as that particularparty wants to use, and I think it may be useful to try and keepto that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman I wasn't under the impressionthat that provision included copies of the applications to everyinterested party. Nobody approached us yesterday except one legalrepresentative approached us yesterday for copies of the applications. I am just trying to locate my copy of the guidelines. So ifthere are requests for copies of the applications then obviouslywe will endeavour to do so. We haven't had any requests for copies.
JUDGE NGOEPE: I am talking about documents which havebeen - we are now at Exhibit D aren't we?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes.
JUDGE NGOEPE: So there have been some documents, I amnot
1A talking/...
125 BRIG CRONJE
talking about the application.
MR DU PLESSIS: Oh I beg your pardon.
JUDGE NGOEPE: I am talking about the documents.
MR DU PLESSIS: I thought you were referring to the applications.
JUDGE NGOEPE: No. The guidelines do not refer themselvesto copies of them.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes I will gladly make available copiesof any documents to anybody who is interested and want extra copies. I have got extra copies of documents available, of the exhibits. So anybody, Mr Curren if you want copies of any of the exhibitsplease just ask me. Mr Chairman I beg your pardon I think everybodyin that row wanted copies and one obviously doesn't know how manypeople want copies. I have got one or two extra copies of theseexhibits. If people want copies of the exhibits there are extracopies available.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr du Plessis is it possible to make availablesufficient copies. These are representatives who would like tohave such copies if you know how many such legal representativesare who want such copies?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.
MS KHAMPEPE: And to have these copies available immediatelyafter lunch, if it would be to your convenience.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman I must say that thesedocuments were handed up yesterday and if anybody asked me yesterdayfor copies I would have gladly made the copies last night. Ifany legal representatives want copies of any documents handedin today or documents handed in yesterday please feel free toapproach me then I know how many copies 1A I/...
126 BRIG CRONJE
I must have available and then I will have copies available foreverybody who wants copies. If you approach me and say to methat you want a copy of every document every time I hand in adocument please tell me then I will make available such documents.
MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman for the sake of the smooth runningof the proceedings may I apply that we be granted a short adjournmentfor myself and Mr ...(indistinct) to identify who wants what,make extra copies and keep them here, otherwise Mr Chairman weare going to have instances where people will be standing up askingfor this and this interrupting the proceedings. Can we be affordedsome short adjournment.
CHAIRMAN: Very well we will take a short adjournmentto enable you to smooth things out.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
127
ON RESUMPTION
MR MPSHE: ...put on record as well as the incidents theyare representing. This has been arranged with them.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, not only the incidents but more particularlythe clients they represent, isn't it?
MR MPSHE: That is so Mr Chairman, they will be able todo that.
MS MOLEMA: My name is Kitibona Molema. I am representingthe Robeiro family and relevant matters to them.
MR CURREN: Mr Chairman my name is Brian Curren from thefirm Bell, Dewar and Hall. Together with Mr van den Berg whois sitting next to me and four other attorneys we are representing,and I'm not going to give you all the names because I don't haveall the names in front of me at the moment, we didn't expect thatwe would be asked to give all the names. I am going to give theincidents and we are acting for all the people involved in thoseincidents. We have a number of written instructions already butwe are trying to get in touch with some of the people who haven'tyet apparently been informed and haven't arrived yet. But thematters in which we are representing clients are the Zero handgrenadeincident, the families relating to that incident. The Duduzamatter which is the Nietverdiend matter. Oh the Duduza is theZero handgrenade. And then behalf of Makupe Maka and ...(intervention)
CHAIRMAN: Just please pause, I think you have told meit was Nietverdiend is that not so?
MR CURREN: Yes, Nietverdiend.
CHAIRMAN: And so first of all you've got the Zero handgrenadematter, then the Nietverdiend.
MR CURREN: Yes.
1A CHAIRMAN:/...
128
CHAIRMAN: And then?
MR CURREN: And then on behalf of the families of Mkupa,Maka and Sofola, as well as the families of the Kwandebele 9. The two people who are described as policemen and wife from Hammanskraalwhich is Richard and Irene Mutasi. And finally Scheepers Marudi.
CHAIRMAN: Are you not able to give us the names of thelegal representatives who are with you?
MR CURREN: Yes I am.
CHAIRMAN: Who are they?
MR CURREN: Clinton McAslin. Gregory Nott. Mpuleng Pooe.Jane Evans. That is the team that will be representing that groupof people. We are coordinating as a team, some people are notgoing to be here all the time they are going to be a lot of doingthe taking of statements and preparation and research work. Thankyou.
MS MOLEMA: If I may add something also, I am appearingtogether with Mr Cyril Marolo in this matter.
MR MAROLO: My name is Cyril Marolo from C O Marolo andPartners. We are appearing for the Robeiro double murder andI am appearing with my partner Kitibone Molema who has alreadysubmitted her name. I also wish to mention that Brian Currenwill also be assisting again in this matter of Robeiro.
CHAIRMAN: Are you mainly the Robeiro matter Mr Marolo?
MR MAROLO: Yes.
MR NYOKA: Thank you. I am Mpumelelo Nyoka. I am practisingon my own from Port Elizabeth.
...DE HARTEL: I represent the firm Heggie Hartel andAssociates of Port Elizabeth. I represent Mrs Numpelelo BenedictaGudeloze in relation to the Pepco 3 matter.
1A MR MEINTJIES:/...
129
MR MEINTJIES: If it pleases the Committee I am Roelf Meintjiesfrom the firm Meintjies and Hoegh from Pretoria North. I am appearingon behalf of Mr J J H van Jaarsveldt, identified as Captain vanJaarsveldt and mentioned in this proceedings. It refers to theincident of Piet Ntuli as well as any other matter where the gentlemanis identified in these proceedings. This is apart from the PietNtuli matter. It also refers to any other incidents with regardto which my client has been identified in the testimony beforethe Committee and is implicated in this testimony. I must putit on record that my client is a State witness in the intendedcriminal case. Thank you Chair.
MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman another legal representative isnot present here today, that is Advocate T Botha from the PretoriaBar representing the Ntuli family. He was here with us yesterdayMr Chairman. That is all.
JUDGE WILSON: Is that the killing of Piet Ntuli?
MR MPSHE: That is so. Advocate Botha.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I would like in response tothis, I would like to raise one possible problem which I would like to deal with now instead of when it arises. Mr RoelfMeintjies has placed on record that he appears on behalf of Captain van Jaarsveldt who is a State witness, he has indicatedto me that he intends, when his client is implicated, he intendsto stand up and put his client's version if it in fact differsfrom the evidence given. Now as I read
the Act, and specifically section 30(2) it says that "Duringany hearing before the Commission, if any person is implicatedin a manner which may be to his or her detriment, the Commissionshall, if
1B such/...
130
such person is available afford him or her an opportunity tosubmit representations to the Commission within a specified timewith regard to the matter...."
I read that as after the hearing. And then
"....under consideration, or to give evidence at the hearingof the Commission".
I want to place on record here that we do not read the Act asallowing a legal representative on behalf of a person implicatedin evidence simply to stand up and to state his or her client'sversion without that person being able to testify and withoutme being afforded the opportunity to cross-examine that specificwitness.
If Captain van Jaarsveldt is a State witness he would clearlybe affected by the application I made yesterday pertaining tothe State witnesses and our attitude is that either he must testifyin these proceedings if he's implicated or otherwise his legalrepresentative cannot simply stand up and put his version withouthim testifying. I thought it convenient to raise this now sothat we can deal with this matter perhaps now or in any otherway that you deem fit.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Meintjies is your client not available?
MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman my client is available, he isin this room.
CHAIRMAN: And is there any reason why he won't give evidence?
MR MEINTJIES: My client has got no reasons not to giveevidence. The State has, however, opposed the application bythe applicants and we have already made our decision clear thatwe do accept the decision of this Commission on
1B the/...
131
the question whether the State witnesses should give evidencebefore the Commission or not. Thank you.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr du Plessis that section gives the personimplicated the opportunity if that person so wishes to clear himself,to clear his name in whatever best way that person may think. Now I don't know whether it is for us to prescribe to such aperson as to how he should go about clearing his name. If thatperson chooses, well I don't think really he can stand up everytime, but I would have thought that Mr Meintjies would, at somestage, put questions to such witness as shall have implicatedhis client. Now he may succeed in so putting questions to theperson implicating his client. He may succeed in showing thathis client is being wrongly implicated to such an extent thathe may see no need to put his client in the witness box to clearhis name. And your suggestion has a further difficulty, if weallow Mr Meintjies to put questions to whatever witness, to oneof your clients on the understanding that he should put his clientin as a witness, what if he refuses later to put his client inas a witness?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes ...(intervention)
CHAIRMAN: Quite clearly if he does not got into the boxand if all we are left with is no direct evidence from him butmerely a statement by his attorney or his counsel, when the timecomes to evaluate that evidence due regard will be taken of thatfact.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes I understand that completely. Theonly reason why I raised this is to make this point clear thatthis is the attitude of Mr Meintjies. I wanted to make our pointclear that we wanted Captain van Jaarsveldt from the beginningto give evidence and if he simply cross-examines
1B and/...
132
and puts the version I want the Commission to be clear on thesituation. On that basis I will accept it. Mr Chairman obviouslythe value of such statements we will then argue about that atthe end of the hearing.
CHAIRMAN: Are we then ready to proceed wit this witness?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I am ready, I just want toplace one other aspect on record. I was approached by certainmembers of the Press asking for copies of the applications andI just want to place on record that we have no obligation, theapplicants have no obligation to provide the Press with copiesof the applications. The evidence will be read into the recordand it will be treated as evidence on that basis. I just wantedto place that on record for purposes of the Press. Thank youMr Chairman, may I go ahead.
Brigadier you must help me I can't remember where we stopped,I think it was page 8, the second paragraph. Could you startat the top of page 8.
BRIG CRONJE: The ANC/SACP alliance was supported by Easternblock countries and specifically the USSR. It was general knowledgethat several activists left South Africa to undergo training abroadand to then return as trained terrorists, to commit acts of terrorin South Africa.
(The Interpreters cannot hear the witness properly)
CHAIRMAN: Can you, unfortunately the Interpreters can'thear you so please talk a little more loudly.
MS KHAMPEPE: Could you talk a little bit slower to enablethe translators to translate your statements properly.
(Could the witness please speak up the Interpreters are strugglingto hear him).
Sorry to interrupt you, would you please speak up, the
1B translators/...
133 BRIG CRONJE
translators are unable to pick up your voice.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I will deal with it.
CHAIRMAN: Please.
Mr du Plessis discusses with Brig Cronje regarding the sound
BRIG CRONJE: During these riots there were many casesof incitement, damage to property, bombing and shooting. Manyinnocent civilians suffered as a result. I was not involved inany of these riots at this time and I was therefore not involvedin any cases where activists were killed or dealt with in anyother way. I was also not directly not involved in the interrogationof activists. At that stage I was second in command of the securitybranch in Springs.
The events took place a long time ago. My memory is not so goodanymore. I can't remember specific events which took place duringthat time in which I was involved or which I ordered. The UnitedDemocratic Front was established in 1983 and from 1983 they wagedfullscale guerilla war. This was done by the internal wing ofthe ANC, namely the UDF, until approximately 1989. The situationwas that there was a fullscale war which included death, tortureand other actions committed by activists as set out above in respectof the Soweto riots.
The South African government's approach was that there was atotal onslaught against the country at all levels and that wereinvolved in war. Security legislation was promulgated and otheremergency measures instituted. This happened in 1985, at thestart of '85 and it was made permanent in June 1986. During thisconflict South Africa was infiltrated by activists of the ANC/SACPalliance as well as the PAC. These activists continued to tryand make the country ungovernable. All the acts were aimed at
1B destabilising/...
134 BRIG CRONJE
destabilising the country. Actions committed by them includednecklace murders, ordinary murders, assaults, robbery, arson,damage to property, intimidation, the organising of school boycottsand consumer boycotts, bombings and stonings. These actions hadto be countered by the South African Police.
The South African Police were forced at that stage to act ina way which was not in line with normal conduct in times of peace. It was necessary to institute counter measures against the actionsof the activists and therefore to act outside normal policingchannels as well as outside the confines of the legal system. The nature of the events as they escalated therefore led to ablurring of the distinction between lawful actions and objectives. It was necessary, sanctioned and approved that the South AfricanPolice use methods and act in ways which would not be acceptablein normal peace times.
The training of the South African Police also had to be adaptedto focus more on the military component of training as it wasnecessary for the daily functioning of the South African Police. This was especially applicable to people involved in the securitybranch of the South African Police. The ultimate result was thatduring the period of 1983 to '89 was that there was in realitya fullscale, almost a conventional war in South Africa and thattechniques and actions were based on military models, militarystyle operations were performed and actions of a military naturewere undertaken by the SAP. Use was further made of informersand agents relating to the gathering of information and the conveyingof such information. Espionage was the order of the day.
1B violations/...
135 BRIG CRONJE
From the above it is clear that there were gross
violations of human rights on both sides of the spectrum. Onthe side of the ANC/SACP alliance, as well as the PAC the well-knownexamples of the necklace murders, consumer boycotts, school boycotts,strikes, arson, group murders, uprisings and riots in generalcan be clearly recalled by anyone who lived in South Africa during1983 to 1989.
It was also so that members of the South African Police, duringthat period had to be indoctrinated and to be persuaded that whathad to be done in the circumstances had to be done with one objectivenamely to protect and maintain the State and the National Partyso that the State would not be overthrown by the liberation movementsand to combat the onslaught of the ANC/SACP and PAC and otherliberation movements against the South African government.
Normal policing functions, therefore, took a back seat in thesecircumstances. It was especially members of the security policewho were involved in operations and this was necessitated by virtueof the situation of war. It was also expected of them to formthe backbone of the attack against the ANC/SACP and PAC. Thesecurity police were in the crossfire of this war and acted like,for instance, select units and battalions in the Namibian bushwar. A good example of this is for instance 32 battalion, specialforces and Koevoet as far as the police was concerned.
The security police in the Republic of South Africa found themselvesin exactly the same situation. It was the security police whohad to counter the infiltration of terrorists and activists andwho had to combat the actions of terrorists and activists. Forthat reason it was that members of the security police were mostinvolved in
1B multiple/...
136 BRIG CRONJE
multiple violations of human rights necessitated by the circumstancesand by virtue of the situation of war which existed.
A distinction cannot be drawn between a conventional war anda guerilla war which was waged by the ANC/SACP and PAC in theRepublic of South Africa in that time. It was only the methodsof warfare which differed but it cannot be denied that guerillawarfare was nothing other than just a different form of warfare.
In the light of the above it was therefore necessary to eliminateinsurgents, terrorists and activists where the circumstances justifiedit. If such persons were not eliminated in these circumstancesthey would not be permanently neutralised by way of the securitylegislation, detention and by means of normal legal procedures. The legal system was simply not equipped or able to deal withthese situations and to counter the soldiers of the ANC, SACPand PAC. The struggle had to be waged on a military level, asa war, and for that reason the elimination of terrorists and activistswere seen as justified and were regarded as part of the struggle.
There were active steps taken to prevent the killing of innocentpeople, so we acted in a preventive way. If only the acts ofthe ANC, SACP and PAC activists and terrorists are taken intoconsideration one can come to no other conclusion than that therewas a fullscale war in the country. Acts included, amongst others,various bomb explosions such as a motor car bomb in Church Street,Pretoria, various other car bomb explosions, limpet mine explosionsand incidences of sabotage, landmine explosions, murder and otheracts of terror. I attach statistics in
1B support/...
137 BRIG CRONJE
support of what I have just said.
MR DU PLESSIS: Could you just stop there Brigadier. Mr Chairman right at the back of the application there are certainstatistics attached to the application which deals with all theincidents which we want to refer you to. I do have extra copiesavailable with me for other people who might be interested inthese copies. I hope I have enough this time. Perhaps on couldintroduce this as Exhibit E.
ADV DE JAGER: Are you referring to page 196 - 208?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman.
EXHIBIT E HANDED IN - STATISTICS
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier these statistics were gainedfrom the submission of The Establishment for Equality before theLaw, made to the Truth Commission, is that correct?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Can I take you to the statistics on thelast page, from page 196 please. You don't have to refer to eachand every case, I just want to take you to the first page, itdeals with motor car bombs, is that correct?
BRIG CRONJE: That's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And it starts with a motor bomb, the ChurchStreet bomb.
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: 25, 1983?
BRIG CRONJE: That's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: On the next page it deals with prominentincidences of limpet mine explosions?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes that's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And on the next couple of pages, untilthe next one titled "Prominent incidences of sabotage".
BRIG CRONJE: That's correct.
1B MR DU PLESSIS:/...
138 BRIG CRONJE
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, what type of targets were hitby sabotage?
BRIG CRONJE: Could you please repeat?
MR DU PLESSIS: What type of institutions or targets werenormally aimed at?
BRIG CRONJE: Soft targets.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Now can you look at this document. It refers to specific strategic installations such as the Sasoldepot and other fuel depots.
BRIG CRONJE: That's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Could I then refer you to the documententitled "Prominent incidences of landmines". Brigadiercan I ask you, from your own recollection, can you remember ofcases where landmines were planted and where innocent civilianwere killed?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes I can. The evidence was given by, Ithink, Mr van Eck, who testified that his entire family were eliminatedin such an explosion.
MR DU PLESSIS: There were also other occurrences.
BRIG CRONJE: Yes that's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And then I would like to refer you tothe document titled "Acts of terror, persons killed and injured". My Lord my pages are not numbered, I beg your pardon. Page 206My Lord. That shows the number of people killed and injured from1986 to 1990 and gives the total as 187 killed and 1554 injured,is that correct?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: And then if you turn the page ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: I take it that those are victims, theydon't include terrorists who may have been killed, just victims?
1B MR DU PLESSIS:/...
139 BRIG CRONJE
MR DU PLESSIS: No, no those are only - yes Mr Chairman,only victims, innocent people. You will see that it refers to- it makes a distinction between women, children, men and securityforces. So where it deals with women, children and men, thosewere innocent people. So it has a specific reference to securityforces. Brigadier the next page the Hans Commission, statisticsfor acts of terror for the year.
BRIG CRONJE: That's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: You can confirm that it escalated from1984 to 1989 to a large extent?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: And then the last page is unsolved actsof terror during which people were killed. Now if we can returnto page 13 you may continue.
BRIG CRONJE: Apart from the necklace murders, petrolbombing, attacks of houses and buildings, riots, disturbance,unrest, group murders and other actions committed in the nameof the so-called struggle. In the light of the above it happenedthat from time-to-time general orders were given by commandingofficers to their subordinates to take steps to combat certainsituations. Such orders were general orders which didn't necessarilyinclude a specific authorisation for each and every operationto be undertaken.
The authority to issue orders was delegated further down thestructure of command and a Brigadier in the position which I foundmyself and other officers were increasingly confronted with generalorders in terms of which action had to be taken on a broader basisthan what would normally be the case.
Powers were extended and commanding officers were
1B allowed/...
140 BRIG CRONJE
allowed a greater degree of discretion before authority had tobe obtained. This was necessitated by virtue of the situationand this was exacerbated during the state of emergency. Obviouslyauthority could not be specifically granted for each and everyaction of the subordinates. Sometimes authority was granted beforehand,in other cases commanding officers were only informed of certainactions after they had already taken place. In such cases thiswas normally caused as a result of a need to act immediately andthe practical impossibility of obtaining authorisation for eachand every instance from commanding officers.
ADV DE JAGER: Could you just stop there for a moment.You say here that the power to grant instructions were thereforedelegated further down the structure of command and a brigadieretc had to carry out orders, was there ever a meeting at whichthis was decided that the powers and functions had to be delegatedfurther down the hierarchy and structure of command and that decisionscould be taken at own discretion or how were these powers extended? Could you elaborate on that please?
BRIG CRONJE: Chairperson the powers which we receivedfrom Head Office were of such a nature that we assumed that thecommanding officers could exercise their own discretion to issueorders, they could use their own discretion.
ADV DE JAGER: I hear your answer but you said this camefrom headquarters, but it was not the office which issued it,there must have been a specific person which issued these orders?
BRIG CRONJE: Correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Now could you tell us how these orderswere conveyed down the structure of command?
2A BRIG CRONJE:/...
141 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: We deal with this further on in the statementChairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier could you continue please, weare on page 14, second paragraph.
BRIG CRONJE: The actions of the South African Policeto combat the onslaught of the liberation organisations were undertakenin the performance of the duties of the South African Police andformed part of the structure of the SAP and specifically the securitybranch.
Insofar as subordinates under my command took such action aimedat fighting the war in which we found ourselves and which wasaimed against the actions of liberation movements who were tryingto destabilise the country and trying to overthrow the governmentI am morally obliged to assume responsibility for that, all actionsof my subordinates within the confines of Brigadier Victor's commandwhich I will now deal with.
In early 1986 I was contacted by Brigadier Victor who was secondin command of the counter insurgency unit. Due to the structureof the SAP at that stage Brigadier Victor was my senior and Iwould have been compelled to accept orders and instructions fromhim. He told me that he had called in Captain Jacque Hechterand gave him the instruction, along with his son, this son ofhis was a lieutenant at the time, and stationed at Mamelodi, tobring the riots in Pretoria under control. It didn't matter howit was done and what was done. He said that Pretoria was burningand that South Africa was burning. He said that all necessarysteps should be taken to normalise the situation and bring itunder control. He further said that if a policeman's house wasattacked immediate steps had to be
2A taken/...
142 BRIG CRONJE
taken against the person who was responsible for that act. Sucha person's house would then have to be burnt down as well. Hisorders were to the effect that when we retaliated we should justgo a step further than the enemy each time. His instructionsamounted to the security police taking active steps in the struggleagainst terrorists and activists. What his orders in realityamounted to was that the same methods had to be used and thatthere was in reality an active guerilla war to be waged againstthe ANC, SACP and PAC activists as well as activists from otherliberation organisations.
Before Brigadier Victor's command the security police acted ina reactionary way only, and this meant that activists responsiblefor offences and other acts aimed at destabilising the countrywere arrested and dealt with in terms of the existing legislation,including security legislation. At the stage of Brigadier Victor'scommand it was clear that reactionary conduct was not sufficientto stem the tide of riots, violence and destabilisation. At thatstage a fullscale war was entered upon.
In terms of Brigadier Victor's command, from that stage onwardsuse was made of guerilla warfare tactics and a fullscale guerillawar was waged against the liberation organisations. It was ofa pro-active nature to prevent acts of terror and to neutraliseactivists before they could commit acts of terror rather thanmerely to react to acts of terror.
I accepted that this instruction by Brigadier Victor had comefrom a higher authority. I informed Brigadier Victor that I wouldmake staff available to his son and Captain Hechter in order toact in such a manner. As far as 2A I/...
143 BRIG CRONJE
I know this same procedure was followed in all the other divisionsof the security police throughout the country. It's a generallyaccepted way of action and it was never repudiated or addressedby either Head Office, the Commissioner of Police, the State SecurityCouncil, the Cabinet or the government. As far as I understoodit and I continue to be convinced of this the change to pro-activeaction against the liberation movements was done with the authorisationof the government of the day.
All actions under my jurisdiction which happened in this mannerwere taken up in situation reports which were sent through ona daily basis to my head office. The procedure was that furtherreports with this information would then have been passed on tothe State Security Council. Events which took place under mycommand in the Security Branch in Pretoria was, therefore, passedonto Head Office and must have been taken up in reports to theState Security Council.
I must mention Chair that every morning an information reportwas sent through to Head Office. Every incident of the previousday was mentioned in this report, such as for instance I maintainedfiles on activists, the same file was kept at the Head Office,if an activist, therefore, was killed on a particular day or hishouse was burnt down, that information would have been passedon to Head Office with a file reference and the instructions,the events and the information would have been discussed at ameeting of all the heads at security head office. This is theSan Hedrun to which General van der Merwe referred to yesterday.
I do not believe anyone in my Head Office could have been sonaive as to believe that the ANC were killing and
2A attacking/...
144 BRIG CRONJE
attacking their own people. They must have known what the truefacts were.
There were monthly meetings at the Joint Control Centre wherethese incidents were discussed. At the Joint Control Centre therewere representatives of the SADF, SAP the Education Department,Civil Defence as well as other State institutions. Minutes ofthe JCC meetings were sent through to the State Security Council. I do not doubt that the actions of my subordinates and the eventswhich took place under my command at the Security Branch, NorthernTransvaal, just have been known by the State Security Council.
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier let me just interrupt. Withregard to the reports which you sent through to the Head Officewith regard to events were you ever during the time of your serviceat the Security Police repudiated by your Head Office in any waywith regards to instructions you gave or events which took placeunder your command?
BRIG CRONJE: ...(intervention)
JUDGE NGOEPE: Was there a particular person to whom youwere handing your reports?
BRIG CRONJE: The reports were sent by telex to Headquarters. It was only addressed to Compol as we then spoke about our Headquarters,Commissioner of Police, so what they did with that further onI don't know.
JUDGE NGOEPE: I mean yes that might have been so, butwas there a particular contact person, for you?
BRIG CRONJE: No, no such specific person, I didn't sendmy reports through to any particular person, I simply addressedit to the Commissioner of Police.
JUDGE NGOEPE: You simply addressed them to the Commissionerof Police?
2A BRIG CRONJE:/...
145 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: Were the files, you say you kept files,were these kept in your office?
BRIG CRONJE: There was a set of these files in my officeand a duplicate set in the Head Office. Each of these files thenhad a number, the same number at my office and then at Head Office.
JUDGE WILSON: And were these left in your office, youdidn't destroy them?
BRIG CRONJE: I don't know. I left the service in 1987. I do not know what happened subsequently.
JUDGE WILSON: When you left you hadn't done anythingto them?
BRIG CRONJE: No.
MS KHAMPEPE: Brigadier who was the representative ofthe South African Police at the Joint Management System?
BRIG CRONJE: I served on the Joint Control Centre myself,on the management of the Joint Control Centre.
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier let us just turn back ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: You say here that at the JCC there wasa SADF, SAP, Education and other representatives where these incidentswere discussed, at the meetings which you attended were theseevents indeed discussed?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes Chair, every incident in the periodup to a particular meeting was discussed at that meeting.
ADV DE JAGER: Including the incidents for which you arepleading for amnesty?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes it would have been discussed, to whatextent I cannot quite say.
ADV DE JAGER: It was information which you had available
2A and/...
146 BRIG CRONJE
and which as representative of the SAP you would have communicatedthere?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes I would have communicated it to themeeting.
MS KHAMPEPE: Brigadier were minutes kept at these meetings?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes there were minutes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Brigadier a coupleof questions I wish to ask you also referring to this particularevidence. Concerning the filing system could you give the Committeean idea of the number of files, just broadly speaking, the numberof files which the Northern Transvaal Security Branch was keptin your offices?
BRIG CRONJE: I don't know the exact number but therewere a lot.
MR DU PLESSIS: These are not files kept in your personaloffice, there was a filing system?
BRIG CRONJE: There was a filing room, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Were these files files which were keptwith regard to actions and information with regard to particularactivists?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes that is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did I understand you correctly that thesame duplicate set or system was kept at your Head Office andthat there would therefore have been files of the particular activistswhich you had also at the Head Office?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes. Also correspondence was kept in duplicatein my files and the Head Office files.
MR DU PLESSIS: Could you explain to us under which circumstancesand for what reasons a file would have been opened?
2A BRIG CRONJE:/...
147 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: A file would have been opened as soon asa person became actively involved in political action boycotts,acts of terror, school boycotts, consumer boycotts, under thesecircumstances a file would have been opened on the person.
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier would this have been every personinvolved in these actions, also minors?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes it would have.
MR DU PLESSIS: The information contained in these files,where would this information have been derived from?
BRIG CRONJE: From informers.
MR DU PLESSIS: Could you expand on the informant system,just broadly speaking?
BRIG CRONJE: We could not work without informers, wehad paid informers who made information available. We never workedwith information of only a single informant, we had to have twoor three informants to give us particular information.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman if you will just give me onemoment please. Brigadier were there other ways to obtain informationother than through informers?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, interrogation methods.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did you listen in on telephone conversations?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes. We also look at the mail of peoplein the postal system.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Brigadier. I just wanted toclear up that particular aspect. I want to also ask you whilewe are pausing at this point, and before we continue with yourtestimony did you see the television programme last night broadcaston the SABC television with regard to
2A Colonel/...
148 BRIG CRONJE
Colonel de Kock, Eugene de Kock, did you see this programme?
BRIG CRONJE: I did too.
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier did you see Mr Craig Williamson's,also a member of the security branch, statement with regard toinstructions?
BRIG CRONJE: He mentioned that instructions came fromthe top, from the State Security Council and he was a member ofthe State Security Council.
MR DU PLESSIS: Broadly speaking did you get the impressionthat what he said on that programme corroborates with your testimonyhere today?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes that is correct. He corroborated everythingthat I had thought was the case.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did you also see that President P W Botha,that certain portions of his speeches were broadcast?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes I did.
MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember something with regardto the elimination of terrorists?
BRIG CRONJE: He mentioned that we would eliminate theterrorists.
MR DU PLESSIS: When you saw this on television last nightBrigadier, what would your views have been?
BRIG CRONJE: I saw this in the light of the fact thatthe instructions which we received would have come directly fromP W Botha or the State Security Council.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did you also see this as a confirmationof your testimony with regard to the instruction regarding theelimination of activists?
BRIG CRONJE: I did, Chair.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman perhaps at this stage I mightjust want to place on record that this is obviously
2A something/...
149 BRIG CRONJE
something new. We are trying to obtain a copy of the programmeand specifically the relevant parts thereof to be able to showit to you because I don't know if everybody on the Committee hasseen the programme. There is tonight a follow-up programme at9 o'clock. The programme is called "Prime-Evil" sothere will be a follow-up, if I may just mention that. We willendeavour to find, especially the excerpt of President Botha wherehe talked about elimination. We deem it important to introducethat as part of the evidence. Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: Wouldn't it be better, if you are goingto ask us to rely on the programme, that we should see the wholeprogramme rather than bits personally selected by you? MRDU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I don't have any problempertaining to that. It would be to the applicant's advantagein that one of the State witnesses that the Attorney General hasfought so valiantly for, namely Mr Joe Mamasela, has given hiswhole version on the handgrenade incident on television last night. And I would - therefore it would assist the applicants and Iwould have no problem in showing the whole programme. Perhapsat this point one could make a specific arrangement in that regard.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr du Plessis thank you, you solved my dilemmabecause yesterday night I wasn't sure, as a member of the AmnestyCommittee whether I should watch that programme or not, so I assumeyou have no problem if I watch that programme?
MR DU PLESSIS: I have no problem whatsoever. The onlypoint I would want to make is in the evidence, and that will becomeclear and I will argue that at the end of the day as well, isthat there should be, to a large extent, a
2A distinction/...
150 BRIG CRONJE
distinction made between the actions of Colonel de Kock and CaptainDirk Coetzee and my clients. We will show that my clients, theapplicants, did not act exactly in the same way and we will indicateto you, the evidence will be that the applicants never received,for instance, any monetary or financial gain in respect of anythingthat they did. We will draw a definite distinction between usand those two persons who were also at Vlakplaas, Dirk Coetzeebefore Brigadier Cronje and Colonel de Kock after Brigadier Cronje.
Brigadier Cronje could you continue, the second paragraph onpage 17.
BRIG CRONJE: An example of the fact that instructionscame right from the top would have been the instruction givento me by General van der Merwe, then Brigadier van der Merwe touse handgrenades with the zero ignition device against ANC activistswho wanted to obtain these arms. This instruction was given tome in Springs by General van der Merwe and during this instructionhe specifically indicated to me that this came directly from MinisterLe Grange and that it had indeed been authorised by PresidentP W Botha, as well as Commissioner Johan Coetzee, both of whomknew about this and authorised it. If such an instruction camedirectly from President Botha it could not be other than thatthe general instructions to bring the situation under instructionas per the instruction of Brigadier Victor must have come directlyfrom the top.
MR DU PLESSIS: May I just interrupt you Brigadier, itis correct that the event with regard to the handgrenades happenedprior to the instruction of Brigadier Victor, is that the case?
BRIG CRONJE: That is the case. If it should be claimed
2A therefore/...
151 BRIG CRONJE
therefore by anyone that the State Security Council was not awareof the actions of the security forces and the security policeor of any specific incidents this would not be true. BrigadierSchoon, during 1986 was in command of the terrorist division atthe security head office. He phoned me one morning and told methat the Commissioner of Police gave him instructions, then GeneralJohan Coetzee, gave him instructions that the security policeand particularly my staff had to work with special forces. Hisinstructions to me was to cooperate with the SADS special forces.
I must just mention here Chair, that there had always been somedisagreement between the SADF and the South African Police thatwe had difficulty in cooperating. The SADF special forces wasa specialised combat group which undertook covert operations. If Brigadier Schoon for instance gave me instructions to workwith Military Intelligence I would not have considered an instructionto wage war. But the instruction to work with special serviceswas a direct instruction to become engaged in military warfare. This instruction was given to me somewhat after the instructionfrom Brigadier Victor but the two instructions were given withina couple of months from each other. I accepted this instructionfrom Brigadier Schoon and respected it as an instruction to becomedirectly militarily engaged and to counter the onslaught activelyin a military manner. This was no longer normal policing functionsof normal policing tasks which I was authorised to exercise. My responsibilities became far broader. All instructions, therefore,which I gave to my subordinates or which in another manner wastransferred to my subordinates must be seen against the backgroundof these two
2A instructions/...
152 BRIG CRONJE
instructions. It must be seen as instructions to act in a situationand circumstances of war. These actions must therefore be seenas military actions in a context of guerilla warfare.
MR DU PLESSIS: An additional question Brigadier, whatwould your view have been during the struggle with regard to thetask of the security police, with regard to the National Party?
BRIG CRONJE: The security police worked for the NationalParty. We had to carry out their instructions to keep them ingovernment.
MR DU PLESSIS: Your view with regard to apartheid?
BRIG CRONJE: I grew up during a time in which apartheidexisted. I was indoctrinated to believe that apartheid was right.
MR DU PLESSIS: What would the task have been of the securitypolice with regards to both apartheid and communism, could yougive us some more information in this regard?
BRIG CRONJE: With regard to apartheid and communism ourtask was at all times to combat communism in every possible way. With regard to apartheid, our task was to maintain apartheidand to maintain the National Party government.
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier would this have been the viewof your subordinates?
BRIG CRONJE: Certainly.
MR DU PLESSIS: Would that have been the view communicatedto you by your superiors?
BRIG CRONJE: Indeed it was pressed on our hearts at everypossible occasion that we should suppress apartheid.
MR DU PLESSIS: You mean communism?
2A BRIG CRONJE:/...
153 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: I am sorry I mean communism.
MR DU PLESSIS: For a moment I was quite surprised.
BRIG CRONJE: We had to maintain the apartheid government. That is what I intended.
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier there is a further aspect, whichis a recurring question appearing in the application form. Iam going to ask you this question particularly, we have dealtwith it but did you ever obtain every financial gain with regardto any of the actions you committed?
BRIG CRONJE: No, never Chair, neither did any of my subordinates.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you. Brigadier could you continueon page 19, the actions of activists.
BRIG CRONJE: The normal actions of activists to causedestabilisation and to destroy the State included the following,arson, bombings, school boycotts, consumer boycotts, damage toproperty, murder of police and council members, the burning downof the houses of policemen, intimidation, sabotage and similarcrimes. This action was a continuing militant onslaught on thesecurity of the Republic aimed at innocent persons with the intentionto overthrow the State. It was this action which had to be countered. It was a military onslaught. It was war.
MR DU PLESSIS: Could you continue to explain to the Committeehow the process worked with regard to informants?
BRIG CRONJE: Informants were used by the Security Policeto obtain information with regard to who the activists were. Informants were paid for information as they supplied this fromtime-to-time. There were many informants available for the useof the Security Branch. Sometimes persons who had previouslybeen activists were used, after their
2A rehabilitation/...
154 BRIG CRONJE
rehabilitation, as informants. Without informants the securitypolice would not have been able to work and would have been veryineffective. Due to the information from informants files werecomposed with regard to the troublemakers, the most active activists. Specific goals were then determined with regard to the actionsto be taken. MR DU PLESSIS: With regard to instructions,we have already discussed this, I do not want to deal with thisin a detailed way but I do want to ask you ...(intervention)
MS KHAMPEPE: I just want to pose one question to theBrigadier, did you evaluate the information that you receivedfrom the various informers?
BRIG CRONJE: We did evaluate this information. We neveracted simply on information from a single informer. We had tohave information from two or three informers and then we reacted.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you receive information directly fromTREVETS?
BRIG CRONJE: I was aware of TREVETS. We were not representedon that branch but it was possible for me to make representationsto TREVETS.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Can you just briefly tell us how you, whatthis process of rehabilitating activists entailed?
BRIG CRONJE: After the interrogation of an activist wetreated them in such a manner, and we indoctrinated them in sucha way that they, in certain instances, turned to our side, andin certain cases even given rank and they became members of theSouth African Police, they were appointed to the South AfricanPolice.
MS KHAMPEPE: Brigadier did this information (...tapeends)
BRIG CRONJE: During interrogation there were instancesof
2B assault/...
155 BRIG CRONJE
assault and torture, as I has said subsequently these people werealso treated in such a way that we then treated them well so thatthey changed sides.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Brigadier on thenext page we deal with instructions, I don't want you to readthe entire section but do read from the fifth line from the bottomstarting with "Opdragte vat ek ontvang het".
BRIG CRONJE: Instructions which I received were seldomin writing. I only received instructions directly, personally,and then relayed it to my subordinates on a personal basis suchas for instance Captain Hechter. It was not always easy to remembersuch instructions, or the particular terms in which the instructionwas shaped.
MR DU PLESSIS: You were not able to obtain any documentationor you do not have any documentation in your possession with regardto any of these instructions received or given by yourself?
BRIG CRONJE: No this is the case.
MR DU PLESSIS: The next page with regard to TREVETS?
BRIG CRONJE: TREVETS was a secret organisation. It wascalled TREVETS, that's the Counter-revolutionary Information TargetCentre. It was formed in 1985. Initially it identified targetsin the neighbouring states, terrorist bases etc, but it was laterextended to targets within the Republic. It is possible thatthe instruction with regard to Piet Ntuli came from TREVETS. TREVETS obtained and gathered information from the various regionswith regard to particular targets and then there were monthlymeetings during which the information of all the sectors, suchas Military Intelligence, National Intelligence, the SecurityBranch of the SAP and the Special Forces of the South
2B African/...
156 BRIG CRONJE
African Defence Force were discussed, considered, and targetswere identified. At that time C1 was the Vlakplaas Unit. C2was the Interrogation Unit and C3 was TREVETS. Every region hadits own Target Analysis Centre and the regions were Western Transvaal,Northern Transvaal, Far North, Northern Cape and Eastern Transvaal.
Colonel Tom Louw was responsible, or was initially in commandof TREVETS with executive chief General Buchner who was functioningin 1987 and after that under General Bob Beukes and subsequentlyunder Brigadier Victor. Targets were identified by TREVETS. There was a representative from Military Intelligence and SADFSpecial Forces. Every region maintained records with regard towho were activists, who came from which region and who causedtrouble.
Colonel Louw made a document out of the information which wasthen used to identify targets. It was a secret component sinceonly persons working with terrorism cooperated with it. A prioritylist was maintained. The State Security Council knew of the existenceof TREVETS, particularly with regard to its actions outside theRepublic.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Brigadier. Could you continuewith regard to the death of activists.
BRIG CRONJE: Within the context of the previously sketchedwar situation there were circumstances under which activists hadto be eliminated by killing them. It's the only way in this warsituation in which activists could be effectively acted against. Merely arresting them in terms of security legislation was insufficientas it was of a limited and brief duration. To charge such a personand take them through the formal legal structures and procedureswas
2B cumbersome/...
157 BRIG CRONJE
cumbersome and insufficient and impossible and there was no otherchoice than to take normal war action and to eliminate activists. This was considered necessary under the circumstances.
Reports with regard to the death of activists was passed on toHead Office and there was never any repudiation or instructionsto stop these eliminations, or discontinue these eliminations. Under the circumstances there were files where the file numberof the person was given to the Head Office and nothing was donesubsequently with regard to this death. Under these circumstancesit was considered necessary to eliminate activists in defenceof the State and to combat the revolutionary efforts against theState of the ANC, SACP, PAC and other liberation movements. Itwas done to protect innocent civilians including primarily Blackcivilians who suffered under the riotous and destabilising actionsof activists.
MR DU PLESSIS: A question Brigadier. Was the informationsystem of the Security Police sufficient with regard to the particularactions of activists or operations of terrorists to stop theseactions before they occurred?
BRIG CRONJE: The information system of the South AfricanPolice, the Security Police was of the best in the world.
MR DU PLESSIS: If you listen to my question, was thesecurity system good enough that you were able to foresee andact against terrorists so that you could prevent actions? Didyou know every time where terrorists were going to act?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes. We did not always know Chair. Justrepeat your question.
MR DU PLESSIS: What I want to know is whether your
2B information/...
158 BRIG CRONJE
information system was good enough to act preventatively? Didyou know every time when terrorists were going to attack a particularhouse, were you able to stop them before they could do this?
BRIG CRONJE: No this was not at all possible. We hadto act by eliminating them.
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier just generally or broadly speakingthese activists who were eliminated or who you decided to eliminatewhat kind of person would this normally have been and what actionswould they already have been responsible for? This is just broadlyspeaking. What kind of actions would have been committed alreadyby these activists to justify their elimination?
BRIG CRONJE: Arson, throwing stones, attacking the housesof police persons, school boycotts, consumer boycotts, necklacing.
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier would you have eliminated activistswho were only guilty of minor actions or very serious actions?
BRIG CRONJE: Only in the case of really serious actions.
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier could you continue to the nexttopic, the Racial Foundation.
BRIG CRONJE: The struggle was never racially based. Investigations into actions by White persons also came under myjurisdiction on occasion. I cannot remember specific instancesbut it was dealt with in exactly the same manner as actions againstBlack activists. The difference was that there had not been awar situation between right-wing organisations and the governmentof the day. It was therefore not considered necessary to eliminateWhite right-wing persons in the same way as activists. The
2B actions/...
159 BRIG CRONJE
actions of the security branch, Northern Transvaal, of which Iwas in command, therefore never was aimed at a Black/White conflict,was never involved in racism.
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier this is apart from the factthat you supported apartheid?
BRIG CRONJE: That is the case.
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier let me make it clear, it appearsthat there are persons who do not understand your testimony. Your actions against activists, was it actions against them becausethey were Black?
BRIG CRONJE: No.
MR DU PLESSIS: Was your action against activists aimedagainst them because they were persons, against terrorists andactivists was this aimed against them because they were personsguilty of criminal actions?
BRIG CRONJE: Insofar as this related to acts of terror,yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Were your actions aimed to combat thearmed struggle of the ANC and other liberation movements?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Were there occasions when you acted againstWhite activists who supported liberation movements?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes there were.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Brigadier for clarifying this. Brigadier could you continue with the next topic, the effectof the actions of the security branch.
BRIG CRONJE: The pro-active actions of the security branchagainst the onslaught on the government was remarkably effective. It was so effective that the division Northern Transvaal hadthe least incidents of all the regions in the Republic of SouthAfrica at a later stage. The pro-active
2B action/...
160 BRIG CRONJE
action was therefore justified under the circumstances and hadresults. It combatted the onslaught on the State by the liberationmovements and prevented further destabilisation.
MR DU PLESSIS: Could you continue to the next topic,the next general topic with regard to the destruction of documents.
BRIG CRONJE: I had already retired when the instructionwas given to destroy documentation. If documentation was availabletoday it would have eased my task in this application for amnesty. I do not have any documentation in my possession in support ofmy application with regard to specific incidents except that withregard to which I have referred in this document.
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you have any personal knowledge ofthe destruction of documentation by the security police?
BRIG CRONJE: No.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did people tell you anything in this regard?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, well I only recently heard that therehad been instructions from Head Office that all documentation,which might have been incriminating, had to be destroyed.
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier the next topic which I wantyou to touch on briefly is the modus operandi at Vlakplaas.
BRIG CRONJE: While I was in command of Vlakplaas I hadfour sections under my command. These normally consisted of twoWhite members, one commanding officer, and then the group calledthe Askari's who were terrorist who had turned to work for theSecurity Branch. If another division, unit or sections elsewherein the country needed this capacity I sent these members to theparticular divisions where they
2B served/...
161 BRIG CRONJE
served under the command of the particular division's commandingofficer. They were transferred for that time to act under thatdivision and only with regard to disciplinary matters were theiractions reported to me.
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier you need not discuss the nextunit or topic, we have already discussed the matter of what youcan or cannot remember. Could you therefore turn to page 26. Could you read us the second and third paragraphs on page 26.
BRIG CRONJE: I want to state it quite clearly that inview of the number of incidents which took place in my periodat Vlakplaas particularly during 1983 to '89 that I don't haveknowledge and I cannot remember all the actions of my subordinates. I call on such subordinates to apply for amnesty and to revealthe facts and particulars with regard to these actions.
As far as memory allows I have attempted to remember every incidentwith which I was involved where there had been human rights violationsand which therefore falls under the ambit of this legislation,as well as the actions of my subordinates.
During my preparation for this application I was reminded bysome of these subordinates of a number of events which I had alreadyforgotten and with regard to which I have now been reminded. I therefore apply insofar as is necessary also for amnesty withregard to these events.
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier without reading this, but doI understand you correctly, that you accept responsibility forthe actions of your subordinates who had been under your commandand who are today applicants before this committee with regardto the extent under which they were under your
2B command?/...
162 BRIG CRONJE
command?
BRIG CRONJE: Certainly Chair, I am morally obliged. I had been their commanding officer and I take responsibilityfor their actions.
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier might we look at the next topic,Propaganda?
BRIG CRONJE: A war psychosis had been created by theSouth African government using media, television, newspapers,churches and cultural organisation promoting the belief that therehad been a total onslaught on the country, built around the ideathat this was a struggle against communism. The true picturewas never revealed to the White South African community. Propagandain every form had been used. The Press, the media was kept outof areas with serious unrest and therefore South Africa and therest of the world did not know what happened.
Security forces were on a daily basis convinced to act againstthe liberation movements in the context of total onslaught andthe struggle against communism. There had not been proper communicationbetween government and White voters. As the struggle continuedmembers of the SAP had to act more and more outside normal policingframeworks and the legal system. It became more and more a warsituation. Eventually both sides of the struggle believe thathuman rights violations were necessary in the course of the struggleand such violations were committed on both sides. Previous commissionersof the South African Police in their presentations to the Commissionaccepted collective responsibility for actions within this contextof struggle. A particular incident of such propaganda can befound in the book of President Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom,on page 405 2B where/...
163 BRIG CRONJE
where President Mandela says the following:-
"By definition if a man worked for the present servicehe was probably brainwashed by the government's propaganda. Hewould have believed that we were terrorists and communists whowanted to drive the White man into the sea".
Against this background the struggle against the liberation movementscontinued. The propaganda with which we were fed is thereforeconfirmed by President Mandela himself.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Brigadier. The next page thenyou mention the filing system of the security branch. There hadbeen testimony by General van der Merwe in this regard and I amnot going to ask you to handle this.
Mr Chairman that finalises the general evidence in respect ofBrigadier Cronje. I want to say one thing, and that is that inrespect of the motivation, in respect of certain deeds, why thesedeeds were committed with a political motive, we had to repeatobviously the motivation every time in respect of every deed,now with your permission I can deal with this either now to sayto you in general, part of the motivation, not the whole motivationbut part of the motivation in respect of where an activist waseliminated would be the following, and then I could deal withthis evidence. Otherwise I will have to deal with the evidencerepeatedly again in respect of each and every incident. I amin your hands in that regard.
CHAIRMAN: I think it would be convenient for you to dealwith the matter at this stage, rather than repeat it over andover again.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I might statethat part of this motivation was also incorporated in the
2B applications/...
164 BRIG CRONJE
applications of the other applicants, so it will also be applicablethen as evidence to the applications of the other applicants. I also want to state that the evidence by Brigadier Cronje, now,was also in general incorporated in the applications of the otherapplicants and would therefore, with your permission, serve asevidence pertaining to their applications as well. That wouldmean that I don't have to lead evidence on these aspects fromthe other witnesses as well.
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier may I take you to page 58, it'sthe place in your application where you motivate why you actedwith a political goal in the elimination of Nyana in Swaziland. This is an incident with regard to which testimony will be presented,but for record purposes could you indicate your political purposesin the elimination of this activist. Could you read this? Thismotivation only has to do with the broader, political contextof the purposes with the elimination of the activists, could youbegin reading on page 58 where you said the intention was in threeparts?
BRIG CRONJE: The purpose was, in three parts, (a) intimidation,(b) to influence White voters and (c) the protection of informationand prevention of acts of terror.
(A) - Intimidation.
Intimidation of activists and terrorists and their supportersnot to continue in these actions and to act preventatively withregard to the elimination of potential activists and terrorists. The supporters and sympathisers of the liberation movements suchas the ANC were discouraged to provide open support and momentumto the freedom struggle. There was a total feeling of mistrustamongst MK
2B members/...
165 BRIG CRONJE
members and supporters with regard to whom they could trust andwho not. The modus operandi was the same as that of theMossad and that is that all the participants in the struggle againstthe apartheid government had to know that the security policewould strike back immediately after action by activists, theirsupporters and terrorists in a similar way and that this couldlead to the elimination of activists and terrorists. Such eliminationhappened generally with regard to persons of high profile or veryeffective activists whose arrest could have led to momentum inthe freedom struggle. Such detentions would have served the freedomstruggle. The purpose was to demoralise MK and other militarywings of freedom fighters with the result that they were not ableto act as effectively in the struggle and to achieve the purposesof the liberation organisations.
With regard to the influencing of White voters. White voterswho had to vote for the government of the day had to trust thesecurity forces and had to believe that they continued to controlthe country. A disinformation effort with regard to the effectivityof the struggle against communism terrorism had to create theimpression that the security forces could easily win the war sinceactivists disappeared or were killed in mysterious ways withoutany way of finding the guilty parties.
With regard to the zero handgrenade acts the impression had tobe created that terrorists blew themselves up because they werepoorly trained. The public thought that the security police werebusy with the elimination of terrorists and activists and therewas a false impression with regard to effectivity with regardto the destruction and
2B elimination/...
166 BRIG CRONJE
elimination of terrorists and the Red threat.
There had to be trust in the apartheid government to convinceWhite people to vote for them. Actions against activists andterrorists created the impression that South Africa was involvedin a struggle for life and death. Our actions maintained the trustof White voters in the apartheid government and convinced themto vote for this government.
With regard to the detection of information and the preventionof acts of terror it was necessary to eliminate activists in orderto protect the information gained under interrogation. As soonas it was known that a particular activist had been arrested andthat information was obtained it would have made the interrogationprocess useless in the sense that this information would haveserved - Let me state this differently, if this information cameout then the persons who dealt with this person would have changedtheir plans terrorists in safe houses would have escaped and wewould have had no opportunity to find them.
The identity of informants and sources of security police hadto be protected. A person would immediately have known who hadbetrayed him to the security police and that person's life wouldthen have been worth nothing.
Where activists in training within or outside the country wherethey intended to go for training they had to be eliminated toprevent them from destabilising the country through acts of terrorismsuch as bombing attacks on security forces as well as soft targets. As soon as an activist had been trained he was in a differentclass to normal activists and his knowledge and skills were thenequal to that of the security police and he would have been
2B far/...
167 BRIG CRONJE
far more effective in military operations.
All of these, therefore, led to the continued government by theNational Party and the successful combatting of communism.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Brigadier, only up to there. Would I be correct Brigadier if I were to say that the securitypolice acted preventatively with regard to acts of terror?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct Chair.
MR DU PLESSIS: Would it be correct to say that your approachhad been that a person who was going to commit an act of terrorshould rather have been eliminated prior to the act of terror?
Mr Chairman just for clarity sake we divided the actions intothree different categories.
CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Interpreter did not hearthe answer given by the witness.
MR DU PLESSIS: I am sorry. Brigadier would it be correctto say that the security forces acted preventatively with regardto terrorists and the elimination of terrorists and activists?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct Chair.
MR DU PLESSIS: Would I be correct if I were to say Brigadierthat the approach had been that activists and terrorists who weregoing to commit acts of terror should rather be eliminated beforein a preventative way, that they had to be stopped from actingin such a way by means of elimination rather than allowing themto commit acts of terror?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes Chair.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I just want to make this clear
2B for/...
168 BRIG CRONJE
for purposes of the applications. We divided the actions intothree different categories which we tried to motivate every timein the same fashion. The first one deals with eliminations. The second one deals with interrogations. The third one dealswith bomb explosions. In respect of those three categories wedrafted a general motivation which Brigadier Cronje, the one thathe gave now is an example of, those general motivations we includedin each instance of each applicant where there was an eliminationor where there was a bomb explosion or where there was an interrogation. So you will find this explanation of Brigadier Cronje also hasa part of the explanation pertaining to the political motive inCaptain Hechter's application, in Warrant Officer van Vuuren'sapplication and the other applications. It does not mean thatthat is the only motivation. In each incident there will be aspecific further motivation pertaining to the specific facts ofthat incident. But we deemed it necessary to include a generalmotivation in respect of these three different categories of actions. That is why I deem it important to lead the evidence now andto ask you to regard this evidence then in respect of each suchincident in respect of the other applicants. I will indicateevery time when we deal with the specific action what motivationwas included without letting the witness read it. I hope youfollow me. Thank you.
MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier Cronje would you therefore onpage 79 continue, also with regard to the general motivation andapproach with regard to interrogations and why interrogationshad political purposes. You may start in the middle of the page.
BRIG CRONJE: The purpose of interrogations was in two
2B parts/...
169 BRIG CRONJE
parts, (a) intimidation, (b) to obtain information. When activistswere interrogated they were intimidated to desist from their actionsand also to inform other activists that they will be combattedwith every means and interrogated with every means. They hadto understand the message that we were serious in our actionsagainst them. These are activists who were not eliminated bylater released. During interrogations and when certain informationhad been obtained there was an effort to convince activists andterrorists to become informants for the security police. Theseactivists and terrorists who turned were the most effective wayto combat the purposes of the liberation movements. A strikingexample is Joe Mamasela, as is clear from these applications.
Askaris. These are terrorists who became informants ...(tapeends)
of warfare by agents, insurgents, activists and terrorists. Informationwith regard to structures of command, lines of command, intelligencechannels were of the greatest importance. Without effective interrogationtechniques no network of information would have been obtained.
To combat the total onslaught interrogation had to be effectivewith regard to the obtaining of information. Information wasobtained with regard to potential acts of terror, their planningand their execution. Successful counter-strategies and preventativemeasures were then possible with the help of this information. Information with regard to activists were obtained also by meansof interrogation. The interrogative methods was a means to anend. Any effective method was acceptable in the context of warand the total onslaught.
2B The/...
170 BRIG CRONJE
The purpose of these actions was to destabilise the liberationmovements.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman that is the general motivation. I don't want him to go ahead with the motivation of this specificincident. Mr Chairman if you will just bear with me for one momentplease. Mr Chairman the third category, namely bomb explosionswas not dealt with by Brigadier Cronje in his application specifically. It was, however, dealt with in some of the other witnesses' applicationsand I will then lead the evidence pertaining to that. I can leadit obviously with Brigadier Cronje, perhaps that would be themore prudent way of doing that if you would allow me to do that.
CHAIRMAN: If he can give evidence on the matter thenhe must do so.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes he has knowledge, the only problemis that it's not contained in his application. May I beg leaveto hand up an application of Warrant Officer van Vuuren whereit is dealt with so that he can read that into the record. Iwill refer you to the correct page now.
MR DU PLESSIS: On what page are you?
BRIG CRONJE: Page 21.
MR DU PLESSIS: Page 21 of Van Vuuren's application.
CHAIRMAN: That deals with intimidation.
MR DU PLESSIS: You will see it's headed "Die doelvan bombe aanvalle was twee lede". That's the third categorybomb explosions in respect of a general motivation.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR DU PLESSIS: Could you then read from page 21 whereit reads "Die doel van bomb aanvalle", could you readthat into the record.
3A BRIG CRONJE:/...
171 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: The purpose of bombings were in two parts,intimidation and disinformation.
With regard to intimidation activists and their supporters knewthat if they were involved in unrest throwing of petrol bombsand other general destabilisation in a particular area they ortheir property would be attacked by means of a bomb or petrolbomb. If activists became too well-known or militant or veryeffectively encouraged the consciousness of freedom or for freedomof a particular community they would necessarily have receiveda bomb and their supporters would have had a strong intuitionwith regard to the source of the bomb. This would have discouragedthem from supporting freedom movements since they would not haveknown who was next on the list. Activists and their supportersdid specifically believe that it was the security police who werebombing them and burning down their houses if they became activelyand successfully involved. This action was successful insofaras it discouraged political activists from getting involved indestabilising activities.
With regard to disinformation it was presented to the generalpublic that this was simply Black on Black violence which destabilisedthe country, particularly in Black living areas and that it wasa power struggle amongst Blacks. This encouraged the fear ofWhites with regard to the possibility of actions which could haveentered their living areas. This created the perception thatSouth Africa was in a life and death struggle.
Voters were encouraged in view of the Black power to vote forthe National Party and to maintain it in power. This disinformationsystem worked. The intention of this
3A action/...
172 BRIG CRONJE
action was to counter the ANC and other strong freedom movementsin their revolutionary onslaught against apartheid, to discouragethem.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman that deals with the generalevidence of Brigadier Cronje as background evidence. I see thereis about five minutes to one o'clock, perhaps it would be a goodtime to take the adjournment, if that would suit you.
CHAIRMAN: The hearing will adjourn.
HEARING ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRMAN: Yes Mr du Plessis.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Brigadier CronjeI want to ask you one last question, this general kind of instructionthat you received from Brigadier Victor, let me rather ask youin Afrikaans. This general order which you received from BrigadierVictor which you explained to us are you aware, was it your perceptionwhether this was applicable throughout the country, was that thesituation in the whole country?
BRIG CRONJE: I have already said on page 16 that as faras I am aware the same action was taken throughout the country,for instance the Motherwell bomb explosion case, Trustfeed caseand the Pepco 3. There had to be instructions from somewhereto authorise those actions.
MR DU PLESSIS: You are not personally aware of thoseinstructions?
BRIG CRONJE: No it's just the assumption that I am making.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I have no further questions. Mr Mpshe and I have had a discussion about the situation andespecially the evidence which we want to present now in
3A respect/...
173 BRIG CRONJE
respect of Colonel Venter. We want to raise with the Committeethe possibility that Brigadier Cronje should be cross-examinedin respect of his evidence when he testifies about every incidentwhen he is called, that he is not cross-examined now. We havealso discussed it with the legal representatives and I believenobody has objection against that. That would enable us to startwith Colonel Venter and specifically the Pepco 3 incident whichhas become urgent now, if that would......
I may just mention Mr Chairman that in respect of the Pepco 3incident members of the family and legal representatives havecome all the way from Port Elizabeth and it's going to incur extracosts if we run into tomorrow. That's the only reason why wewant to do it now.
CHAIRMAN: Well I think it is an imminently sensible suggestionthat the cross-examination of the witness should be postponeduntil after he has given evidence in his own application.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I have then nofurther questions for the witness. If he may stand down.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
WITNESS STANDS DOWN
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman before I call Colonel VenterI just want to raise one issue with you which was raised withme by Mr Curren and that is the question to what extent the legalrepresentatives of the families or the victims are entitled tohave sight of the contents of the applications of the applicants? Mr Curren requested copies of all five applications which hewanted to have now. Our view was that that is contrary to theconfidentiality section in the Act. Our view was that they areentitled to copies as soon as
3A every/...
174
every applicant starts testifying about each and every specificapplication of each and every deed. We agreed that we would raisethis with you to get a possible ruling from you on that so asto enable Mr Curren to assess his position on that.
CHAIRMAN: By copies of applications does he mean allthe supporting documents in connection, attached to the applicationform?
BRIG CRONJE: Mr Chairman he wants copies of the wholeapplication, the bundle as I show it to you now, beforehand, soas to enable him to prepare for cross-examination of the witnesses. We say that the intention of the clause in the Act providingfor confidentiality refers to the fact that it's not confidentialanymore when a hearing starts and that pertains to each and everyspecific application, pertaining to each and every specific deed,but we are in your hands in that regard.
JUDGE WILSON: Haven't you said that the evidence youhave led is a general application and applies to all the applicants?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes, we have no ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: So they've all started their, the hearingfor all of them has commenced.
MR DU PLESSIS: I am in your hands Mr Chairman, that'swhy I am raising this point. If you give an indication that theyare entitled long before the evidence is given about the contentsof the applications then we have no problem, as long as the applicantsdon't forego their right to amnesty because of the fact that thecontents are disclosed to people outside the process.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis I can't think that they could
3A forego/...
175
forego their right for amnesty in that event. I think the peopleare entitled to prepare and I don't know what my colleagues wouldfeel, but you've asked that documents in the Attorney General'spossession be made available to yourself, I can see no objectionto that.
CHAIRMAN: Mr - would you just refer me ...(intervention)
MR CURREN: Section 19(8) (a and b) and our interpretationis that the moment the hearing commences we are entitled to copiesof all the documents that were referred to in section 19(8)(a)and that would certainly include all the relevant documentationthat pertained to our clients. We would be inclined to say thatthe hearing has commenced.
JUDGE WILSON: Why are you entitled to copies of them,why should they pay to give you copies?
MR CURREN: We didn't ask them to give - we just askedthem to enable us to make copies.
JUDGE WILSON: That's different.
MR CURREN: That's what we asked for.
JUDGE WILSON: Well that's not what we were told. Wewere told you asked for copies.
MR CURREN: No, no, no, we asked if we could have a copyso we could make copies for ourselves and we were declined.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman I am sorry, perhaps Iformulated it not in the right way. Mr Curren said that theywill make the copies themselves and I want to refer you to subsection8(b) which also refers to the fact that the Commission can decideto release the information. That is why we say we are not difficultabout this. We don't really want to oppose it strenuously, wesimply raised this point and we asked that you make a ruling onthis.
MS KHAMPEPE: But Mr du Plessis has this hearing not
3A commenced?/...
176
commenced? The section makes it quite explicit that you can'trely on any confidentiality once the hearing has commenced.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman we say that the referenceto hearing here, if an applicant comes with one application inrespect of one deed that would be the hearing. We say that oneshould apply that interpretation to each and every applicationthat is made in respect of each and every deed. We say that theintention was clearly that interested parties would have the opportunityto hear the evidence and then cross-examine, and that the intentionwas not that documents be disclosed to interested parties a weekor perhaps longer before in respect of certain incidents so asto enable everybody to prepare severe cross-examination. Butwe are in your hands, if that is not the correct interpretationI accept it.
JUDGE WILSON: There's no question of a week before, itis when the hearing commences.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman I understand that thesection says when the hearing commences, the only question isif that refers to a hearing that's held simultaneously such asthis one or if that refers to a hearing of each and every specificapplication pertaining to each and every deed.
JUDGE WILSON: But you have commenced the hearing of allof them as you have just conceded by calling evidence which appliesto all the hearings.
MR DU PLESSIS: I have, I must concede that, that is so.
CHAIRMAN: Is the position that counsel for a particularclient would be entitled to the entire record or documents relatingto each applicant, or is your view that he'd be
3A only/...
177
only entitled to that portion of the record or documents whichrelate to his client or clients?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman obviously that is ourview. He is only entitled to those incidents which relate tohis clients. We also say that the method that should be utilisedin providing the copies is that the bundles should not be providedto the legal representatives so that they can make copies of themselves,the specific incidents should be copied by my learned friend andthen provided to them, so as not to disclose other informationabout other incidents not concerning the specific representatives.
CHAIRMAN: That's how it should be.
ADV DE JAGER: But what would prevent them, the one givingto the other and they make copies of the whole bundle in the longrun. We are not engaged in a legal battle here, we are involvedin an investigation.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes that's why we don't have a problemMr Chairman. We are simply concerned, and one of our major concernsis the Press. It is possible that if such applications are madeavailable that it could be leaked to the Press. We don't knowwhat implications that would have. As long as it doesn't influenceour right to amnesty we won't have a problem.
JUDGE WILSON: From what I have read in the Press statementswere leaked to the Press by the applicant's attorney last week.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman no statements have been leakedto the Press by the applicant's attorney relating to any informationpertaining to the applications themselves. Certain informationwas apparently leaked, we don't know how. We are simply concernedabout that if the availability 3A of/...
178
of the documents to legal representatives on the basis that itis not disclosed to the Press, on the basis for them to preparecross-examination and on the basis that the applicants won't foregotheir right to amnesty, if the Commission makes that decisionwe won't have any problem with that. That's why I am not strenuouslyopposing the situation.
CHAIRMAN: Well Mr Curren you've realised how the basison which this application is being opposed. The emphasis seemsto be on the word strenuously.
MR CURREN: Not strenuously. We hear that Mr Chairman,and our position is simply that any documents given to us whichare in advance of evidence being led will be held by us. We arecertainly not going to make copies and distribute them to anyone. We have given undertakings to that effect already. Quite franklyI think we should dispose of this and let's proceed with the matter.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman we accept that undertakingand I will leave the matter there.
CHAIRMAN: Very well. We may proceed.
3A MR DU PLESSIS:/...
179 COL VENTER
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I then call ColonelVenter to give evidence.
COLONEL VENTER: (sworn states)
MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel Venter could you please turn topage 3 of your application and then briefly tell the Committeewhat your background is, the background to your career.
COL VENTER: In 1965 I matriculated at the high schoolPiet Potgieter and I then went to the SAP College for trainingof six months. I was then transferred to the SAP Bramley. SinceMarch 1968 I was with the security branch, initially in Johannesburg. During this period I also performed border duty on three differentoccasions in the then Rhodesia. I was then stationed at the securitybranch at John Vorster Square in Johannesburg until 1969 afterwhich I went to Katimo Mulalo. In 1971, 1972 I performed clandestinework in Pretoria whilst I was with the security headquarters. 1979 to 1983 I was attached to the security branch Rustenberg,after which I went to Thabazimbi. In 1983 I was transferred toZeerust. 1 December 1984 I was transferred to the security branchheadquarters where I worked for unit C1 under the command of ColonelCronje, until August 1985. Then I was transferred to C2 headquarters,security headquarters, and there I stayed until 1990 and I wasthen transferred to the security branch Northern Transvaal until1st of March 1995.
MR DU PLESSIS: I would like you to comment on one ortwo aspects which Brigadier Cronje testified about, could youplease comment on the San Hedrun, if you could perhaps just addto what Brigadier Cronje said.
COL VENTER: The San Hedrun worked as follows. Each
3A security/...
180 COL VENTER
security branch in the country, as far as incidents in their particularareas, they reported on this on a daily basis to the regionaloffice, upon which the regional offices conveyed this to headquartersby fax or telex or cryptogram and it was then conveyed to therelevant desk as well as to the staff of the Commissioner. Theinformation was processed and on a daily basis conferences wereheld regarding the incidents of the previous day and contributionswere then made by the various commanding officers of the variousdesks.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you. Is there anything you wouldlike to add in respect of TREVETS?
ADV DE JAGER: Could you just tell us please C1, whichunit was that?
COL VENTER: C1 was the unit which operated from Vlakplaas.
ADV DE JAGER: And C2?
COL VENTER: C2 was the unit which operated from headquartersand they were concerned with interrogations of arrested terroristsand the like. I may add that C3 was TREVETS, as previously mentioned.
MR DU PLESSIS: As far as TREVETS is concerned could youadd anything to what Brigadier Cronje said?
COL VENTER: I may just mention that the headquarter componentof TREVETS consisted of security branch members under the commandof a security branch member and there was also a member of militaryintelligence, as well as a member of national intelligence. Thesemembers were permanently seconded and they worked with the securitybranch people. On a monthly basis meetings were held in the variousregions with the regions' representatives involved in investigatingacts of terrorism. At these meetings targets were
3A identified/...
181 COL VENTER
identified and prominent people involved, initially only abroadbut later also within the borders of the country. We compileda list of names of these people so that we could have a prioritylist regarding their activities and involvement, internally aswell as outside the borders of the country.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Colonel. One further aspect,can you add anything about the destruction of documents? Youdeal with that on page 20.
MS KHAMPEPE: Excuse me, can I, before proceeding to that,could you please just explain to us what was contained in thepriority list, what kind of information was contained in thatlist?
COL VENTER: The priority list contained targets and thisdealt with installations in other countries which was used asa basis from where people infiltrated the country, MK members. Internally what was involved was places of safety and transithouses where activists and trained terrorists were sheltered andwhere prospective candidates who were about to go for trainingwere accommodated or were in transit to the various points oftraining. The priority lists were kept on the basis of informationobtained and these contained the names of the people who weremost active at the time whether inside or outside the country.
MR DU PLESSIS: Now Colonel could you please ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: What were they priority for, what was intendedto be done to these people?
COL VENTER: Chairperson that is where the role of specialforces was involved as has been said here, there were actionsoutside the country as well as inside the country
3A and/...
182 COL VENTER
and that information was collected for that purpose and for actionslike those.
JUDGE WILSON: What sort of actions against these people?
COL VENTER: I am not aware of what type of attacks thesewere but there were attacks on houses and internally on residencesof activists and that is the type of information which was collectedat these monthly meetings.
JUDGE WILSON: But you talked about lists of people, nothouses, you talked a moment ago that lists of people were drawnup.
COL VENTER: That is correct. If I say that houses wereattacked then it would be the houses belonging to the people whosenames were on the list, or where they lived. There was a targetanalysis which was done regarding these houses.
JUDGE WILSON: So there would be no personal attacks againstpeople, there were attacks against houses and buildings, are yousaying there were no attacks against people? That this list wasnot for the extermination of people?
COL VENTER: No Chairperson. I think you have misunderstoodme. The two lists operated jointly. If a person's name was onthe list and he was identified as a target then necessarily theplace where he lived or stayed would be investigated and analysedso that it could be attacked.
JUDGE WILSON: No attacks against people, I repeat thequestion, is that what you are telling us?
COL VENTER: No, no Mr Chairman. Attacks were directedat people.
JUDGE NGOEPE: But when the list was put up, of these people,was it put up for the purpose of launching attacks
3A on/...
183 COL VENTER
on them? I am not talking about the buildings, I am talking aboutthe individual people on the list.
COL VENTER: That is what I am trying to say. The listwas compiled containing the names of people. Those people wereabout to be attacked. But the person necessarily has to stayin a particular house, so the house was targeted, the addresshad to be investigated to determine whether the person was stillstaying there otherwise we would be attacking houses to no avail.
JUDGE NGOEPE: You are saying that that is what you aretrying to say, but it is difficult for us to understand you likethat. Are you aware that to qualify for amnesty you will haveto make a full disclosure of everything that you know?
COL VENTER: Chairperson that's why I am saying I thinkyou misunderstood me. I said right from the outset that we compileda list of targets and a list persons.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes but you didn't tell us for what purpose,the purpose was never mentioned.
COL VENTER: I don't want to mislead the Commission becauseI was still going to get to the purpose of these monthly meetings.
JUDGE NGOEPE: But my colleague struggled to get an answerfrom you as to the objective and the purpose of these lists.
COL VENTER: Chairperson I am sorry if I gave that impressionbut it's not my purpose to mislead you in any way.
MS KHAMPEPE: Colonel did the list not contain informationof names of people to be attacked in a particular order?
COL VENTER: The most active people were right at thetop of the list. I could perhaps just mention if a person for
3B instance/...
184 COL VENTER
instance was in Botswana and he was planning to go to Angola ina month's time then the name would change to a different placein the order because he wouldn't be as easily accessible if youknow what I mean. So it was indeed a priority list of the mostimportant people.
MS KHAMPEPE: And that would be for purposes of launchingan attack against that particular person?
COL VENTER: Correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Colonel you don'thave to sit so close to the microphone. As far as these objectiveswere concerned was a distinction made between people who had tobe intimidated by for instance a bomb attack at his house or peoplewho had to be eliminated?
COL VENTER: I am not understanding this question becausethe way I understand a bomb attack that is also a process of eliminationat the same time.
ADV DE JAGER: If I may put it this way was there a listof persons who were to be intimidated by means of damaging theirproperty just to frighten them, and a different list where thepriority was to actually eliminate those people by killing them?
COL VENTER: No there was only one list. There weren'tvarious lists of people.
MS KHAMPEPE: In that case Colonel who decided on howattacks were to be executed against the people who were in thepriority list?
COL VENTER: All I can tell you is that that is why thespecial forces attended our meetings as well as people from militaryintelligence if these targets were outside the borders of thecountry then it would have been referred to them, and if it wasinternal then a particular region where
3B that/...
185 COL VENTER
that person was located would be responsible for action.
MS KHAMPEPE: And who in that particular region in termsof rank would determine the manner?
COL VENTER: An attack on a person would be planned bythe regional commander because these regional commanders alsoattended the monthly meetings.
MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel Venter if the objective was determinedby TREVETS and an attack was launched but there was nobody insidethe home, would the person still have remained on the list orwould he have been taken off the list?
COL VENTER: He would have stayed on the list.
MR DU PLESSIS: Could we turn to page 20, the destructionof documents, could you just add anything to Brigadier Cronje'sevidence perhaps?
COL VENTER: Documents were destroyed on a regular basisby the security branch. Shortly before the new government cameto power Head Office gave a telephonic order, I can't rememberwho issued the order, but I suspect that it was via the intelligencesection. I might just add that in that period General Le Rouxwas the commanding officer of the security branch and the instructionwas that all documents which could implicate and hurt the securitybranch and informer's files in which people's identities couldbe revealed should be destroyed.
MR DU PLESSIS: You are personally aware of this order?
COL VENTER: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't want you to deal with the restof the contents of page 20. You heard what Brigadier Cronje saidrelating to his memory, are you in a similar situation as faras your memory and powers of recall are concerned and 3B the/...
186 COL VENTER
the facts which you can remember?
COL VENTER: Correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Have you disclosed all the facts whichyou could remember?
COL VENTER: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Would you turn to page 21, the last paragraph.
COL VENTER: I was raised in a home where Christian principlesand norms applied. It was for me quite a bridge to cross to becomepart of the security police when I became involved in them becausetheir actions often flew in the face of the education which Ireceived and were not in line with my Christian principles, butit was necessary due to the circumstances which prevailed at thetime.
MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel Venter then lastly before we cometo the specific events you heard Brigadier Cronje's evidence regardingthe general orders which were given especially during the periodof unrest and riots, do you agree with that?
COL VENTER: Yes I do.
MR DU PLESSIS: Would you turn to page 105. Mr Chairmanthere is just one point I want to raise here, no application wasmade for murder. We don't believe that there is a case for murderbut we would wish to include, on page 105 with a list of deeds,we would wish to make application to include murder there.
CHAIRMAN: Will there be any details about who the victimwould be?
MR DU PLESSIS: No there won't be, that is why it wasn'tincluded, I just want to make 100% sure please Mr Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: ...(indistinct)
3B MR DU PLESSIS:/...
187 COL VENTER
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you very much.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis possibly at this stage Ishould indicate to you that you want to include amnesty for murder,we cannot in general give amnesty for murder. It might be thathe had murdered a person X who had nothing to do whatsoever withpolitics, it might have been one of his family members or whatever. We cannot offer a general amnesty, only if we know exactly whothe victim was, where the event occurred, the incident occurred,etc. It is not possible to give amnesty in a sort of broad sensethat he might have murdered his wife or his child, I am not talkingabout your particular case here Colonel Venter but just for exampleand that a person would therefore gain amnesty for murder.
MR DU PLESSIS: I understand that Chair. Of course thatis one of the problems of the Act, it creates problems that'swhy our approach had been with the drafting of the applicationsthat we would rather put in too much rather than too little. So for instance if we ask for amnesty with regard to murder relatingto a particular case and the Committee believes that the factsdon't justify it and we do not gain amnesty on that case, thenthat is that. We simply tried to make the applications as wideand as detailed as possible.
MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman may I just interrupt on what mylearned friend has just requested to do. If matter is includedin this application and the Committee allows it, then I am goingto have a problem in that on the facts outlined by the applicantno mention is made of murder whatsoever. Now that is going toimpact itself on the full disclosure. If it was left out by mistakethen at least the 3B evidence/...
188 COL VENTER
evidence of the applicant from the application itself should revealthat there was murder, but so far there isn't. Now if it is allowedit will boil down to what the learned Committee member has saidthat it cannot be murder on a global basis without specifics,we don't have specifics of murder in his application. I've gota problem with that.
CHAIRMAN: I am going to allow him to include the term"murder". Should the evidence develop and events unfoldand there might be evidence that might emerge, not from him butfrom others, that might implicate him in murder he would havean opportunity of giving evidence and at that stage we will reviewthe proceedings as to who the victims were and whether we shouldbe able to get hold of the victims and so on but I don't thinkat this stage that it is visualised that they are in a positionto say that in fact he has committed murder and therefore thisapplication is made on that basis. So I think we will just allowit for the time being. We will see how the evidence unfolds.
MR MPSHE: As it pleases the Chair, thank you.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you very much Mr Chairman. ColonelVenter your version of the events referred to as the Pepco 3 incidenthas been detailed in your application, could you read this tothe Commission starting from page 6.
COL VENTER: During this event Colonel Jack Cronje wasthe commander at Vlakplaas. I was directly under his commandand control. A number of members of Vlakplaas were given theinstruction to go to the Eastern Cape particularly Port Elizabethsince the politically related unrest was taking place there andour help was needed with the suppression of the unrest. We wereinstructed to take along a group of askaris, former members ofUmkhonto we Sizwe and SAP members 3B to/...
189 COL VENTER
to identify possible infiltrators. When we as members of Vlakplaaswere sent to other regions we were placed under the command ofthe regional commander and received direct instructions from theregions' offices. I remember that the following Vlakplaas memberswent along, namely Gert Beslaar, Joe Mamasela, Johannes Kule,Piet Mogwayo, Peggy Radebe and other Black members whose namesI no longer remember. In the early hours of the morning we arrivedin Port Elizabeth and went to the railway station to Glen Connorwhere we stayed in a house. We rode patrol and I attempted toidentify possible infiltrators, activists and incitists to findthem and gain information. As we found and arrested these activistswe handed them over to the local security branch for further action. There were daily consultations with the members of the Port Elizabethsecurity branch. The purpose was to assist the security branchthere with the finding of trained terrorists and activists whowere fleeing from them and who were responsible for the unrestin the area.
The security branch in Port Elizabeth gained information thatthree activists who were specifically looked for with regard topolitical unrest and destabilisation in the area would have goneto the airport that particular night. At that time the entirecountry was alight and there was unrest everywhere, arson, sabotage,incitement, school boycotts, consumer boycotts, necklacing murdersand other kinds of intimidation. I was asked to go along withthe askaris to the airport to pick up the three men. We werenot known in the area and therefore were able to act with easewithout causing suspicion. Captain Sakkie van Zyl of the securitybranch came along with me and the
3B askaris/...
190 COL VENTER
askaris. The information available to us were that they wereANC activists involved in unrest in that area. The purpose ofthe operation was to interrogate them, gain information, removethem out of the area and neutralise their involvement. I didnot know at that time that there had been a decision that theywere to be eliminated by being killed. We drove to the airportwith a Nissan Safari. Joe Mamasela, Kule, Magwayo and Radebefollowed in a minibus. Lieutenant Dion Nieuwoudt also went along. I think at that time he was a warrant officer.
We were shown photographs of the activists and knew exactly whatthey looked like. The askaris easily picked them up at the airportand took them away with a combi to the agreed meeting place alongthe ocean. Dion Nieuwoudt and another person, whose name I cannotremember removed the vehicle of the three persons, it was a bakkie. Myself, Sakkie van Zyl and Gert Beslaar met the group of askarisat a later stage at the agreed place next to the ocean. The threeactivists were at this meeting. They had caps over their headswhich were entirely covered. Myself and Warrant Officer Beslaarleft everyone there and went back to our residence at Glen Connor. It had been requested that my askaris were to assist the branchwith regard to further interrogation and investigation and I leftthem there under the command of Sakkie van Zyl.
Sakkie van Zyl before we left asked me to return to them, orrather to meet with them in Cradock a day or two later. I donot remember why the interrogation took place at Cradock but acceptedthat the purpose was that they were to be kept outside of thearea where they operated. I was going to Cradock in any eventsince I was visiting all the
3B security/...
191 COL VENTER
security branches in the area. The commander at Cradock was totake me to Van Zyl where I was also to meet with my askaris andregain command over them.
A day or two later we went to Cradock where Major Winter, thecommander of the Cradock security branch took us to the placewhere the three captives were. It was an old police station inthe Cradock area. I will not be able to identify this place againtoday. At this old police station was present Sakkie van Zyl,Dion Nieuwoudt, the already mentioned askaris and Major Winterwho took us to this place. Gert Beslaar had gone along with me. I cannot remember the names of other persons there present. The only persons whom I know and remember at that event was DionNieuwoudt, Sakkie van Zyl and Major Winter.
We had a barbecue and had some drinks and the three captiveswere with us but their faces were covered so they were not ableto see us. I could see them and it had not appeared if they werein any way harmed, or in an evident way harmed. Dion Nieuwoudtor Sakkie van Zyl told me that the investigation or interrogationhad gone well and that much information had been gained. I didnot take part in the interrogations but gathered that the threewere later to be eliminated since their bakkie had already beendestroyed. Later that evening I went along with Beslaar backto Glen Connor and the Vlakplaas askaris joined us that eveningor the next morning at Glen Connor. I was not involved in theinterrogation of the three persons nor was I involved in any assaultsor intimidation or any other action against these three persons. I was also not involved in the removal of the bakkie.
I am not entirely sure what happened to these three
3B persons/...
192 COL VENTER
persons nor did I hear afterwards what had happened to them. Someone whose name I cannot remember informed me that their bakkiehad been burnt out. This is the same bakkie that Nieuwoudt hadremoved from the airport.
The three mentioned activists were the great troublemakers atthat stage in the Eastern Cape. The entire operation was aimedat removing these three from the area and to neutralise them. I do not remember that an instruction had been given that theywere to be killed.
I do, however, know that from time to time that activists andterrorists responsible for serious crimes, the death of otherpersons, assaults, intimidation and the death of innocent civilianswere eliminated and then disappeared. It was necessary to eliminateactivists of such stature since if they were to be kept in detentionthey would have become an increasing risk since they would havemartyrs for their people.
Sakkie van Zyl, then a captain of the security branch in theEastern Cape was under the direct command of the currently retiredGeneral Nick van Rensburg. Sakkie van Zyl's instructions musthave come from General Nick van Rensburg who was at that timeeither a Brigadier or Colonel and who was then head of the securitybranch in the Eastern Cape.
MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel on the next page you answer thequestion whether you know what the names were of the victims,their locations or addresses or of their relatives, do you haveany of this knowledge?
COL VENTER: Chair as I say we were shown photographsand the names were written on the back of the photographs, butI cannot remember these names, that's why I could not
3B complete/...
193 COL VENTER
complete the form in this regard?
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you have any further names with regardto these victims when you completed the application?
COL VENTER: No.
MR DU PLESSIS: On page 114 you discussed the politicalpurposes. The first part of this response is the general partwhich Brigadier Cronje already presented to the Committee. MayI take you therefore to page 121 starting from the middle of thepage you start with "Die motief was..." could you startfrom there again.
COL VENTER: The motive was in every case to gain informationfrom supporters and members of the liberation movements in thestruggle of the State against such movements. The context inwhich this happened was against the background of increasing destabilisingactions in the country, unrest, violence and intimidation whichhappened on a daily basis. The ANC attempted to make the countryungovernable and at that stage this was part of the politicalresistance.
MR DU PLESSIS: Then on page 122 right from the top.
COL VENTER: The purpose and goal was to identify ANCsupporters, activists, fellow travellers or terrorists, to gaininformation with regard to them and to have criminal prosecution. The act was necessary to intimidate the terrorists, activistsand their supporters which was necessary in view of the securitysituation in the country. Action against activists as far asI know was in most cases successful, and of the activists againstactions were taken then no longer continued with their activities. Steps were therefore successful against the activists and inthis way diminished the intimidation and the ungovernability making
3B of/...
194 COL VENTER
of the country by the ANC and other liberation movements. Normallythe way of interrogation was that I gave the command, the methodsof interrogation were well-known methods used throughout the securityforces in keeping with the purposes and goals.
JUDGE WILSON: What were they?
COL VENTER: They were activists, well-known ANC activistsChair.
JUDGE WILSON: No what was the manner of the questioning,what was the manner of interrogation?
COL VENTER: I don't understand.
MR DU PLESSIS: May I just request that Colonel Venterif he wants to use the headphones to hear the question in Afrikaansplease? It would be convenient now Mr Chair.
JUDGE WILSON: Can I repeat my question, what was themethod of questioning that you refer to?
COL VENTER: Chair the means of interrogation which theyused I don't know because I had not been present during the interrogation.
JUDGE WILSON: You in your statement at page 122 say "normallythe manner of...(Interpretation of the Afrikaans not given)",how can you now say that you don't know, know what the methodswere?
COL VENTER: Chair I can sketch for you the manner ofinterrogation, the normal means of interrogation but I do notknow exactly how they interrogated the person. The normal wayof interrogation by security branch members would have been touse violence, to humiliate people, to assault people, to intimidatepeople as a means of gaining information from them.
MS KHAMPEPE: May I ask who determined what methods wereto 3B be/...
195 COL VENTER
be used for such interrogations in a particular case or incident?
COL VENTER: Chair where I was in command of interrogationI normally determined the modus operandi by simply takingpart in the interrogation. It had become such a part of the securitybranch that the majority of members used this approach to interrogationas I described it.
CHAIRMAN: Do proceed.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Colonel Ventera last question, I just want to clarify this point that we haveagreement with this, under whose instruction were you acting inPort Elizabeth?
COL VENTER: Chair I was under the command of the regionalcommander. I particularly cooperated and received my direct instructionsfrom Captain van Zyl who at that time was my superior.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman I have no furtherquestions for the witness.
CHAIRMAN: Is this witness not going to be giving evidencein relation to the dud handgrenades?
COL VENTER: Mr Chairman yes, but at a later stage. Thereare certain arrangements - my learned friend contacted me in respectof one person, Mr Tebedi who is the speaker of the North WestParliament who has to be back tomorrow and he requested that mylearned friend asked me if we could deal with that incident perhapsafter this incident, with your permission obviously. We do nothave any problem with dealing with different incidents at differenttimes with different witnesses.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Mpshe?
MR MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman the
3B arrangement/...
196 COL VENTER
arrangement my learned friend is referring to contradicts thearrangement that I have made that we are going to travel in thisfashion for various reasons Mr Chairman. The first reason isthat we felt that we must first deal with the Pepco matter inorder to release the people from Port Elizabeth Mr Chairman. So if we continue now with schedule 9 involving the handgrenadesit means they will have to be detained here and they may misstheir flight. That's the first reason.
The second reason is that I have in attendance the speaker ofParliament from Northwest Mr Chairman who has been with us sinceyesterday and who couldn't come on yesterday and I requested himto be in today and he indicated that he must finish today becauseParliament started today and he had to be back tomorrow. So Imade that special request that when we finished with the Pepco3, when the point is where people leave then we could call himin and do his matter so that he can also be released, but withthe permission and consent of the Committee.
CHAIRMAN: Very well. Let's proceed.
MR MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I believe therepresentatives of the families would like to question ColonelVenter.
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR NYOKA: Mr Venter do you watch television, read newspapersand listen to the radio?
COL VENTER: Yes.
MR NYOKA: In 1985 did you do so around the disappearanceof the people in question?
COL VENTER: Yes Chair I believe that I listened to the
3B radio/...
197 COL VENTER
radio. We did not always have access to newspapers but I didlisten to the radio.
MR NYOKA: During that period it was headline news thatthere were three activists from Port Elizabeth who were missingafter being fetched from the airport, did you not hear or readabout that?
COL VENTER: Yes.
MR NYOKA: Were the names not mentioned of those peoplethat were missing when you read about that or listened to that?
COL VENTER: Correct.
MR NYOKA: What were those names if you can recall?
COL VENTER: Chair I already said that the names of thepersons were also written on the backs of the photographs, butI can unfortunately not remember the names. I can't recall thenames of these three persons.
MR NYOKA: During that time were those names that you sawor read about appearing at any stage in those lists that you hadat Vlakplaas?
COL VENTER: Chair no. I think he's referring to theTREVETS list. At that stage I was not involved with TREVETS, Iwas at C1 in Vlakplaas, I would therefore not know whether thenames were on this list.
MR NYOKA: Do you know how the PE special branch had receivedinformation that three activists were going to go to the PortElizabeth airport, do you know how that information was received?
COL VENTER: ......(no interpretation) (Tape 3B ends.)
MR NYOKA: .... was firstly to interrogate them, secondlyto obtain information from them, thirdly to remove them from thearea and fourthly to neutralise their involvement, were you toldbefore their arrests where they would be removed
4A to?/...
198 COL VENTER
to?
COL VENTER: No Chair, I've already indicated that atthe ocean where I met them, I was told that I had to enquire atCradock and then I would be taken to the place where they werekept in detention, I did not know exactly where this place wasgoing to be.
MR NYOKA: What was meant by, 'neutralise their involvement'? What did that mean?
COL VENTER: It would have meant to remove them from thearea where they were actively involved in the unrest and the activitiesof that time, that is to remove them out of the area.
MR NYOKA: Perhaps to a place where they are not known,is that correct?
COL VENTER: Correct.
MR NYOKA: You did not say that Cradock, where there aremany activists is a place where they are known, like the GoniweThree?
COL VENTER: Chair, I understand what is being said, butthey were not taken to Cradock, I simply had to go to Cradockand then I would have been taken to where they would have come. They were taken to the police station entirely outside of theirarea where they were they were involved. It's an old police station,I can't remember where it was.
MR NYOKA: My instructions are that the three were notin hiding at that stage, why was it that they had to be arrestedat the PE airport and not taken from their homes?
COL VENTER: Chair I can't answer this question, I wassimply asked to make my people available at the airport.
They had the information that these persons would have been atthe airport.
4A MR NYOKA:/...
199 COL VENTER
MR NYOKA: Mr Venter you said your task included tracinginsurgents, activists and instigators, and once arrested to handthem over to the local Special Branch, do you still stand by that?
COL VENTER: I remain with this statement because therewere persons of the Branch present with me.
MR NYOKA: Why is it that the three were not merely arrestedand handed over to the local security branch as they qualifiedunder the description of activists and instigators? Why werethey to be taken to the ocean or beach?
COL VENTER: Chair if I think back to this today, it'sthat these people were taken away from the airport, then theywere handed over to the security branch members. We did thisnext to the ocean and they then took them away.
MR NYOKA: You do know the Port Elizabeth Airport Hertzog,when you were there?
COL VENTER: I do know the Port Elizabeth airport, thatwas in fact the last time I had been to the airport.
MR NYOKA: It's not a big airport?
COL VENTER: No it is very small.
MR NYOKA: You said that you and some askaris went toPE Airport because you were unknown in the area it would thusbe able to operate easily, are you therefore to concede that oncethe three were within the airport premises in their motor vehicle,it would have been easy for the local security branch just toclose both the entrance and exits and arrest them inside theircar, they didn't have to come all the way from Vlakplaas to dothat?
COL VENTER: Chair, I think there's a misunderstanding. I was unknown in the area, as a person I was unknown in the
4A area/...
200 COL VENTER
area. If I were to take these persons away from the airports,then they could not link this to known security police officersfrom Port Elizabeth.
MR NYOKA: You said you were accompanied by one Dion Nieuwoudt,where was he coming from?
COL VENTER: Dion Nieuwoudt was of the security branchat Port Elizabeth, also Sakkie van Zyl.
MR NYOKA: Why is it then that you and the askaris wereunknown had to be accompanied by people who were known from thatarea? It doesn't make sense to me.
COL VENTER: They took us to the airport, let me explainexactly how this worked. We were sitting in a vehicle to theside, myself and van Zyl, the askaris on their own then approachedthe bakkie when it already had stopped, they then grabbed thesepersons, I was not physically with them, I was at a distance inthe presence of van Zyl and Nieuhoudt.
MR NYOKA: Is that the full name of this Dion Nieuhoudt,is it Dion Nieuhoudt?
COL VENTER: That's the only way in which I know him. I know him as Dion Nieuhoudt.
MR NYOKA: Is it the same person who was involved in theMotherwell trial?
COL VENTER: Correct Mr Chair.
MR NYOKA: That person is Gideon Nieuhoudt, not Dion Nieuhoudt. That's why I asked that question, I wanted to be sure.
COL VENTER: Mr Chair, no that's correct, I think youcall him Dion which is probably derived from Gideon.
MR NYOKA: Thank you very much.
MR NYOKA: Why did you have to go to the coast insteadof to a local police station to interrogate them?
4A COL VENTER:/...
201 COL VENTER
COL VENTER: Mr Chair, I've already said they gave meinstructions that we would find the askaris at the sea and thatthey would then remove them from there. It was a method whichwas used if they did not want to keep a person at a police station.
MR NYOKA: You said their heads were covered at nightand were not known, why did you have to cover their heads? Whydid you have to cover their heads, you were not known by them,what was the necessity for that?
COL VENTER: I think it was probably for the other membersof the security branch from Port Elizabeth who were with us. Because they definitely didn't know us. When I met them nextto the ocean, they were wearing these hats, and when I left shortlythereafter, their heads were still covered.
MR NYOKA: When did you go to Cradock after the airportincident?
COL VENTER: About a day or two later. I can't exactlyremember.
MR NYOKA: Was it the intention of the group to interrogatethem outside the normal Cradock police station, if you know?
COL VENTER: I would imagine so that that was the intention.
MR NYOKA: Was the police commander, of the Cradock policestation aware that you were in an unused police station of Cradock?
COL VENTER: I don't know whether the station commanderof Cradock was aware of this. I simply don't know.
MR NYOKA: Why did you not take them to the Cradock policestation and interrogate them there?
COL VENTER: Chair as I have already indicated, my taskwas to see to it that these people were brought to the ocean,
4A from/...
202 COL VENTER
from there they were taken to a police station close to Cradock.
MR NYOKA: Did you see anyone at any stage assaultingany of those three during the Cradock visit?
COL VENTER: Is that at the old police station?
MR NYOKA: Yes.
COL VENTER: During my visit there they were not assaultedin my presence.
MR NYOKA: Did you hear any shots been fired on any ofthem by any of the group of the police at that police station?
COL VENTER: No Chair.
MR NYOKA: You say that you were not involved in any interrogation,assaults, intimidation or any other action against the three orthe removal of their vehicle, not so?
COL VENTER: Correct Chair.
MR NYOKA: The million dollar puzzlement that I have iswhy were you then involved at all in this matter, being at theairport, coast or beach and then at Cradock, if you had businessregarding them? And coming all the way from Vlakplaas.
COL VENTER: Chair it was my instruction to go to PortElizabeth. Once I arrived there I was given the instruction tohelp with the identification and tracking of trained MK's andactivists who were being looked for. I was asked or instructedto make available my askaris to take these persons at the airport.I think that they used this opportunity to use persons unknownin the area. That was the end of my task, simply to take themat the airport.
MR NYOKA: As an experienced policeman did that not strikeyou as odd that you had no duty whatsoever in this?
COL VENTER: No Chair, this was after all their area,they
4A knew/...
203 COL VENTER
knew what they wanted to do with the persons, why they would interrogatethem. They dealt with the entire thing. I had other tasks tocontinue to try and track down other persons.
JUDGE WILSON: Can I just clarify something that I'm a littleconfused about. Who did you go to the airport with?
COL VENTER: Sakkie van Zyl.
JUDGE WILSON: In what sort of vehicle?
COL VENTER: The person who worked with me, Gert Besselaarwas also with me, my apologies. It was a Nissan Safari, that'sthe kind of vehicle which they used at that time. It was my ownvehicle.
JUDGE WILSON: How did the askaris travel?
COL VENTER: They used a combi, Chair.
JUDGE WILSON: Who else went?
COL VENTER: Dion Nieuhoudt. I cannot remember how hegot there. I think there was another vehicle involved with alsosome of their other staff? There had been another person therewith me but he removed the bakkie afterwards.
JUDGE WILSON: You see in your statement you say Joe Mamasela,Kula Magaye and Gadeba followed with the minibus? Is that so?
COL VENTER: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: So there was a party consisting of - wheredo Mamasela, Kula and Gadeba come from?
COL VENTER: As I said, they came down with me, not inmy vehicle, but in the minibus, in the combi, to the airport.
JUDGE WILSON: Are they from Vlakplaas?
COL VENTER: Ja.
JUDGE WILSON: So there were the four of you from Vlakplaas,your askaris and you all went to the airport.
COL VENTER: Chair, no. There were four askaris, myselfand 4A Gert/...
204 COL VENTER
Gert Besselaar who came from Vlakplaas.
JUDGE WILSON: Where did Mamasela, Kula Makaya and Gadebacome from?
COL VENTER: The are the askaris. Let me explain it toyou. Joe Mamasela is an askari, Piet Magwaya is an askari, PIekieGadebe, I think he's an askari, Nkhule was a member of the policeforce, who also came along from Vlakplaas.
JUDGE WILSON: So three askaris.
MR NYOKA: May I continue?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR NYOKA: Thank you Mr Chairman. I notice in your applicationfor amnesty that you are also including malicious injury to property,what did that relate to? Does it relate to the burnt van of oneof the three?
COL VENTER: That's correct.
MR NYOKA: Did you know that the vehicle used by the threewas going to be used before it was destroyed?
COL VENTER: No, I only learned of that later.
MR NYOKA: Then why is it that you are applying for amnestyfor something that you did not know?
COL VENTER: I only heard later that the vehicle had beendestroyed, whilst I was still in PE, I learned that the vehiclehad been destroyed.
MR NYOKA: But before you left for the airport, you neverknew that there was a vehicle that was going to be destroyed,so that excuses you from any legal liability.
COL VENTER: No.
MR NYOKA: Mr Venter let me move on, if you were in fact,a bystander and did not commit any offence, how is it that youare asking for amnesty regarding other minor offences or thoserelating from the facts?
4A COL VENTER:/...
205 COL VENTER
COL VENTER: I was involved.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman may I please interrupt here.The listing of the specific criminal acts which have been setout in the schedules of all the applicants, were done on legaladvice. The applicants are policemen, they are not legal specialists,they don't know what the elements of specific crimes are, andon that basis I think it is unfair to cross-examine the witnesson what reason these criminal acts were included. As I've indicatedbefore, it was done on the widest ambit possible and it is notto be regarded as an admission of being guilty of perpetratingnecessarily all these acts.
CHAIRPERSON: Does that meet your requirements?
MR NYOKA: Can I ask a question. So your lawyer did nottell you the legal implication of including those four factors?
CHAIRPERSON: I don't think at this stage any purposeis served as to what part these lawyers are concerned with.
MR NYOKA: Alright, I'll move on. You are said that youwere not aware of exactly what happened to the three, not so?
COL VENTER: Correct.
MR NYOKA: Why did you not ask the askaris who joinedyou that evening or the following day as to what had happenedto those three that were being interrogated?
COL VENTER: The askaris reported to me and they didn'ttell me what had happened to the people. To this day I don'tknow how they were killed, whether they were killed and wherethe corpses were or are. I can't answer that.
JUDGE WILSON: The question was why didn't you ask them?
COL VENTER: I didn't ask them because their work hadbeen
4A completed/...
206 COL VENTER
completed. I didn't believe that they were further involved.
JUDGE WILSON: They were people subject to your authority,you were in command of them, you had brought them down there,you had sent them off on an operation, and you didn't think itwas your duty to find out what had happened? Is that what you'retelling us?
COL VENTER: No, I asked them whether they completed theirtask, whether the job was done and they said, yes.
JUDGE WILSON: It seems that you were avoiding findingout, is that so?
CHAIRMAN: What is meant by whether the job is done, whatjob did you think was happening?
COL VENTER: Initially we went along to help with theinterrogation. I later suspected that these people had been eliminatedbut the reason why I didn't ask them was that I didn't believethat they were involved in the process of elimination. I didn'tthink that they were present and that's why I didn't ask them.
JUDGE WILSON: Did you have no sense of responsibility foryour askaris?
COL VENTER: I did.
MR NYOKA: The last persons who were with these threewere the police, according to you, not so?
COL VENTER: That's correct.
MR NYOKA: Is it not reasonable to conclude that the questionsthat must be asked as to their whereabouts are the police datingfrom 1985, would you agree with me?
COL VENTER: That's correct.
MR NYOKA: Were you aware that the then Minister of Lawand Order, Mr Louis Le Grange, paid a brief visit to Port
4A Elizabeth/...
207 COL VENTER
Elizabeth a day before they disappeared, the Three disappeared.
COL VENTER: No.
MR NYOKA: Were you in Port Elizabeth the day before thedisappearance of the three?
COL VENTER: Yes.
MR NYOKA: Mr Chairman, I would like to hand in copiesof a newspaper report indicating that Le Grange was in Port Elizabethto visit African townships at Port Elizabeth. They are very briefreports Your Worship. This strikes me as a strange coincidencethat here is a delegation from Vlakplaas and here is the Ministerof Law and Order, and soon there is the disappearance of highprofile politicians. Does that not strike you as odd or a coincidence,Mr Venter?
COL VENTER: It's the first time that I've heard thisand it might seem coincidental, but I was not aware that he wasin Port Elizabeth.
MR NYOKA: Even if you did not know about that then, butnow, is that not a coincidence according to your sense?
COL VENTER: That's what I'm saying, yes it does seemcoincidental that it happened that way.
MR NYOKA: The City Press of the 4th of December 1994quotes a Sergeant X who made three statements regarding the Cradockincident and I will be very brief with you. He says that it saysthat the three were enticed to the airport by a telephone callto meet a British diplomat. Your Worship I would like to handin just two pages. That they were to meet a British diplomat,this is on page three. He further stated that they were drivenfrom the PE airport, straight to Cradock that very night and interrogatedand assaulted with knobkierries and pistol butts, and that othersheld a
4A braai/...
208 COL VENTER
braai and drank beer outside, what do you say about these twoincidents?
COL VENTER: I've already said that I don't know exactlyhow they operated and what they did, but they were probably enticedto go to the airport, I'm however saying to you that from theairport they were taken to a beach somewhere and from there theydisappeared, I cannot comment on what happened, because I wasn'tpresent after that.
MR NYOKA: Finally he further says that two of them diedthat very night. The first to die was Mr Hashe who was hit onthe head with a pick handle and collapsed. The second one todie was Mr Godolozwa, who was shot in the head. The third one,Mr Galela was saved because he said he was an informer and theyhad to get verification of that the following day. As a result,there was no verification, he was shot the following day. Do youknow anything about that?
COL VENTER: I'm not aware of that.
MR NYOKA: Finally according to Mrs Hashe, the securitypolice came to her home two days after the disappearance of thethree activists and they stormed the house, teargassed the houseand assaulted a child. Were you aware of that incident?
COL VENTER: No Chairperson.
MR NYOKA: I thought you said that you were involved inthat area because you were unknown, why is it that you were leftout of this incident?
COL VENTER: This is the first time that I'm told this,I'm not aware of any of this.
MR NYOKA: There is a general belief, especially in theblack community, that the three have been killed by the police.Do you think that is an unreasonable conclusion in
4A view/...
209 COL VENTER
view of the fact that they have disappeared for more that 11 yearsor for more than 10 years now?
COL VENTER: I think it is reasonable because I last sawthem in the presence of the police.
MR NYOKA: Thank you, I have no further questions.
MS HARTEL: I'll be very brief Mr Chair. Colonel Venter,whose brainchild was Operation Pepco?
COL VENTER: I don't know.
MS HARTEL: How long were you in the Port Elizabeth areafor in relation to the specific events on Wednesday the 8th ofMay 1985, when did you arrive in Port Elizabeth and when did youdepart?
COL VENTER: I can't give you exact dates, we usuallyremained in an area between 14 and 20 days.
MS HARTEL: Col Venter do you bear any personal knowledgeof Mrs Godoloze's home being burned on the 3rd of June 1985?
COL VENTER: No Chairperson.
MS HARTEL: Are you aware Colonel that the families overa period of many years brought three separate applications tothe police to produce their loved ones to Court, and on each occasionthe police denied that they had been arrested or that they werein their custody? Are you aware of those applications?
COL VENTER: I think I read it in the newspapers but Idon't know exactly how many applications there were.
MS HARTEL: Needless those applications were not successful,they were dismissed with costs. Can you please identify the officerswho would have been aware of the arrest of the Pepco Three, atthe Port Elizabeth offices?
COL VENTER: I've already said, Captain Van Zyl, DionNieuhoudt and I don't know what his rank was at the time, it 4Awas/...
210 COL VENTER
was a retired general Nick van Rensburg, and I've already saidthat in my evidence.
MS HARTEL: I am going to mention some names to you, theparticular officers were deponents to affidavits opposing thefamilies' applications to produce the family members. LieutenantColonel Harold Snyman.
COL VENTER: What is the question, is it, would I knowthese people, or whether they were present?
MS HARTEL: Would these officers have been aware of thearrest and detention of the Pepco Three?
COL VENTER: I don't know, as I said, the three that Imentioned, whether the other people were there, I cannot tellyou.
MS HARTEL: Are you familiar with the security officer,Sergeant Butler Tungata?
COL VENTER: No I can't place him.
MS HARTEL: And would the station commander of Cradockhave been aware of the arrest of the Pepco Three?
COL VENTER: He was aware because he took me to the place.
QUESTION: You have testified or explained what you meantby neutralised to the effect that it's to take a person out ofa place to another place. Now my question is to you, for how longwould that person be kept there?
COL VENTER: Depending on the circumstances, in caseswhere I removed a person from an area to extract information fromhim, and I interrogated him, perhaps the person would then giveme the information I needed or cooperated with me, it's difficultto say, it depended on circumstances, in some cases it might bean hour, in some cases a matter of days.
QUESTION: Do I then understand you to be saying that you'dtake this person out of his area to neutralise him and when
4A you're/...
211 COL VENTER
you're through with him you didn't care whether he came back immediatelythe following day after two or three hours, is that what you mean? Would that still be neutralisation?
COL VENTER: No you're misunderstanding me. In the hypotheticcase where I removed somebody, or are you specifically referringto the Pepco Three?
QUESTION: The Pepco Three.
COL VENTER: No in the case of the Pepco Three I don'tknow how long it would have been, I had to remove them from theairport and take them to the beach. I had nothing to do withthe interrogation.
QUESTION: I'm not on the questioning of the Pepco Three. You explained what you meant or you understood by 'to neutralise'.Now my question was to you, if to neutralise means taking themout of their area to another area, for how long were they supposedto be in that other area? Or were they to remain there up tillwhat happened?
COL VENTER: That's very difficult to answer. It all dependedon the cooperation that I was given, information obtained andthe circumstances. I can't actually fix a particular period.
ADV DE JAGER: If you received no cooperation and receivedno information, what would the position be then?
COL VENTER: If I received no cooperation, I would detainhim and continue to interrogate him, indefinitely. We had doneit in the past, it was part of interrogation. You sometimes interrogateda person day and night. (...tape ends)
MS KHAMPEPE: ...supposed to interrogate these people. At page 108 you explain the purpose of conducting this operationand you mention that one of them was to
4B interrogate/...
212 COL VENTER
interrogate, gain information, remove them from the area and neutralisethem, what do you mean when you say 'you were not supposed tointerrogate him'?
COL VENTER: If it was my task to interrogate them I removethem or cause them to be removed and I was not allowed to be presentduring the interrogation, so I had nothing to do with that.
MS KHAMPEPE: Were you given instructions not to participatein the interrogation, is that what you are telling us?
COL VENTER: They took them away from the beach and Iwent back, so I didn't have the opportunity.
MS KHAMPEPE: But say you were part of this operation,you were taken all the way from Vlakplaas, there were seven membersof that unit to participate in this operation.
COL VENTER: I think we were used for this operation toget the people to the airport. I think that was our sole purpose,and for the rest it was up to them to continue with the three.
JUDGE WILSON: But they were, you've told us, as I understandyour evidence, please correct me, that when these people arrivedat the airport they were grabbed by your askaris and put intoa vehicle, is that so?
COL VENTER: That's correct.
JUDGE WILSON: So anybody could have done that whetherthey were known to them or not known to them.
COL VENTER: I can't answer that. They asked me to helpthem. They told me that we were unfamiliar to them and I thereforeconcluded that they were enticed to go to the airport by meansof a phone call. That's the only explanation I can give.
4B ADV DE JAGER:/...
213 COL VENTER
ADV DE JAGER: And if familiar people from Port Elizabethor the area were used they would have recognised them and somebodywould then have been able to say we saw yesterday that SergeantX had taken him away.
COL VENTER: That's correct.
MR NYOKA: Mr Venter before you left for Vlakplaas didn'tyou discuss this whole operation with the people of the securityin Port Elizabeth?
COL VENTER: No. The last time I saw Dion Nieuwoudt andSakkie van Zyl was at the old police station. I didn't see themagain after that. I couldn't discuss it with them.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Colonel do you want us to believe that afterthe operation or after handing them over you left without beingtold by your colleagues in Port Elizabeth what is going to happento them? Do you want us to believe that?
COL VENTER: That is correct. Because as I said I didn'tsee Sakkie van Zyl and Dion Nieuwoudt again in the time that Iwas there. We continued with our other duties and I didn't seethem again. I can't remember how long a period of time elapsed,I just didn't see them again.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Venter you were given instructions byyour commander in Vlakplaas to go and assist in this operation,when you came back what kind of a report did you give to yourcommander with regard to how these orders were executed by youas a leader of the six other Vlakplaas members?
COL VENTER: It was our custom upon arrival to reportto our commanding officer, not in full detail on all the minorthings. I gave him an oral report. It wasn't always in writtenform and I told him that everything had proceeded according toplan.
JUDGE WILSON: Did you tell him that you and your askaris
4B had/...
214 COL VENTER
had been responsible for removing three people from the airportwho had later been liquidated, who you believed had later beenliquidated?
COL VENTER: Chairperson I believe that I told him thatmyself and askaris were responsible for the removal of the peoplefrom the airport. I can't remember whether I ever told him thatit was my view that they had been eliminated. Maybe he can assistin this respect, but I think I reported to him that the peoplehad been arrested and removed.
JUDGE WILSON: Surely it was of vital importance thathe should know, that he could take steps to make sure that youraskaris didn't talk about it, let the cat out of the bag, youhad been concerned, indirectly, in three murders, and you didn'tthink to tell your commanding officer. You may not have you say?
COL VENTER: (The Interpreters are struggling to hearthe witness). I don't know whether I actually gave him my opinionon the matter, but it is possible.
CHAIRMAN: Any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Please Mr Chairman. I have been burning my seat because of the questions I want toask. Colonel, there is something which is not very clear to usand it's obvious that everybody in this hall is misunderstandingthe position, for how long were you in Port Elizabeth?
COL VENTER: I can't remember exactly, it could have beenbetween 14 and 18 days.
MR DU PLESSIS: And this incident in the planning beforehand,was this ever discussed with you before you went to Port Elizabeth?
COL VENTER: No, never.
4B MR DU PLESSIS:/...
215 COL VENTER
MR DU PLESSIS: Was your objective when you went to PortElizabeth to perform this particular operation and then to return?
COL VENTER: No.
MR DU PLESSIS: What other things did you do during yourperiod of 18 days in Port Elizabeth, couldn't you give us a lotmore detail?
COL VENTER: The task of such a group in an area was totrace trained MK members. The askaris or ex MK members were familiarand knew where the other trained people were and they moved aroundin this area to trace other MK's. That was our main task. Ifsome of them could be traced they would be arrested and handedover to the security branch in that area. Other tasks includedthe identifying of people involved in riots and chaos which existedat the time and to convey that information to the security branchof that particular area, further investigation.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did you perform these duties during the18 days that you were there?
COL VENTER: Yes, that's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And Colonel Venter did you contact variousmembers of the security branch in the Port Elizabeth area in thatperiod?
COL VENTER: That's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And why did you do that?
COL VENTER: We went to all the various branches in anarea to find out whether there was any way in which we could assistthem because I also at the various branch offices I would forinstance go to Uitenhage and I would deploy my people there andI would visit that particular branch.
MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel we heard Brigadier Cronje's
4B evidence/...
216 COL VENTER
evidence to the effect that the unit at Vlakplaas, specifically,was established to assist other security branches in for instancetracing of terrorists, would you agree?
COL VENTER: Yes that's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: In your statement you mentioned MajorWinter who was the commanding officer at the Cradock Police Station.
COL VENTER: He was the commanding officer of the securitybranch.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, I just wanted to rectify that.Now was he the person who took you to the police station whereyou saw the three activists for the last time?
COL VENTER: As far as I can remember.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did you ever speak to the commanding officerin Cradock?
COL VENTER: Are you talking about the station commander?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.
COL VENTER: No.
MR DU PLESSIS: Are you personally aware of whether thestation commander was involved in the death of the activists?
COL VENTER: No I don't know.
MR DU PLESSIS: Was there a security branch commandingofficer in Cradock and a station commander of the police station?
COL VENTER: Correct.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
MS HARTEL: May it please the Chair, the honoured membersof the Committee, it has been agreed with my learned friends,because of our time constraint that we will be
4B able/...
217 COL VENTER
able to make our closing submissions on behalf of the family now.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Well can you give me the case number ofthat application which was dismissed with costs.
MS HARTEL: Indeed. In fact there are three applications.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes just give us the case numbers.
MS HARTEL: They are all South Eastern Cape local division. The first case number is 1803/85. The second case no.1247/85.And the last case is 3236/85. I do have copies of the proceedingsavailable if the Chair would like me to make these available.
JUDGE NGOEPE: And if I proceed to put questions to thiswitness I just want to make sure that I understood you to saythat the policemen whose names you have mentioned apparently madeaffidavits denying knowledge of the fact that ...(intervention)
MS HARTEL: That is so Mr Chair.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Of the fact that the three people were arrested.
MR HARTEL: That is so. I didn't think it necessary tomake the affidavits available. I have in fact copied them andthey are with me. The particular officers whose names I havecalled out have made affidavits specifically denying that theyhad any knowledge of the whereabouts of the Pepco 3 activists.
JUDGE NGOEPE: One of them was the station commander?
MS HARTEL: It is in fact the - the Afrikaans word is "DistrikKommandant no.18 Cradock Major P A Kallick".
JUDGE NGOEPE: Never mind we will get that informationlater. When you went to the airport were you aware that thesepeople were to be removed to some place outside the
4B area?...
218 COL VENTER
area?
COL VENTER: That is correct because they told me thatwe
had to take them to a place near the beach, near the sea.
JUDGE NGOEPE: And you were told that the right peopleto arrest these people or to abduct them should be people whowould not be known in that area?
COL VENTER: Correct.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you think that anything lawful was goingto happen to them, to the deceased?
COL VENTER: Anything lawful?
JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, given the fact that the people whowere supposed to abduct them should be people who should not beknown at all, did you think that they were going to come backsafely, if I may put it that bluntly?
COL VENTER: No, no I didn't think so.
JUDGE NGOEPE: What did you think?
COL VENTER: I thought they would be removed from thatcommunity after we arrested them and that they would be removed,taken away.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you think that they were going to bekilled?
COL VENTER: At that stage I didn't think so, but laterI suspected that that would be the case. I knew at least thatthey would be assaulted in order to extract information from themand that they would be intensively interrogated, that much I knewfrom previous experience.
JUDGE NGOEPE: You knew that they were going to be assaulted?
COL VENTER: Yes.
JUDGE NGOEPE: And possibly also to be killed?
COL VENTER: Correct.
4B JUDGE NGOEPE:/...
219 COL VENTER
JUDGE NGOEPE: And as far as you are concerned you didn'tput a finger on them?
COL VENTER: No I didn't.
JUDGE NGOEPE: And I know what your counsel has said thatyou are not a lawyer, but I am also mindful of the fact that youare a very senior police officer, you know what murder is don'tyou?
COL VENTER: Correct.
JUDGE NGOEPE: As far as you are concerned you have notcommitted any murder at all in respect of these people?
COL VENTER: No, I did not commit murder.
JUDGE NGOEPE: And you are not asking for amnesty in respectof murder are you?
COL VENTER: No, I did not commit murder. I was involvedin the abduction but I did not kill them, I did not help to killthem.
JUDGE NGOEPE: As far as you are concerned you see no needfor amnesty in respect of murder, as far as you are concerned?
COL VENTER: As far as I am concerned there was complicityon my part in their removal and abduction but I was not involvedin their murder, I don't know who killed them, how they were killedand what happened to the bodies, but I am asking that I be excusedfor murder because I was the first person who acted to removethem.
JUDGE NGOEPE: That is, as far as you are concerned, thatis the furthest point to which you went, namely to have them abducted,full stop, nothing beyond that?
COL VENTER: No.
JUDGE WILSON: My recollection, and I would like you tocorrect me if I am wrong, is that the Port Elizabeth airport 4Bis/...
220 COL VENTER
is completely out in the country.
COL VENTER: Correct.
JUDGE WILSON: If you drive 15 metres from the entrancegates you are in wild country. There aren't houses there, therearen't shops there, it's just bush.
COL VENTER: Yes as far as I can remember.
JUDGE WILSON: So you could have handed them over there,there was no need for you to go to the beach, to the sea on whatyou have told us?
COL VENTER: That's correct.
JUDGE WILSON: Why did you go and see them in Cradocklater, you had nothing whatsoever to do with them?
COL VENTER: As I have said I agreed with van Zyl (Thespeaker is not speaking into the microphone the Interpreters arestruggling to hear). I then went there.
JUDGE WILSON: You were in Cradock on business, visitingother security branches, why go to this old police station andsit and have a braai and drink with these people when you hadnothing to do with this case at all?
COL VENTER: Van Zyl told me that when I arrived therethey would take me to where they were being kept and I went tofetch my askaris to meet them there.
JUDGE WILSON: So you went to fetch your askaris, thatwas the only purpose of going there was it?
COL VENTER: That's correct.
JUDGE WILSON: But you stayed for some time?
COL VENTER: Correct.
JUDGE WILSON: Were they being questioned because unfortunatelyI've heard several cases where when people are being questionedthe police who were doing the questioning are enjoying a braai,was that happening here?
4B COL VENTER:/...
221 COL VENTER
COL VENTER: No. I did not interrogate them and I don'tknow whether they were being interrogated. They were in the vicinitybut there was no interrogation conducted as we normally conductedinterrogations.
JUDGE WILSON: When you say in the vicinity were theyoutside where you were having a braai?
COL VENTER: Correct.
JUDGE WILSON: Can you give any reason why they shouldhave been brought out there, why they weren't kept shut up?
COL VENTER: No.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Can I just ask you, this Lieutenant ColonelHarold Snyman, did you say you knew him?
COL VENTER: No, she asked me whether he was aware ofthe Pepco incident and I said I didn't know, but I know ColonelSnyman from Port Elizabeth, but I can't say whether he was awareof what had happened.
JUDGE NGOEPE: But given his position would you have expectedhim to be aware? I know you say that you don't know whether hewas, but I am asking you whether given his position you wouldhave expected him to be aware of the detention of these people?
COL VENTER: Yes.
JUDGE NGOEPE: What was his position again?
COL VENTER: As far as I can recall he was second in commandof the security branch at the time. I am not quite sure whathis rank was but I know he was in a managing type of position,controlling position.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe may I ask you, a number of nameshave been referred to, Nieuwoudt, van Rensburg, all of these variouspeople, have they been informed? Do you know
4B whether/...
222 COL VENTER
whether they are present here or not?
MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman we have attempted to inform thosethat we could inform. I don't know whether the names that werementioned here today form part of the list, and I am not awareas to whether any one of them is here today, present.
ADV DE JAGER: Would you just have a look at your listand see whether they have been informed because you are obligedto inform them.
MR MPSHE: That will be done.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mpshe and myselfhave, as I have told you, decided that we won't go ahead withColonel Venter and that for purposes of the speaker of the NorthwestParliament if you give permission that we can go ahead with furtherevidence we would like to deal with one specific incident relatingto Mr Tebedi. I beg your pardon she reminds me that they haveto make their submissions, I forgot about that, I am sorry.
MS HARTEL ADDRESSES COMMITTEE
Mr Chairman, honoured members of the Committee the families ofthe Pepco 3 have some idea of what happened to their loved ones,from revelations outside this Commission which they have beenunable to test. They know that they were abducted, tortured andmurdered at the hands of the police. They had hoped, however,to establish today from Venter's submissions and testimony thefiner details of what exactly happened on that day, who the responsibleperpetrators are and most importantly where the bodies are. The families have brought three applications since the fatefulday when their loved ones disappeared for the police to producethem to the Court. In every one of those
4B applications/...
223 ADDRESS
applications the police vehemently denied that the men were arrestedor detained.
The families want only to establish who committed these grossviolations and to find the bodies so that they can give theirloved ones a proper burial and put the matter to rest. This isafter all the whole purpose of the Truth and Reconciliation Commissionto establish the whole truth so that reconciliation and reconstructioncan be advanced.
When an amnesty applicant fails to make a full disclosure ofall relevant facts we submit, with respect, that such applicationmust fail. Venter's submissions are disappointing to say theleast. His application for amnesty is limited to acts, omissionsor offences which he describes as abduction, malicious injuryto property, theft, other minor offences associated therewithand any other offences which may appear from his submissions orthe facts to which he has deposed. He has added murder, but wewould submit, with respect, that it doesn't take the matterany further as the facts to which he has deposed does not discloseor make out any case of murder or even an association with murder.
The application is lacking in material detail such as an absencein response to the question, at page 114 of Venter's submissions,in response to the question 10A "Mention political purposes",no response is noted. It also fails even to identify the Pepco3 as victims and I refer in this regard to page 113 of Venter'ssubmissions, where the response to all the questions regardingwho the victims are, their names and addresses and other informationwhich would assist this Committee in identifying them, the answeris "onbekend" "unknown" "no informationto assist".
4B We/...
224 ADDRESS
We would submit for this reason alone the application shouldfail for want of proper compliance with the requirements of theAct.
It is the families' contention further that Venter's applicationfor indemnity is disingenuous as he does not even begin to acknowledgehis complicity in acts which amount to gross violations of humanrights. In fact Venter has made every effort to disassociatehimself with the crux of the matter which is the death of thePepco 3 activists. He denies that he had any part in the interrogationof the three or assaulting them or intimidating them. He evengoes further and denies that they had suffered any injuries whichwere obvious to the eye. He denies that he has knowledge of anyother acts committed in relation to them. He has no knowledgeof the fate of the yellow bakkie which conveyed them to the airport. And he bears no personal knowledge of their eventual fate.
Mr Chair one is at a loss to understand the purpose of his applicationfor indemnity. Venter has not furnished this Committee with anyinformation in addition to the revelations made by the Vlakplaasoperatives outside of this Commission. In fact he's not evenassociated himself with the allegations made by these operatives. He has only detracted therefrom.
It is inconceivable, given the public knowledge of the Vlakplaas,of the agenda during the period in question, that they would haveinvolved themselves in the affairs of the Eastern Cape in relationto the three for any purpose other than to permanently eliminatethem.
I submit further that Venter has failed to assist this Committeein identifying any key perpetrators in respect of
4B the/...
225 ADDRESS
the atrocities and in all the circumstances we respectfully submitthat he has failed to take this Commission into its confidence,and he must therefore not be rewarded with amnesty in respectof any acts of violence committed against the Pepco 3 activists.
Those are my submissions Mr Chairman.
MR NYOKA ADDRESSES: For one minute Mr Chairman. Thecrucial consideration is full disclosure of all relevant facts,not half truths. The evidence and statements of Mr Venter constitutedlame exercise to undermine the noble objectives of this Commission,that is truth, reconciliation and unity and should be rejected. Thank you.
MR DU PLESSIS ADDRESSES: Mr Chairman I am caught a littlebit unawares. I was under the impression that I would, at theend of the hearings give full argument in respect of all the incidentsand I intend to do so in respect of this incident as well.
I just want to make one or two off-the-cuff submissions pertainingto my learned friends' submissions which they have made now.
If it is expected of an applicant who applies for amnesty todo a full police investigation about a matter in which he wasinvolved in; if it is expected of him to go and speak to all otherwitnesses involved in the matter, at his own cost, to try andfind out their versions to give further evidence to this Commissionabout happenings where he wasn't present, which he has no furtherpersonal knowledge of; if it is expected of him to try and obtainother facts such as for instance the names of the victims, whichhe didn't remember when the applications were drawn, if that isexpected of him Mr Chairman then I would venture to bet that 4Bvery/...
226 ADDRESS
very few applicants to this Commission would ever get amnesty. I do not read the Act as placing an obligation upon an applicantto make such enquiries. I don't read the Act and don't interpretthe Act as meaning that an applicant should do more than makefull disclosure of that of which he has knowledge of. That iswhat...(tape ends)
No witnesses have been called to show that his evidence is untrue.
JUDGE WILSON: We haven't finished the case have we sowhat's the point of arguing that one? We might call many witnesseson this aspect.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman I'm arguing it on thebasis that the legal representatives argued that there was notfull disclosure. And I'm saying ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: You were arguing that no witnesses havebeen called to disprove, that is because we haven't got to thatstage of the case yet.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman but up to now, on thesame basis, the legal representatives of the families cannot arguethat full disclosure has not been made. If other ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: They argued that on his evidence.
MR DU PLESSIS: With the fullest of respect Mr Chairman,they argued that but there was no indication of any fact withinthe knowledge of Colonel Venter which he has not disclosed. Therewas no statements made to him that other witnesses might be calledby the families during these proceedings who would contradicthis evidence. There is no indication, at this stage, that theremight be other witnesses who would contradict his evidence.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis when you started your argument5A you/...
227 ADDRESS
you said that your intention was to argue at the end of the casein full.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, I ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: You're only now answering on their arguments. Shouldn't you perhaps consider arguing at the end of your case?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I would prefer to do that. All I wanted to do, all I wanted to do is I wanted to make itclear that the submissions made by the representatives of thefamilies that full disclosure was not made is not entirely, atthis stage, a correct submission to make, and I wanted to preventa wrong impression in the media and otherwise about this situation,and about the position we find ourselves in pertaining to thisapplication. I will make full submissions and I will argue fullyon this matter at the end of these hearings.
And to the Committee member, His Lordship Mr Justice Wilson,he's 100% correct in saying that one obviously has to argue thismatter after all the witnesses have been heard. I agree fullywith him. I just wanted to correct the statements so that theydon't stand uncontradicted at this stage. Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE NGOEPE: I am sorry, I may be a little bit confusedhere, are we expecting more witnesses in respect of this incident?
MR DU PLESSIS: Not from the applicant's side, the applicantssay they have made full disclosure of whatever they know aboutthis incident Mr Chair.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Well from whom are we expecting more witnesses?
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know. It is possible if the
5A application/...
228 ADDRESS
application is granted pertaining to the use of State witnessesthat Joe Mamasela might shed light on this because he was oneof the askaris who was present apparently when the interrogationstook place. We don't know.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Well then argument by counsel on behalfof the families is premature.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.
JUDGE NGOEPE: If we are still going to hear any evidence.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, that's the point His Lordship MrJustice Wilson made, I think.
JUDGE NGOEPE: I mean they shouldn't have argued.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. They will have to come back at theend of the case if other witnesses are called in respect of thismatter to argue the matter fully.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Mpshe are there more witnesses expectedto come and testify in this case, in respect of this incident?
MR MPSHE: I am not going to call any witnesses in respectof this incident. The legal representatives of the affected familyalso indicated to me that they are not going to put them in thestand.
JUDGE NGOEPE: So for all intents and purposes evidencein respect of this, the Pepco 3 is complete, it's finished?
MR MPSHE: That would be implied. They are not callinganybody.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr du Plessis?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman.
JUDGE NGOEPE: For all intents and purposes, as far asapplicant is concerned, with regard to the Pepco 3 the evidenceis complete, there isn't any more witnesses.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman there is only the one possibility,as I have mentioned to you, that if the
5A application/...
229 ADDRESS
application which I lodged yesterday with the Committee pertainingto State witnesses ...(intervention)
JUDGE NGOEPE: No, no apart from that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Apart from that, no, no, it doesn't seemto be that there will be any other witnesses pertaining to thisissue.
JUDGE NGOEPE: So the evidence is closed for this?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: No, with respect, we haven't given judgementon the Mamasela case, whether we are granting the applicationor not, so I don't think it's a fair question to put at this stage.
JUDGE NGOEPE: No I mean subject to our ruling.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I want to keep that optionopen because Joe Mamasela was present with this whole operationand he might be able to shed a lot more light on the truth andon the facts of this matter than Colonel Venter was able to do.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr du Plessis what I am saying is that ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: I understand exactly what you are saying.
JUDGE NGOEPE: And there is no ruling yet.
MR DU PLESSIS: I understand.
JUDGE NGOEPE: But assuming that the ruling comes to saythat we don't want to subpoena those witnesses there isn't anymore witnesses coming. We are not going to hear any more witnessesin respect of Pepco 3, I want to understand that.
MR DU PLESSIS: The applicants don't intend to call anyfurther witnesses.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Well that is my impression, my impressionwas 5A that/...
230 ADDRESS
that subject to that, the evidence is complete.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. If the applicants don't want tocall any further witnesses, and the families don't want to callany further witnesses the only other possible witnesses who mightbe able to shed light are the Attorney-General's witnesses.
JUDGE WILSON: The Attorney General's witnesses are five,he has named other people hasn't he, who were present?
MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel Venter?
JUDGE WILSON: Yes, who are not part of the Attorney General'switnesses who are potential witnesses.
MR DU PLESSIS: Who are potential witnesses that is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: For anybody who wishes to call them.
MR DU PLESSIS: For anybody who wishes to call them, forme as well.
JUDGE WILSON: You don't need our permission, the Committeemay call them.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman I wanted to add now,while I was saying that there is obviously the section in theAct dealing with the hearing, if I can refer you to the specificsection, section 30 which deals with the procedure to be followedat an investigations and hearings, which says that,
"If during any investigation by or any hearing before theCommission any person is implicated in a manner which may be tohis or her detriment the Commission shall, if such person is available,afford him or her an opportunity to submit representations tothe Commission within a specified time with regard to the matterunder
5A consideration/...
231 ADDRESS
consideration or to give evidence at a hearing of the Commission".
So it is possible obviously, and that is what I wanted to addto this. It is possible that the Commission could decide thatcertain of the people named might be offered an opportunity ofpresenting the Commission with representations. As I understandthat the Commission can decide if it should be written representationsor if it should be representations at a possible further hearing. That is how I interpret the Act. So I do not want, at this stage,to finally commit myself on saying that everything is closed exceptfor Joe Mamasela. I cannot do that in the light of this section.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Then I have serious problems. I don't understandwhy I should in the middle of the hearing and of evidence listento anybody's argument.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I don't either. There wasa request that there was argument. Mr Chairman I further justwant to stress one point, and that is that we read section 30as saying that in respect of a person that is implicated in amanner in a hearing which may be to his detriment the Commissionshall afford him an opportunity to submit representations or togive evidence. We do not read it as the task of the applicantsto subpoena or see that any persons who are implicated are subpoenaedto come and give evidence in support of the applicant's application. I just want to make that point clear.
CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible)...is that the position?
MS HARTEL: That is correct Mr Chair.
CHAIRMAN: So you can't take this matter any further atthis stage?
5A MS HARTEL/...
232
MS HARTEL: No we can't.
CHAIRMAN: And you didn't propose calling any witnesses?
MS HARTEL: No, those are not our instructions.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. You are excused from further attendance. Mr Mpshe can the speaker of the house not be persuaded to comehere tomorrow morning?
MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman I have made that attempt but I failed. Perhaps since he's in here if he may be called to the fore andthe request be made by the Committee, but I have already indicatedto him and he said it is not possible.
CHAIRMAN: Well it is not possible to rush proceedingsjust because it might be temporarily inconvenient. This isn'tjust another trial, it is a matter of some importance about whichhe is going to give evidence, then obviously there will have tobe proper time for him to do so.
JUDGE WILSON: How long do you estimate his evidence willtake in-chief and cross-examination?
MR MPSHE: I am estimating it at more than an hour Mr Chairman.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mpshe will that not entail hearing theapplication of both Mr van Vuuren and Mr Hechter?
MR MPSHE: That has been considered but we have agreedthat since the deed was done by two we may just call one of them,that was the agreement.
CHAIRMAN: Is he not available the coming week?
MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman with your permission can I approachhim?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR MPSHE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: The importance of these proceedings and onedoes 5A not/...
233
not want to hold proceedings in such a rushed manner just becauseit is temporarily inconvenient.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman at this stage while he isspeaking to the speaker may I perhaps just make one point andthat is that in an incident such as this where Warrant Officervan Vuuren and Captain Hechter were both present and their applicationscorrespond very closely to each other Mr Mpshe and I were quiteunsure how to deal with that because if both of them would haveto present their factual evidence to the Committee it would beactually a repetition of the same evidence. However, I do notwant to prejudice the applicant's applications by calling theone and not calling the other, so I would like a direction fromthe Committee if possible on that issue.
CHAIRMAN: The ease with which you ask for directionsfrom the Committee astounds me. I think that how to conduct yourapplication is something with which you ought to familiarise yourselfwith, and you've got to weigh and balance in the balance justexactly how important it is for you to follow one direction oranother direction. It is not for us to tell you.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, alright Mr Chairman then I will beforced to call both of them.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Chairman I have consulted with the victimMr Chairman. He has indicated to me that he can still be ableto come tomorrow on condition that the matter is started within the morning so that at lunchtime or before lunch he can driveback to Mmbatho.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Mpshe will you kindly tell the gentlemanthat we will hear him first if it's not inconvenient to anybodyelse and that will be at 9:30 tomorrow morning.
5A MR MPSHE:/...
234
MR MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, he understands English,he must have heard. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: This Committee will now adjourn its hearinguntil 9:30 tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
